Continued AI Scaling Requires Repeated Efficiency Doublings

Classical Amdahl's Law conceptualized the limit of speedup for an era of fixed serial-parallel decomposition and homogeneous replication. Modern heterogeneous systems need a different conceptual framework: constrained resources must be allocated across heterogeneous hardware while workloads themselves change, with some stages becoming effectively bounded and others continuing to absorb additional effective compute. This paper reformulates Amdahl's Law around that shift. We replace processor count with an allocation variable, replace the classical parallel fraction with a value-scalable fraction, and model specialization by a relative efficiency ratio between dedicated and programmable compute. The resulting objective yields a finite collapse threshold. For a specialized efficiency ratio R, there is a critical scalable fraction S_c = 1 - 1/R beyond which the optimal allocation to specialization becomes zero. Equivalently, for a given scalable fraction S, the minimum efficiency ratio required to justify specialization is R_c = 1/(1-S). Thus, as value-scalable workload grows, over-customization faces a rising bar. The point is not that one hardware class simply defeats another, but that architecture must preserve a sufficiently programmable substrate against a moving frontier of work whose marginal gains keep scaling. In practice, that frontier is often sustained by software- and model-driven efficiency doublings rather than by fixed-function redesign alone. The model helps explain the migration of value-producing work toward learned late-stage computation and the shared design pressure that is making both GPUs and AI accelerators more programmable2

Scaling laws guide the design choices for training large foundation models, but deriving them involves training an exhaustive grid over hyperparameters, token budgets, and parameter counts, which is computationally expensive. Fitting a scaling law, however, only requires the best-loss frontier across compute scales, discarding most of the trained configurations. We propose a framework for efficient scaling law construction that formulates data collection as a Bayesian optimization problem, and introduce metrics for comparing scaling law fitting methods under constrained compute budgets. We find that progressively expanding the compute budget during acquisition, mirroring the compute-ordered evaluation of configurations in practice, substantially improves recovery efficiency. Augmenting the observed configurations with surrogate-fantasized evaluations then recovers the broader experimental grid, allowing accurate scaling law fitting without training every configuration. Together, these can closely match scaling law fits over a full dense grid at computational savings of up to $10\text{--}100\times$.

Classical scaling laws model AI performance as monotonically improving with model size. We challenge this assumption by deriving the Institutional Scaling Law, showing that institutional fitness -- jointly measuring capability, trust, affordability, and sovereignty -- is non-monotonic in model scale, with an environment-dependent optimum N*(epsilon). Our framework extends the Sustainability Index of Han et al. (2025) from hardware-level to ecosystem-level analysis, proving that capability and trust formally diverge beyond critical scale (Capability-Trust Divergence). We further derive a Symbiogenetic Scaling correction demonstrating that orchestrated systems of domain-specific models can outperform frontier generalists in their native deployment environments. These results are contextualized within a formal evolutionary taxonomy of generative AI spanning five eras (1943-present), with analysis of frontier lab dynamics, sovereign AI emergence, and post-training alignment evolution from RLHF through GRPO. The Institutional Scaling Law predicts that the next phase transition will be driven not by larger models but by better-orchestrated systems of domain-specific models adapted to specific institutional niches.