The Microservice Mind: Why AI's Future Isn't Monolithic
When Amazon's Alexa first started listening to our commands in 2014, it seemed like magic. Ask about the weather, dim the lights, play your favourite song, all through simple voice commands. Yet beneath its conversational surface lay something decidedly unmagical: a tightly integrated system where every component, from speech recognition to natural language understanding, existed as part of one massive, inseparable whole. This monolithic approach mirrored the software architecture that dominated technology for decades. Build everything under one roof, integrate it tightly, ship it as a single unit.
Fast forward to today, and something fundamental is shifting. The same architectural revolution that transformed software development over the past fifteen years (microservices breaking down monolithic applications into independent, specialised services) is now reshaping how we build artificial intelligence. The question isn't whether AI will follow this path, but how quickly the transformation will occur and what it means for the future of machine intelligence.
The cloud microservice market is projected to reach $13.20 billion by 2034, with a compound annual growth rate of 21.20 per cent from 2024 to 2034. But the real story lies in the fundamental rethinking of how intelligence itself should be architected, deployed, and scaled. AI is experiencing its own architectural awakening, one that promises to make machine intelligence more flexible, efficient, and powerful than ever before.
The Monolithic Trap
The dominant paradigm in AI development has been delightfully simple: bigger is better. Bigger models, more parameters, vaster datasets. GPT-3 arrived in 2020 with 175 billion parameters, trained on hundreds of billions of words, and the implicit assumption was clear. Intelligence emerges from scale. Making models larger would inevitably make them smarter.
This approach has yielded remarkable results. Large language models can write poetry, code software, and engage in surprisingly nuanced conversations. Yet the monolithic approach faces mounting challenges that scale alone cannot solve.
Consider the sheer physics of the problem. A 13 billion parameter model at 16-bit precision demands over 24 gigabytes of GPU memory just to load parameters, with additional memory needed for activations during inference, often exceeding 36 gigabytes total. This necessitates expensive high-end GPUs that put cutting-edge AI beyond the reach of many organisations. When OpenAI discovered a mistake in GPT-3's implementation, they didn't fix it. The computational cost of retraining made it economically infeasible. Think about that: an error so expensive to correct that one of the world's leading AI companies simply learned to live with it.
The scalability issues extend beyond hardware. As model size increases, improvements in performance tend to slow down, suggesting that doubling the model size may not double the performance gain. We're hitting diminishing returns. Moreover, if training continues to scale indefinitely, we will quickly reach the point where there isn't enough existing data to support further learning. High-quality English language data could potentially be exhausted as soon as this year, with low-quality data following as early as 2030. We're running out of internet to feed these hungry models.
Then there's the talent problem. Training and deploying large language models demands a profound grasp of deep learning workflows, transformers, distributed software, and hardware. Finding specialised talent is a challenge, with demand far outstripping supply. Everyone wants to hire ML engineers; nobody can find enough of them.
Perhaps most troubling, scaling doesn't resolve fundamental problems like model bias and toxicity, which often creep in from the training data itself. Making a biased model bigger simply amplifies its biases. It's like turning up the volume on a song that's already off-key.
These limitations represent a fundamental constraint on the monolithic approach. Just as software engineering discovered that building ever-larger monolithic applications created insurmountable maintenance and scaling challenges, AI is bumping against the ceiling of what single, massive models can achieve.
Learning from Software's Journey
The software industry has been here before, and the parallel is uncanny. For decades, applications were built as monoliths: single, tightly integrated codebases where every feature lived under one roof. Need to add a new feature? Modify the monolith. Need to scale? Scale the entire application, even if only one component needed more resources. Need to update a single function? Redeploy everything and hold your breath.
This approach worked when applications were simpler and teams smaller. But as software grew complex and organisations scaled, cracks appeared. A bug in one module could crash the entire system. Different teams couldn't work independently without stepping on each other's digital toes. The monolith became a bottleneck to innovation, a giant bureaucratic blob that said “no” more often than “yes.”
