Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Who is leading in AI? An analysis of industry AI research

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.00043 v1 pith:CF4MZFML submitted 2023-11-24 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords companiesrunstraininggooglelargeleadingmetricsopenai
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

AI research is increasingly industry-driven, making it crucial to understand company contributions to this field. We compare leading AI companies by research publications, citations, size of training runs, and contributions to algorithmic innovations. Our analysis reveals the substantial role played by Google, OpenAI and Meta. We find that these three companies have been responsible for some of the largest training runs, developed a large fraction of the algorithmic innovations that underpin large language models, and led in various metrics of citation impact. In contrast, leading Chinese companies such as Tencent and Baidu had a lower impact on many of these metrics compared to US counterparts. We observe many industry labs are pursuing large training runs, and that training runs from relative newcomers -- such as OpenAI and Anthropic -- have matched or surpassed those of long-standing incumbents such as Google. The data reveals a diverse ecosystem of companies steering AI progress, though US labs such as Google, OpenAI and Meta lead across critical metrics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bridging the Artificial Intelligence Governance Gap: The United States' and China's Divergent Approaches to Governing General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper compares U.S. and Chinese governance of general-purpose AI and identifies three divergences: focus of domestic regulation, key principles, and international forum choices.

Pith tools