why the next big thing won’t come from silicon valley
yesterday morning started like every other chaotic sagea day. i was staring at a server log, trying to figure out why one of our experimental MoE models kept failing halfway through inference. it's holiday season, so the guys and i are relatively less active for the week. the error messages didn’t make sense. the code made sense. the GPU was fine. the team was scattered across time zones. and me,sitting at my desk, sipping cold coffee that had been reheated twice, wondering how a single misconfigured batch could ruin three days of work. it was absurd. at one point i laughed at how small things can feel like life-or-death crises when you’re a tiny ai company trying to move fast.
moments like that are constant reminders of the reality of building small. every byte of compute, every gig of storage, every microsecond of latency matters. it’s messy, frustrating, exhilarating, and illuminating all at once. in those hours, i was acutely aware that the big labs; openai, meta, anthopic, google, have the luxury of scale (totally not jealous). they throw extra GPUs, extra engineers, extra time at problems. a small mistake is just a blip in their system. for us, a small mistake can ripple across the entire team, burn so much money. but the upside is that we move fast. every iteration teaches us something meaningful. every fix, every tweak, every small victory compounds. we have clarity of ownership, responsibility, and execution that massive labs simply can’t replicate.
and that’s why i think the next big thing in ai won’t come from silicon valley. not because the talent isn’t there. not because the ideas aren’t flowing. but because the combination of agility, focus, and the need to maximize efficiency breeds innovation differently. big labs optimize for scale, headlines, and safety rails. small teams optimize for survival, clarity, and problem-solving. the pressure is different, and often, pressure drives originality more than resources do.
look at what’s happening in the current ai bubble. headlines scream billions of dollars, multi-billion parameter models, VC stories, and “exclusive insights” from labs. it’s intoxicating, and sometimes terrifying. you feel it as a founder, even if you’re intentionally insulated. but when you look past the noise, you see a lot of the energy is going toward signaling. raising valuations, generating hype, competing for attention. it’s exhausting just watching. and while everyone is chasing perception, small teams are quietly building. iterating. learning. surviving.
sagea is in that quiet building zone. our hybrid reasoning models, the MoE research, agentic CLI prototypes; none of this is about hype. it’s about compounding real progress. each day spent debugging inference paths, optimizing routing strategies, improving inverse reasoning heads, or integrating user feedback is invisible to the public eye. but it’s the kind of work that creates durable impact. while everyone else is building bigger models to impress press cycles, we’re building smarter models to do actual reasoning. efficiency, design, and thoughtfulness over spectacle. and that’s why, when the hype fades, and it always does, teams like ours will still have something tangible, something meaningful.
this is also why infrastructure frustrations feel so big. small things become disproportionately painful. a server misconfiguration, a storage quota, an experiment that crashes mid-run; for us, it’s a real obstacle. for a massive lab, it’s a shrug and a new allocation. but these challenges force clarity, discipline, and ingenuity. they force you to rethink architectures, optimize pipelines, and build systems that actually scale efficiently. pressure drives creativity. scarcity forces resourcefulness.
and yet, there’s absurdity in all of it. i was reminded last week when a simple file format difference made an entire batch fail for no discernible reason. we spent hours diagnosing it, only to realize the “error” was a mislabeled column in a dataset we hadn’t touched in weeks. the team laughed, we shook our heads, and we fixed it. these little crises are part of building small, and they’re also part of why the work feels alive. it’s like sprinting on a treadmill that’s slightly uneven; every step counts, every misstep teaches you something, and you get stronger without even realizing it.
and that’s a stark contrast to the way large ai companies operate. their problems are abstract, strategic, and often buffered by layers of bureaucracy and resources. they measure success differently. a breakthrough in a research lab is validated through benchmarks, press releases, or product launches months later. our breakthroughs are measured by what actually works in practice, by what a single engineer can test today, by whether an agentic prototype solves the problem we designed it to solve. the feedback loop is tighter, faster, more brutal, and more educational.
this isn’t me dissing anyone. the big labs are incredible. the talent, the compute, the collective brainpower, it’s staggering. but what they don’t have is the same hunger born from necessity. small teams can pivot overnight. we can test a wild hypothesis, throw out months of assumptions, and learn in hours instead of quarters. and sometimes, that speed produces originality that money alone cannot buy.
the ai bubble is impossible to ignore. it’s everywhere. every article, every thread, every headline screams billions, hype, and exponential growth. everyone seems to be chasing the next multi-billion-dollar valuation, the next “exclusive insight,” the next model that can do everything at once. it’s intoxicating, especially when you’re building in the middle of it. you feel the gravitational pull of attention, the pressure to signal, the constant fear that if you’re not loud enough, you’ll be invisible.
but here’s the thing: most of that energy is noise. it looks impressive from a distance, but up close, it’s often performative. a lot of companies are optimized for perception, not product. they focus on benchmarks that impress press cycles rather than real reasoning ability. they build models that look good in demos rather than solving the actual problems they claim to solve. and in that environment, smaller teams like sagea get overlooked. we’re not chasing headlines, we’re chasing clarity. we’re iterating on our reasoning models, refining MoE routing, testing agentic prototypes, building the infrastructure to deploy in real-world contexts. every line of code, every benchmark, every small user test compounds.
when you compare this to the big labs, the difference is stark. meta, openai, anthropic — their scale is unmatched. their teams are enormous, their compute is nearly limitless, and their PR machine is a force of nature. mistakes are buffered, delays are invisible, and every release is framed as a milestone in an ongoing story. but speed, agility, and ownership are diluted. decisions go through layers of approval. experiments are constrained by long-term strategy and perception. breakthroughs take longer to iterate on because scale creates friction, not just power.
