Skip to content
Menu
Love it or loathe it, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is here to stay – and it’s getting harder to ignore. From how we generate and consume content to how industries operate and innovate, AI is reshaping the world around us. It’s making waves across sectors from media to science, transforming not just the headlines, but the way we live and work.
Each month, the Fire on the Hill AI Digest breaks down the biggest stories in AI, exploring their broader impact on brands, industries, and everyday life.
No bubble – not yet
As we approach the end of the year, with share prices close to all-time highs, investment soaring and new AI products being launched each day – are fears of a bubble receding? Or, have they merely been postponed to next year?
CityAM summed up the situation pithily: “A pattern of frenetic and astronomic valuations, a vast proliferation of debt and enormous punts on an as-yet unproven technology (and an even less well-established financial track record) would, it is safe to say, fall within most people’s definition of a financial bubble.”
Yet, the London-based paper argues, there remains a “not insignificant” chance the reward at the end of this fourth industrial revolution could be so enormous that despite all of these bear signals, many market participants still think the rally has further to run. Goldman Sachs says we are not in a bubble, while The Guardian is already planning for a post-bubble-bursting world.
Maybe it is something of a demi-bubble, with only a mild correction on the way? That view was shared by the head of the South Korean conglomerate that owns leading memory chipmaker SK Hynix. “I don’t see a bubble in the AI industry,” SK Group chairman Chey Tae-won said at a forum in Seoul when asked by the Bank of Korea governor about concerns over AI bubbles. “But when you look at the stock markets, they rose too fast and too much, and I think it is natural that there could be some period of corrections,” he said, adding that AI stocks have been climbing beyond their fundamental value.
Moreover, AI stocks in north-east Asian economies may still represent an attractive investment opportunity, argues The Economist. Measured by expected profits over the coming year, Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese equities are priced more cheaply than their global counterparts, and markedly below those in the United States, the magazine noted. By alternative valuation measures, such as share prices relative to companies’ book value, these markets look even more inexpensive.
“The average firm in each trades at less than three times its book value, against more than five times in America. For investors who want a cheap way to buy AI firms, north-east Asia is the place to go,” the publication added.
So, in short, hard to say where we are today. Money to be made if you know where to look – but beware of your shoeshine boy offering you stock tips!
Limits of artificial creativity
Elsewhere, the boundaries of what can be considered art have once again taken center stage. It emerged this month that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, which had earned another Game of the Year award at the Indie Game Awards, has been stripped of its title.
The Indie Game Awards confirmed the title would be retracted because developer, Sandfall Interactive, used generative AI during development of the game. The Indie Game Awards also rescinded the Debut Game award given to Expedition 33.
A statement explained: “The Indie Game Awards have a hard stance on the use of Generative AI (Gen AI) throughout the nomination process and during the ceremony itself. When it was submitted for consideration, a representative of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no Gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. In light of a resurfaced interview with Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of Gen AI art in production being brought to our attention on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination.”
One might imagine computer game creation would be an area where the role of AI would be welcomed, not least given the strain developers are under to create exhaustive environments for players to explore. It seems this is not the case, at least for now.
Potential for harm
Finally, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has published a ‘Recent developments in artificial intelligence – Industry snapshot,’ which identifies significant risks from autonomous AI agent deployment.
The work warns agentic systems could enable collusion between competing agents, create liability questions when agents cause harm, complicate evidence gathering in disputes, and produce emergent behaviors not anticipated by developers. These concerns particularly affect advertising applications where agents make autonomous bidding decisions, select inventory, and optimize campaigns without human oversight.
Consumer data collection practices represent a primary concern documented in the snapshot. The report cites research showing 83 per cent of Australians believe companies should obtain consent before using personal data to train AI systems. Despite this preference, multiple firms changed terms of service to facilitate data collection for AI training without explicit user consent.
Privacy-degrading practices occurred across major platforms. According to the snapshot, companies modified privacy policies to enable broader data collection, creating what the report characterizes as systematic efforts to access user information for AI development.
Australia has taken something of a lead in the fight against digital harms in recent months, for example banning under-16s from using social media. Time will tell if this conservative approach is the correct one.