The microservices revolution changed everything. Instead of one massive application, systems were decomposed into smaller, independent services, each handling a specific business capability. These services communicate through well-defined APIs, can be developed and deployed independently, and scale based on individual needs rather than system-wide constraints. It's the difference between a Swiss Army knife and a fully equipped workshop. Both have their place, but the workshop gives you far more flexibility.
According to a survey by Solo.io, 85 per cent of modern enterprise companies now manage complex applications with microservices. The pattern has become so prevalent that software architecture without it seems almost quaint, like insisting on using a flip phone in 2025.
Yet microservices aren't merely a technical pattern. They represent a philosophical shift: instead of pursuing comprehensiveness in a single entity, microservices embrace specialisation, modularity, and composition. Each service does one thing well, and the system's power emerges from how these specialised components work together. It's less “jack of all trades, master of none” and more “master of one, orchestrated beautifully.”
This philosophy is now migrating to AI, with profound implications.
The Rise of Modular Intelligence
While the software world was discovering microservices, AI research was quietly developing its own version: Mixture of Experts (MoE). Instead of a single neural network processing all inputs, an MoE system consists of multiple specialised sub-networks (the “experts”), each trained to handle specific types of data or tasks. A gating network decides which experts to activate for any given input, routing data to the most appropriate specialists.
The architectural pattern emerged from a simple insight: not all parts of a model need to be active for every task. Just as you wouldn't use the same mental processes to solve a maths problem as you would to recognise a face, AI systems shouldn't activate their entire parameter space for every query. Specialisation and selective activation achieve better results with less computation. It's intelligent laziness at its finest.
MoE architectures enable large-scale models to greatly reduce computation costs during pre-training and achieve faster performance during inference. By activating only the specific experts needed for a given task, MoE systems deliver efficiency without sacrificing capability. You get the power of a massive model with the efficiency of a much smaller one.
Mistral AI's Mixtral 8x7B, released in December 2023 under an Apache 2.0 licence, exemplifies this approach beautifully. The model contains 46.7 billion parameters distributed across eight experts, but achieves high performance by activating only a subset for each input. This selective activation means the model punches well above its weight, matching or exceeding much larger monolithic models whilst using significantly less compute. It's the AI equivalent of a hybrid car: full power when you need it, maximum efficiency when you don't.
While OpenAI has never officially confirmed GPT-4's architecture (and likely never will), persistent rumours within the AI community suggest it employs an MoE approach. Though OpenAI explicitly stated in their GPT-4 technical report that they would not disclose architectural details due to competitive and safety considerations, behavioural analysis and performance characteristics have fuelled widespread speculation about its modular nature. The whispers in the AI research community are loud enough to be taken seriously.
Whether or not GPT-4 uses MoE, the pattern is gaining momentum. Meta's continued investment in modular architectures, Google's integration of MoE into their models, and the proliferation of open-source implementations all point to a future where monolithic AI becomes the exception rather than the rule.
Agents and Orchestration
The microservice analogy extends beyond model architecture to how AI systems are deployed. Enter AI agents: autonomous software components capable of setting goals, planning actions, and interacting with ecosystems without constant human intervention. Think of them as microservices with ambition.
If microservices gave software modularity and scalability, AI agents add autonomous intelligence and learning capabilities to that foundation. The crucial difference is that whilst microservices execute predefined processes (do exactly what I programmed you to do), AI agents dynamically decide how to fulfil requests using language models to determine optimal steps (figure out the best way to accomplish this goal).
This distinction matters enormously. A traditional microservice might handle payment processing by executing a predetermined workflow: validate card, check funds, process transaction, send confirmation. An AI agent handling the same task could assess context, identify potential fraud patterns, suggest alternative payment methods based on user history, and adapt its approach based on real-time conditions. The agent doesn't just execute; it reasons, adapts, and learns.
The MicroAgent pattern, explored by Microsoft's Semantic Kernel team, takes this concept further by partitioning functionality by domain and utilising agent composition. Each microagent associates with a specific service, with instructions tailored for that service. This creates a hierarchy of specialisation: lower-level agents handle specific tasks whilst higher-level orchestrators coordinate activities. It's like a company org chart, but for AI.
