Enterprise AI has a scaling problem that looks eerily familiar to anyone who knows pharmaceutical history. In the 1980s and 90s, drug companies faced a brutal reality: brilliant molecules that worked perfectly in the lab were failing to reach patients. The problem wasn't the formulation, it was the chasm between formulation and manufacturing at scale.

AI pilots face the exact same chasm. Companies hire expensive, scarce resources for AI pilot projects, but similar to how a PhD chemist cannot babysit every production line, the dependence on highly specialized talent like AI engineers cannot be sustained at production level.

Most AI deployments use "batch thinking": teams build for weeks, test with sample data, deploy to production, and hope for the best. Hallucinations and drift get discovered months later, often only after they've caused business damage. The pharmaceutical industry has learned that crucial drug manufacturing cannot wait until a million units are produced to discover defects. Quality control happens continuously with real-time monitoring and immediate correction. Yet AI systems operate blind until the next review cycle.

Scaling AI requires breaking this cycle at every point simultaneously. It starts with interfaces and workflows that let domain experts guide AI behavior using their business knowledge, not technical expertise. The system needs to capture human corrections and expert judgments as they happen, building institutional memory where every correction strengthens the system. This creates compound learning where AI improves continuously through use, not just through separate retraining cycles that may or may not address the right issues.

This only works if corrections happen in real time. When an AI starts producing questionable outputs, the people closest to the business problem need the ability to intervene immediately.

The result is a fundamentally different operational model, one where business expertise and AI development stay synchronized throughout the entire lifecycle. Quality isn't an inspection checkpoint at the end of the process; it's embedded in every moment. Oversight scales economically because it doesn't require proportionally more AI engineers as deployment grows. Knowledge compounds because every interaction makes the system smarter. Trust builds because users understand not just what the AI decided, but why it decided what it decided, and they have mechanisms to course-correct when business judgment differs from model output.

The pharmaceutical industry learned that brilliant molecular design needs robust manufacturing infrastructure to reach patients. The gap between discovery and delivery required new capabilities, new expertise, and new operational models.

AI is at the same inflection point. Brilliant models need robust operational infrastructure to deliver business value at scale. The gap between pilot and production isn't fundamentally about better models or more training data. It's about infrastructure, the operational layer that makes continuous deployment, monitoring, correction, and improvement economically viable at scale.

The question isn't whether your pilot works. It's whether you have the infrastructure to scale it.

‍