small teams operate differently. at sagea, i know exactly who is responsible for every model, every line of code, every deployment. a hypothesis can be tested in hours. if it fails, we pivot immediately. if it works, we integrate it into the next experiment the same day. the feedback loop is brutal but fast. every success feels earned, every failure is a lesson, and every challenge is amplified because there is no buffer. this is both terrifying and exhilarating.
the bubble magnifies these contrasts. investors, press, and the hype ecosystem often undervalue small companies because they lack the signals big labs emit. they look at model size, PR coverage, and headline potential rather than actual reasoning power or agentic capability. meanwhile, small teams can quietly outperform in specific areas without anyone noticing. our MoE variants, for instance, are already showing efficiency and reasoning performance that outpaces some larger counterparts. it’s not flashy. it won’t make headlines immediately. but it’s leverage. it’s a foundation that compounds.
and there’s another layer: infrastructure friction. the reality of running a small ai company is that every decision has consequences. compute budgets, cloud storage, deployment limits, even licensing decisions become strategic points. a misconfigured script or a quota limit can halt progress for hours. for a massive lab, that same hiccup is a shrug. for us, it’s a full-on obstacle, but overcoming it produces clarity. you optimize systems, rethink workflows, and discover efficiencies that would never be necessary in a resource-rich environment. these constraints teach lessons that are invisible to the hype ecosystem but invaluable for building durable models and products.
i also think the perception gap is worth reflecting on. big labs get the benefit of trust and expectation. anything they release is assumed to be groundbreaking. a small team releases the same innovation, and it’s often dismissed as experimental or niche. that’s fine. we don’t build for attention, we build for execution. every agentic CLI prototype, every reasoning benchmark, every hybrid model variant is proof of progress, even if the world hasn’t caught up yet. the impact compounds quietly.
there’s a humility in being small. you’re forced to question every decision, to optimize for real-world outcomes, and to confront every mistake directly. mistakes are visible. success is earned in increments. you develop a sensitivity to efficiency, a discipline in execution, and a clarity in decision-making that massive labs rarely need to cultivate. paradoxically, that clarity is what allows originality to emerge. when constraints are tight, creativity has to find the smallest, most efficient path to innovation.
and yet, there’s a quiet optimism. being underestimated is powerful. the world overvalues size and noise in the short term. it undervalues execution and thoughtful design. sagea is quietly building leverage, experimenting with MoE architectures, iterating on agentic reasoning, and producing models that do what they claim. we’re learning faster, shipping faster, and thinking about problems at a different scale. the pressure of being small, underfunded, and unnoticed creates an edge that isn’t immediately obvious but becomes undeniable over time.
small teams also have flexibility in philosophy. we can explore ideas that don’t fit the standard narratives of ai hype. we can try unusual routing strategies, experiment with inverse reasoning, or iterate on agentic tools without needing approval from committees or PR teams. the luxury of obscurity allows us to focus on what actually matters: producing reasoning systems that work, understanding where real progress lies, and iterating with agility.
the bubble itself is a lens. it exaggerates the visible, amplifies perception, and obscures substance. for small teams, that’s both a challenge and an advantage. it creates a temporary disadvantage in attention, funding, and access. but it also allows us to iterate without being pressured to signal constantly. we can build quietly, effectively, and thoughtfully. the real winners in any bubble are the ones who can combine execution, clarity, and resilience while everyone else is chasing narrative.
the future of ai is noisy, uncertain, and exciting. the hype will continue, valuations will swing, press cycles will amplify every minor success or failure. but underneath all that, the fundamentals of building remain unchanged. clarity, execution, iteration, and resilience are what matter. small teams like sagea thrive in that reality because our focus is direct. we know what we want to build, why it matters, and how to iterate toward it efficiently. we don’t get distracted by press cycles or hype narratives.
being small forces honesty. every line of code, every benchmark, every agentic prototype is exposed. there’s no buffer of resources to hide behind. mistakes hit immediately, lessons are learned instantly, and every success compounds. that discipline, that proximity to reality, is a rare advantage. it’s the kind of leverage that scales quietly but powerfully over time.
the ai bubble may fade. valuations will adjust. press cycles will move on to the next shiny thing. models will get bigger, then smaller, then more efficient, then more agentic. but the teams that survive and thrive will be the ones who executed, learned, and iterated through the noise. small teams have an edge here because they are less beholden to external perception. we measure progress differently. we value reasoning, functionality, and robustness over flash and spectacle.
sagea is quietly building that edge. our MoE research, hybrid reasoning models, and agentic prototypes are all proof of compounding work. we don’t need to shout to prove our value. every experiment, every refinement, every small user feedback loop builds momentum that will be visible when it matters. the world may underestimate us now, but the combination of speed, focus, and ingenuity is undeniable in practice.
there’s also a human lesson here. being a young founder, running a small ai company, juggling deadlines, models, experiments, and long nights of debugging, you learn to appreciate subtle victories. a batch that finally runs without errors. a benchmark that exceeds expectations. an agentic prototype that actually solves a user problem. these are small, invisible milestones that make the work feel alive. they’re also indicators that progress is real, durable, and compounding. big labs will do their thing. but the clarity, focus, and execution that small teams cultivate quietly is the kind of leverage that survives, scales, and compounds. every tiny victory, every small fix, every iteration is proof of progress, proof that meaningful work is happening outside the headlines.
ciao, basab
Want to get notified everytime i write stuff? Sign up to my newsletter