Consider how this transforms enterprise AI deployment. Instead of a single massive model attempting to handle everything from customer service to data analysis, organisations deploy specialised agents: one for natural language queries, another for database access, a third for business logic, and an orchestrator to coordinate them. Each agent can be updated, scaled, or replaced independently. When a breakthrough happens in natural language processing, you swap out that one agent. You don't retrain your entire system.
Multi-agent architectures are becoming the preferred approach as organisations grow, enabling greater scale, control, and flexibility compared to monolithic systems. Key benefits include increased performance through complexity breakdown with specialised agents, modularity and extensibility for easier testing and modification, and resilience with better fault tolerance. If one agent fails, the others keep working. Your system limps rather than collapses.
The hierarchical task decomposition pattern proves particularly powerful for complex problems. A root agent receives an ambiguous task and decomposes it into smaller, manageable sub-tasks, delegating each to specialised sub-agents at lower levels. This process repeats through multiple layers until tasks become simple enough for worker agents to execute directly, producing more comprehensive outcomes than simpler, flat architectures achieve. It's delegation all the way down.
The Composable AI Stack
Whilst MoE models and agent architectures demonstrate microservice principles within AI systems, a parallel development is reshaping how AI integrates with enterprise software: the rise of compound AI systems.
The insight is disarmingly simple: large language models alone are often insufficient for complex, real-world tasks requiring specific constraints like latency, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Instead, cutting-edge AI systems combine LLMs with other components (databases, retrieval systems, specialised models, and traditional software) to create sophisticated applications that perform reliably in production. It's the Lego approach to AI: snap together the right pieces for the job at hand.
This is the AI equivalent of microservices composition, where you build powerful systems not by making individual components infinitely large, but by combining specialised components thoughtfully. The modern AI stack, which stabilised in 2024, reflects this understanding. Smart companies stopped asking “how big should our model be?” and started asking “which components do we actually need?”
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) exemplifies this composability perfectly. Rather than encoding all knowledge within a model's parameters (a fool's errand at scale), RAG systems combine a language model with a retrieval system. When you ask a question, the system first retrieves relevant documents from a knowledge base, then feeds both your question and the retrieved context to the language model. This separation of concerns mirrors microservice principles: specialised components handling specific tasks, coordinated through well-defined interfaces. The model doesn't need to know everything; it just needs to know where to look.
RAG adoption has skyrocketed, dominating at 51 per cent adoption in 2024, a dramatic rise from 31 per cent the previous year. This surge reflects a broader shift from monolithic, all-in-one AI solutions towards composed systems that integrate specialised capabilities. The numbers tell the story: enterprises are voting with their infrastructure budgets.
The composability principle extends to model selection itself. Rather than deploying a single large model for all tasks, organisations increasingly adopt a portfolio approach: smaller, specialised models for specific use cases, with larger models reserved for tasks genuinely requiring their capabilities. This mirrors how microservice architectures deploy lightweight services for simple tasks whilst reserving heavyweight services for complex operations. Why use a sledgehammer when a tack hammer will do?
Gartner's 2024 predictions emphasise this trend emphatically: “At every level of the business technology stack, composable modularity has emerged as the foundational architecture for continuous access to adaptive change.” The firm predicted that by 2024, 70 per cent of large and medium-sized organisations would include composability in their approval criteria for new application plans. Composability isn't a nice-to-have anymore. It's table stakes.
The MASAI framework (Modular Architecture for Software-engineering AI Agents), introduced in 2024, explicitly embeds architectural constraints showing a 40 per cent improvement in successful AI-generated fixes when incorporated into the design. This demonstrates that modularity isn't merely an operational convenience; it fundamentally improves AI system performance. The architecture isn't just cleaner. It's demonstrably better.
