Transformers are the transistor of the 2020s AI explosion—the tiny, elegant mechanism that unlocked a wave of exponential growth. They powered everything from GPT-2’s surprises to GPT-4’s near-professional competence. But the question looming now is: do Transformers still have the capacity to power the next leap toward AGI? Or are we reaching the natural limits of their “supercycle”—the phase when one architecture dominates innovation—before new forms of computation take over? We argue they may not:
1) Test-time compute > single-pass prediction
The Transformer’s superpower—parallel next-token prediction—made scaling easy, but it also bakes in a fixed compute budget per token. The newest “reasoning” directions lean on adaptive test-time compute: think plan → simulate → verify → finalize loops that spend extra cycles only where it matters.
Why it matters:
- Planner/critic/executor patterns reduce careless errors without retraining.
- Verifiers and self-consistency ensembles outperform single forward passes.
- Dynamic compute undermines the assumption that “one softmax to rule them all” is optimal.
Implication: The central algorithmic unit becomes the loop, not the layer. Transformers remain great token engines inside that loop, but they no longer define the loop itself.
2) Tools and external memory move capability off-model
As retrieval, function calling, and structured tool use mature, more of the IQ shifts outside the LM weights: databases, search, code execution, knowledge graphs, simulators, and enterprise APIs.
Why it matters:
- Factuality, freshness, and compliance live in external systems, not in parameters.
- Orchestration policies (what to retrieve, which tool, how to verify) dominate outcomes.
- Attention becomes just one memory mechanism among many (vector stores, caches, scratchpads, planner states).
Implication: Architectural gravity moves from “bigger encoder-decoder” to agentic runtimes that compose many skills. The model is a component—crucial, but no longer the whole product.
3) Long context and streaming favor state-space families
Quadratic attention is expensive. State-space models (SSMs) and modern recurrent hybrids (e.g., Mamba-style layers, RWKV-like ideas) provide linear-time sequence processing, stable streaming, and efficient extremely-long context—often with friendlier KV/memory footprints.
Why it matters:
- Billion-token contexts and continuous streams are operationally feasible.
- Lower latency per token improves UX and unit economics.
- SSM blocks integrate well as drop-in replacements or hybrids with attention.
Implication: GPT-5 era systems will likely be hybrids: attention for local compositionality + SSM/recurrent blocks for long-range structure and streaming.
4) Multimodality is becoming “specialist-first, LM-second”
Vision, audio, video, and action aren’t just “text with vibes.” Practical stacks use specialized encoders/decoders (diffusion or flow for image/video, learned codecs for audio, control policies for action) bridged by a language-centric core.
Why it matters:
- Many non-text modalities prefer non-attention dynamics (diffusion, SSMs, conv-mixers).
- High-fidelity generation benefits from domain-specific decoders rather than generic autoregression.
- Cross-modal grounding depends on interfaces (scene graphs, latent plans), not monolithic attention.
Implication: The Transformer doesn’t disappear; it cedes center stage to interfaces that connect modality specialists.
5) Economics force sparse and dynamic compute
KV-cache bloat, quadratic attention, and memory bandwidth dominate cost curves. Production stacks are converging on:
- Mixture-of-Experts (MoE): activate <10% of parameters per token.
- Routing and cascades: cheap models first; escalate only when uncertain.
- On-device + edge: smaller recurrent/SSM variants reduce server spend.
Implication: The supercycle that rewarded uniform, dense attention is giving way to sparse, conditional, hybrid compute. Architecture follows cost.
What this means for builders (actionable checklist)
- Design for loops, not layers
Treat the model call as a step in a reasoning loop with budgets, retries, and verifiers. - Externalize knowledge by default
Version your retrieval indices; store provenance; make tool outputs first-class citizens in traces. - Adopt a hybrid sequence core
Where long context or streaming matters, evaluate SSM/recurrent blocks alongside attention. - Use specialists for non-text
Wire diffusion/flow decoders, ASR/TTS, and control policies through stable, typed interfaces. - Engineer for conditional compute
Add routers, MoE, and cascades; log per-turn energy/runtime; enforce SLAs by policy.
Counterpoints (reality check)
- Transformers are still exceptional at composition, code, and generalization; they’ll remain central.
- Many “post-Transformer” wins are hybrid wins—Transformers plus new blocks, policies, or decoders.
- For small/medium models and short contexts, attention remains simple and competitive.
The likely shape of GPT-5–era stacks
- Core: a strong LM (Transformer or hybrid)
- Around it: planner/critic loops, retrieval, tool routers, verifiers
- Inside it: more sparsity and possibly SSM/recurrent modules
- At the edges: specialist encoders/decoders for vision, audio, video, and action
Conclusion: GPT-5 doesn’t “kill” Transformers; it graduates them—from a monolith to a module—closing the supercycle where attention was the whole story and opening a new one where reasoning systems are the product.
EN 
ES