As the generative AI map takes shape, the US and China are asserting their dominance. Tech companies from these GenAI superpowers have built a substantial lead in the creation and large-scale commercialization of top-performing large language models (LLMs). In a world where GenAI is quickly becoming a critical resource, the US and China are currently on pace to control the supply.

But something interesting is happening in parallel. A small group of countries—the “GenAI middle powers”—is emerging, each with its own distinct strengths that may enable it to compete on a regional and even global scale as a supplier of the technology. The implications for companies are significant.

For corporate leaders who are integrating GenAI into an increasing share of their products and services, and who are operating across multiple geographies, relying solely on GenAI supplied by companies in the US or China could pose serious challenges, with local regulations, data requirements, and the availability of LLMs all subject to shifts in government policy. Although a more multipolar supply of GenAI increases complexity, it would also create critical optionality.

CEOs need to understand this dynamic—and be able to navigate the evolving geopolitics of GenAI. The traditional approach—determining which country can acquire the most advanced semiconductors, for example, or which has the most favorable regulatory environment—won’t suffice. Company leaders can assess the relative strength of GenAI superpowers and middle powers across the six key enablers of GenAI supply: capital power, talent, intellectual property (IP), data, energy, and computing power.^[1]The capital, computational, and energy intensity of generative AI models are vastly larger than other forms of AI. While generative models are distinct from other families of AI technology, our … Continue reading