Real-World Divergence
The contrast between monolithic and modular AI approaches becomes vivid when examining how major technology companies architect their systems. Amazon's Alexa represents a more monolithic architecture, with components built and tightly integrated in-house. Apple's integration with OpenAI for enhanced Siri capabilities, by contrast, exemplifies a modular approach rather than monolithic in-house development. Same problem, radically different philosophies.
These divergent strategies illuminate the trade-offs beautifully. Monolithic architectures offer greater control and tighter integration. When you build everything in-house, you control the entire stack, optimise for specific use cases, and avoid dependencies on external providers. Amazon's approach with Alexa allows them to fine-tune every aspect of the experience, from wake word detection to response generation. It's their baby, and they control every aspect of its upbringing.
Yet this control comes at a cost. Monolithic systems can hinder rapid innovation. The risk that changes in one component will affect the entire system limits the ability to easily leverage external AI capabilities. When a breakthrough happens in natural language processing, a monolithic system must either replicate that innovation in-house (expensive, time-consuming) or undertake risky system-wide integration (potentially breaking everything). Neither option is particularly appealing.
Apple's partnership with OpenAI represents a different philosophy entirely. Rather than building everything internally, Apple recognises that specialised AI capabilities can be integrated as modular components. This allows them to leverage cutting-edge language models without building that expertise in-house, whilst maintaining their core competencies in hardware, user experience, and privacy. Play to your strengths, outsource the rest.
The modular approach increasingly dominates enterprise deployment. Multi-agent architectures, where specialised agents handle specific functions, have become the preferred approach for organisations requiring scale, control, and flexibility. This pattern allows enterprises to mix and match capabilities, swapping components as technology evolves without wholesale system replacement. It's future-proofing through modularity.
Consider the practical implications for an enterprise deploying customer service AI. The monolithic approach would build or buy a single large model trained on customer service interactions, attempting to handle everything from simple FAQs to complex troubleshooting. One model to rule them all. The modular approach might deploy separate components: a routing agent to classify queries, a retrieval system for documentation, a reasoning agent for complex problems, and specialised models for different product lines. Each component can be optimised, updated, or replaced independently, and the system gracefully degrades if one component fails rather than collapsing entirely. Resilience through redundancy.
The Technical Foundations
The shift to microservice AI architectures rests on several technical enablers that make modular, distributed AI systems practical at scale. The infrastructure matters as much as the algorithms.
Containerisation and orchestration, the backbone of microservice deployment in software, are proving equally crucial for AI. Kubernetes, the dominant container orchestration platform, allows AI models and agents to be packaged as containers, deployed across distributed infrastructure, and scaled dynamically based on demand. When AI agents are deployed within a containerised microservices framework, they transform a static system into a dynamic, adaptive one. The containers provide the packaging; Kubernetes provides the logistics.
Service mesh technologies like Istio and Linkerd, which bundle features such as load balancing, encryption, and monitoring by default, are being adapted for AI deployments. These tools solve the challenging problems of service-to-service communication, observability, and reliability that emerge when you decompose a system into many distributed components. It's plumbing, but critical plumbing.
Edge computing is experiencing growth in 2024 due to its ability to lower latency and manage real-time data processing. For AI systems, edge deployment allows specialised models to run close to where data is generated, reducing latency and bandwidth requirements. A modular AI architecture can distribute different agents across edge and cloud infrastructure based on latency requirements, data sensitivity, and computational needs. Process sensitive data locally, heavy lifting in the cloud.
API-first design, a cornerstone of microservice architecture, is equally vital for modular AI. Well-defined APIs allow AI components to communicate without tight coupling. A language model exposed through an API can be swapped for a better model without changing downstream consumers. Retrieval systems, reasoning engines, and specialised tools can be integrated through standardised interfaces, enabling the composition that makes compound AI systems powerful. The interface is the contract.
MACH architecture (Microservices, API-first, Cloud-native, and Headless) has become one of the most discussed trends in 2024 due to its modularity. This architectural style, whilst originally applied to commerce and content systems, provides a blueprint for building composable AI systems that can evolve rapidly. The acronym is catchy; the implications are profound.
