Our first, conservative, view says that AI’s network impact is largely confined to the data center, to connect clusters of GPU servers and the data they use as they crunch large language models. It’s all “horizontal” traffic; one TikTok challenge would generate way more traffic in the wide area. WAN costs won’t rise for you as an enterprise, and if you’re a carrier you won’t be carrying much new, so you don’t have much service revenue upside. If you don’t host AI on premises, you can pretty much dismiss its impact on your network. Contrast that with the radical metaverse view, our third view. Metaverses and AR/VR transform AI missions, and network services, from transaction processing to event processing, because the real world is a bunch of events pushing on you. They also let you visualize the way that process control models (digital twins) relate to the real world, which is critical if the processes you’re modeling involve human workers who rely on their visual sense. Could it be that the reason Meta is willing to spend on AI, is that the most credible application of AI, and the most impactful for networks, is the metaverse concept? In any event, this model of AI, by driving the users’ experiences and activities directly, demands significant edge connectivity, so you could expect it to have a major impact on network requirements. In fact, just dipping your toes into a metaverse could require a major up-front network upgrade. Networks carry traffic. Traffic is messages. More messages, more traffic, more infrastructure, more service revenue…you get the picture. Door number one, to the AI giant future, leads to nothing much in terms of messages. Door number three, metaverses and AR/VR, leads to a message, traffic, and network revolution. I’ll bet that most enterprises would doubt