The integration of DevOps practices into AI development (sometimes called MLOps or AIOps) fosters seamless integration between development and operations teams. This becomes essential when managing dozens of specialised AI models and agents rather than a single monolithic system. Automated testing, continuous integration, and deployment pipelines allow modular AI components to be updated safely and frequently. Deploy fast, break nothing.
The Efficiency Paradox
One of the most compelling arguments for modular AI architectures is efficiency, though the relationship is more nuanced than it first appears. On the surface, it seems counterintuitive.
At face value, decomposing a system into multiple components seems wasteful. Instead of one model, you maintain many. Instead of one deployment, you coordinate several. The overhead of inter-component communication and orchestration adds complexity that a monolithic system avoids. More moving parts, more things to break.
Yet in practice, modularity often proves more efficient precisely because of its selectivity. A monolithic model must be large enough to handle every possible task it might encounter, carrying billions of parameters even for simple queries. A modular system can route simple queries to lightweight models and reserve heavy computation for genuinely complex tasks. It's the difference between driving a lorry to the corner shop and taking a bicycle.
MoE models embody this principle elegantly. Mixtral 8x7B contains 46.7 billion parameters, but activates only a subset for any given input, achieving efficiency that belies its size. This selective activation means the model uses significantly less compute per inference than a dense model of comparable capability. Same power, less electricity.
The same logic applies to agent architectures. Rather than a single agent with all capabilities always loaded, a modular system activates only the agents needed for a specific task. Processing a simple FAQ doesn't require spinning up your reasoning engine, database query system, and multimodal analysis tools. Efficiency comes from doing less, not more. The best work is the work you don't do.
Hardware utilisation improves as well. In a monolithic system, the entire model must fit on available hardware, often requiring expensive high-end GPUs even for simple deployments. Modular systems can distribute components across heterogeneous infrastructure: powerful GPUs for complex reasoning, cheaper CPUs for simple routing, edge devices for latency-sensitive tasks. Resource allocation becomes granular rather than all-or-nothing. Right tool, right job, right place.
The efficiency gains extend to training and updating. Monolithic models require complete retraining to incorporate new capabilities or fix errors, a process so expensive that OpenAI chose not to fix known mistakes in GPT-3. Modular systems allow targeted updates: improve one component without touching others, add new capabilities by deploying new agents, and refine specialised models based on specific performance data. Surgical strikes versus carpet bombing.
Yet the efficiency paradox remains real for small-scale deployments. The overhead of orchestration, inter-component communication, and maintaining multiple models can outweigh the benefits when serving low volumes or simple use cases. Like microservices in software, modular AI architectures shine at scale but can be overkill for simpler scenarios. Sometimes a monolith is exactly what you need.
Challenges and Complexity
The benefits of microservice AI architectures come with significant challenges that organisations must navigate carefully. Just as the software industry learned that microservices introduce new forms of complexity even as they solve monolithic problems, AI is discovering similar trade-offs. There's no free lunch.
Orchestration complexity tops the list. Coordinating multiple AI agents or models requires sophisticated infrastructure. When a user query involves five different specialised agents, something must route the request, coordinate the agents, handle failures gracefully, and synthesise results into a coherent response. This orchestration layer becomes a critical component that itself must be reliable, performant, and maintainable. Who orchestrates the orchestrators?
The hierarchical task decomposition pattern, whilst powerful, introduces latency. Each layer of decomposition adds a round trip, and tasks that traverse multiple levels accumulate delay. For latency-sensitive applications, this overhead can outweigh the benefits of specialisation. Sometimes faster beats better.
Debugging and observability grow harder when functionality spans multiple components. In a monolithic system, tracing a problem is straightforward: the entire execution happens in one place. In a modular system, a single user interaction might touch a dozen components, each potentially contributing to the final outcome. When something goes wrong, identifying the culprit requires sophisticated distributed tracing and logging infrastructure. Finding the needle gets harder when you have more haystacks.
Version management becomes thornier. When your AI system comprises twenty different models and agents, each evolving independently, ensuring compatibility becomes non-trivial. Microservices in software addressed these questions through API contracts and integration testing, but AI components are less deterministic, making such guarantees harder. Your language model might return slightly different results today than yesterday. Good luck writing unit tests for that.
The talent and expertise required multiplies. Building and maintaining a modular AI system demands not just ML expertise, but also skills in distributed systems, DevOps, orchestration, and system design. The scarcity of specialised talent means finding people who can design and operate complex AI architectures is particularly challenging. You need Renaissance engineers, and they're in short supply.
Perhaps most subtly, modular AI systems introduce emergent behaviours that are harder to predict and control. When multiple AI agents interact, especially with learning capabilities, the system's behaviour emerges from their interactions. This can produce powerful adaptability, but also unexpected failures or behaviours that are difficult to debug or prevent. The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts, for better or worse.
The Future of Intelligence Design
Despite these challenges, the trajectory is clear. The same forces that drove software towards microservices are propelling AI in the same direction: the need for adaptability, efficiency, and scale in increasingly complex systems. History doesn't repeat, but it certainly rhymes.
The pattern is already evident everywhere you look. Multi-agent architectures have become the preferred approach for enterprises requiring scale and flexibility. The 2024 surge in RAG adoption reflects organisations choosing composition over monoliths. The proliferation of MoE models and the frameworks emerging to support modular AI development all point towards a future where monolithic AI is the exception rather than the rule. The writing is on the wall, written in modular architecture patterns.
What might this future look like in practice? Imagine an AI system for healthcare diagnosis. Rather than a single massive model attempting to handle everything, you might have a constellation of specialised components working in concert. One agent handles patient interaction and symptom gathering, trained specifically on medical dialogues. Another specialises in analysing medical images, trained on vast datasets of radiology scans. A third draws on the latest research literature through retrieval-augmented generation, accessing PubMed and clinical trials databases. A reasoning agent integrates these inputs, considering patient history, current symptoms, and medical evidence to suggest potential diagnoses. An orchestrator coordinates these agents, manages conversational flow, and ensures appropriate specialists are consulted. Each component does its job brilliantly; together they're transformative.
Each component can be developed, validated, and updated independently. When new medical research emerges, the retrieval system incorporates it without retraining other components. When imaging analysis improves, that specialised model upgrades without touching patient interaction or reasoning systems. The system gracefully degrades: if one component fails, others continue functioning. You get reliability through redundancy, a core principle of resilient system design.
The financial services sector is already moving this direction. JPMorgan Chase and other institutions are deploying AI systems that combine specialised models for fraud detection, customer service, market analysis, and regulatory compliance, orchestrated into coherent applications. These aren't monolithic systems but composed architectures where specialised components handle specific functions. Money talks, and it's saying “modular.”
Education presents another compelling use case. A modular AI tutoring system might combine a natural language interaction agent, a pedagogical reasoning system that adapts to student learning styles, a content retrieval system accessing educational materials, and assessment agents that evaluate understanding. Each component specialises, and the system composes them into personalised learning experiences. One-size-fits-one education, at scale.
Philosophical Implications
The shift from monolithic to modular AI architectures isn't merely technical. It embodies a philosophical stance on the nature of intelligence itself. How we build AI systems reveals what we believe intelligence actually is.
Monolithic AI reflects a particular view: that intelligence is fundamentally unified, emerging from a single vast neural network that learns statistical patterns across all domains. Scale begets capability, and comprehensiveness is the path to general intelligence. It's the “one ring to rule them all” approach to AI.
Yet modularity suggests a different understanding entirely. Human cognition isn't truly monolithic. We have specialised brain regions for language, vision, spatial reasoning, emotional processing, and motor control. These regions communicate and coordinate, but they're distinct systems that evolved for specific functions. Intelligence, in this view, is less a unified whole than a society of mind (specialised modules working in concert). We're already modular; maybe AI should be too.
This has profound implications for how we approach artificial general intelligence (AGI). The dominant narrative has been that AGI will emerge from ever-larger monolithic models that achieve sufficient scale to generalise across all cognitive tasks. Just keep making it bigger until consciousness emerges. Modular architectures suggest an alternative path: AGI as a sophisticated orchestration of specialised intelligences, each superhuman in its domain, coordinated by meta-reasoning systems that compose capabilities dynamically. Not one massive brain, but many specialised brains working together.
The distinction matters for AI safety and alignment. Monolithic systems are opaque and difficult to interpret. When a massive model makes a decision, unpacking the reasoning behind it is extraordinarily challenging. It's a black box all the way down. Modular systems, by contrast, offer natural points of inspection and intervention. You can audit individual components, understand how specialised agents contribute to final decisions, and insert safeguards at orchestration layers. Transparency through decomposition.
There's also a practical wisdom in modularity that transcends AI and software. Complex systems that survive and adapt over time tend to be modular. Biological organisms are modular, with specialised organs coordinated through circulatory and nervous systems. Successful organisations are modular, with specialised teams and clear interfaces. Resilient ecosystems are modular, with niches filled by specialised species. Modularity with appropriate interfaces allows components to evolve independently whilst maintaining system coherence. It's a pattern that nature discovered long before we did.
Building Minds, Not Monoliths
The future of AI won't be decided solely by who can build the largest model or accumulate the most training data. It will be shaped by who can most effectively compose specialised capabilities into systems that are efficient, adaptable, and aligned with human needs. Size matters less than architecture.
The evidence surrounds us. MoE models demonstrate that selective activation of specialised components outperforms monolithic density. Multi-agent architectures show that coordinated specialists achieve better results than single generalists. RAG systems prove that composition of retrieval and generation beats encoding all knowledge in parameters. Compound AI systems are replacing single-model deployments in enterprises worldwide. The pattern repeats because it works.
This doesn't mean monolithic AI disappears. Like monolithic applications, which still have legitimate use cases, there will remain scenarios where a single, tightly integrated model makes sense. Simple deployments with narrow scope, situations where integration overhead outweighs benefits, and use cases where the highest-quality monolithic models still outperform modular alternatives will continue to warrant unified approaches. Horses for courses.
But the centre of gravity is shifting unmistakably. The most sophisticated AI systems being built today are modular. The most ambitious roadmaps for future AI emphasise composability. The architectural patterns that will define AI over the next decade look more like microservices than monoliths, more like orchestrated specialists than universal generalists. The future is plural.
This transformation asks us to rethink what we're building fundamentally. Not artificial brains (single organs that do everything) but artificial minds: societies of specialised intelligence working in concert. Not systems that know everything, but systems that know how to find, coordinate, and apply the right knowledge for each situation. Not monolithic giants, but modular assemblies that can evolve component by component whilst maintaining coherence. The metaphor matters because it shapes the architecture.
The future of AI is modular not because modularity is ideologically superior, but because it's practically necessary for building the sophisticated, reliable, adaptable systems that real-world applications demand. Software learned this lesson through painful experience with massive codebases that became impossible to maintain. AI has the opportunity to learn it faster, adopting modular architectures before monolithic approaches calcify into unmaintainable complexity. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
As we stand at this architectural crossroads, the path forward increasingly resembles a microservice mind: specialised, composable, and orchestrated. Not a single model to rule them all, but a symphony of intelligences, each playing its part, coordinated into something greater than the sum of components. This is how we'll build AI that scales not just in parameters and compute, but in capability, reliability, and alignment with human values. The whole really can be greater than the sum of its parts.
The revolution isn't coming. It's already here, reshaping AI from the architecture up. Intelligence, whether artificial or natural, thrives not in monolithic unity but in modular diversity, carefully orchestrated. The future belongs to minds that are composable, not monolithic. The microservice revolution has come to AI, and nothing will be quite the same.
Sources and References
Workast Blog. “The Future of Microservices: Software Trends in 2024.” 2024. https://www.workast.com/blog/the-future-of-microservices-software-trends-in-2024/
Cloud Destinations. “Latest Microservices Architecture Trends in 2024.” 2024. https://clouddestinations.com/blog/evolution-of-microservices-architecture.html
Shaped AI. “Monolithic vs Modular AI Architecture: Key Trade-Offs.” 2024. https://www.shaped.ai/blog/monolithic-vs-modular-ai-architecture
Piovesan, Enrico. “From Monoliths to Composability: Aligning Architecture with AI's Modularity.” Medium: Mastering Software Architecture for the AI Era, 2024. https://medium.com/software-architecture-in-the-age-of-ai/from-monoliths-to-composability-aligning-architecture-with-ais-modularity-55914fc86b16
Databricks Blog. “AI Agent Systems: Modular Engineering for Reliable Enterprise AI Applications.” 2024. https://www.databricks.com/blog/ai-agent-systems
Microsoft Research. “Toward modular models: Collaborative AI development enables model accountability and continuous learning.” 2024. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/toward-modular-models-collaborative-ai-development-enables-model-accountability-and-continuous-learning/
Zilliz. “Top 10 Multimodal AI Models of 2024.” Zilliz Learn, 2024. https://zilliz.com/learn/top-10-best-multimodal-ai-models-you-should-know
Hugging Face Blog. “Mixture of Experts Explained.” 2024. https://huggingface.co/blog/moe
DataCamp. “What Is Mixture of Experts (MoE)? How It Works, Use Cases & More.” 2024. https://www.datacamp.com/blog/mixture-of-experts-moe
NVIDIA Technical Blog. “Applying Mixture of Experts in LLM Architectures.” 2024. https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/applying-mixture-of-experts-in-llm-architectures/
Opaque Systems. “Beyond Microservices: How AI Agents Are Transforming Enterprise Architecture.” 2024. https://www.opaque.co/resources/articles/beyond-microservices-how-ai-agents-are-transforming-enterprise-architecture
Pluralsight. “Architecting microservices for seamless agentic AI integration.” 2024. https://www.pluralsight.com/resources/blog/ai-and-data/architecting-microservices-agentic-ai
Microsoft Semantic Kernel Blog. “MicroAgents: Exploring Agentic Architecture with Microservices.” 2024. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/semantic-kernel/microagents-exploring-agentic-architecture-with-microservices/
Antematter. “Scaling Large Language Models: Navigating the Challenges of Cost and Efficiency.” 2024. https://antematter.io/blogs/llm-scalability
VentureBeat. “The limitations of scaling up AI language models.” 2024. https://venturebeat.com/ai/the-limitations-of-scaling-up-ai-language-models
Cornell Tech. “Award-Winning Paper Unravels Challenges of Scaling Language Models.” 2024. https://tech.cornell.edu/news/award-winning-paper-unravals-challenges-of-scaling-language-models/
Salesforce Architects. “Enterprise Agentic Architecture and Design Patterns.” 2024. https://architect.salesforce.com/fundamentals/enterprise-agentic-architecture
Google Cloud Architecture Center. “Choose a design pattern for your agentic AI system.” 2024. https://cloud.google.com/architecture/choose-design-pattern-agentic-ai-system
Menlo Ventures. “2024: The State of Generative AI in the Enterprise.” 2024. https://menlovc.com/2024-the-state-of-generative-ai-in-the-enterprise/
Hopsworks. “Modularity and Composability for AI Systems with AI Pipelines and Shared Storage.” 2024. https://www.hopsworks.ai/post/modularity-and-composability-for-ai-systems-with-ai-pipelines-and-shared-storage
Bernard Marr. “Are Alexa And Siri Considered AI?” 2024. https://bernardmarr.com/are-alexa-and-siri-considered-ai/
Medium. “The Evolution of AI-Powered Personal Assistants: A Comprehensive Guide to Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant.” Megasis Network, 2024. https://megasisnetwork.medium.com/the-evolution-of-ai-powered-personal-assistants-a-comprehensive-guide-to-siri-alexa-and-google-f2227172051e
GeeksforGeeks. “How Amazon Alexa Works Using NLP: A Complete Guide.” 2024. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/blogs/how-amazon-alexa-works
Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer
Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.
His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.
ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk