The Shadow Costs of AI and How to Bring Them to Light

For the last two-and-a-half years, business leaders have collectively inched their corporate rollercoasters up the Gartner Hype Cycle to the lofty peak of inflated expectations when it comes to AI innovation and investment. Yet, having crested this hill, many organizations now find themselves in a Splash Mountain-like freefall into the trough of disillusionment as AI’s shadow costs take their toll. These shadow costs take the form of unforeseen technical debt, escalating inference and infrastructure spend, and data licensing and compliance risks. They tarnish AI’s gilded promises of efficiency, productivity and operational transformation.

Unfortunately, we’ve simply become victims of our own success, inflating our AI expectations to blimp-level proportions. We have placed so much energy and resources to make AI and machine learning conversationally convincing and accessible to non-practitioners that we’re shocked when we realize limitations to these models’ freedom of movement, and that they have some, but not all, of the capabilities we have.

These hidden costs haven’t dampened enthusiasm for AI. In fact, Twilio’s 2025 State of Customer Engagement report found that nearly all businesses (97 percent) plan to increase their AI investments over the next five years. But blindly spending on AI isn’t a solution. Instead, organizations need to recognize and prepare for these hidden costs and reevaluate their expectations to ensure a gentle ride to productivity.

The Two Sides of AI’s Hidden Costs

The shadow costs of AI investment can be separated into two sides: technical and operational. Each shows up quietly at first, then compounds like interest if ignored.

From a technical perspective, one of the biggest hidden costs is the accumulation of machine learning technical debt — the gap between the quick path to a working model and the robust system required to keep that model accurate, safe, explainable and affordable over time. This debt lives inside the model (what it learned, how it generalizes, how quickly it drifts) and across the surrounding ecosystem of data pipelines, feature stores, retrieval systems, deployment tooling and monitoring. It comes to light the moment something changes: the data distribution, the user population, the regulatory environment, or your cost and latency budgets. When it does, teams discover they lack the tests, telemetry, retraining pipelines and rollback plans to respond quickly; and the “cheap” proof of concept becomes an expensive firefight.

It’s a common misconception that AI is akin to traditional software engineering. While it requires similar skillsets, tools and processes, these systems need very unique care and feeding. While traditional software engineering may need occasional security patches or updates for new features, fundamentally they function at a consistent level. With AI, a model is simply a representation of how the world works at a particular point, trained on data that over time often becomes less relevant and less effective. For some industries, “over time” could be months or years, for more critical domains like fraud, cybersecurity, or financial markets, this prediction drift could be as little as weeks or days.

Take an autonomous car company. What if the California legislature passes a new law that says it’s illegal for any vehicles in the state to turn right on a red light? Suddenly, a bedrock piece of data the self-driving car model was trained (and vehicles rely) on for safe, comfortable rides is now unexpectedly incorrect. Organizations often underestimate or underappreciate the 20/80 rule when it comes to technology investment, where direct costs like initial purchase or licensing account for a fraction of the total cost of ownership, with indirect costs like maintenance, training and support making up the bulk. This is amplified exponentially with AI. As the world and behaviors within it constantly shift and swirl, if organizations don’t establish consistent schedules to monitor and maintain model data and benchmark outputs, this quiet efficacy degradation could quickly become very loud.

Other hidden technical costs include:

• Data quality and labeling debt: POCs often ship with hastily labeled or weakly supervised data. Months later, silent label errors and schema drift degrade performance. Fixing this requires re-annotation, data versioning and stronger data contracts.
• Inference and serving costs: Models that look inexpensive at pilot scale can become budget-breakers at production scale. Token usage, GPU hours, egress fees, vector database queries, and guardrail calls all add up. Latency SLOs often force more replicas or higher-end hardware.
• Evaluation and monitoring debt: Unlike unit tests, machine learning requires “golden” data sets, live sampling and human review for open-ended tasks. Lacking these, teams miss drift, rising hallucination rates or bias until customers do.
• Security and abuse risks: Prompt injection, data exfiltration via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), adversarial examples, and model inversion attacks require red-teaming, content filters and egress controls — not just once, but continuously.
• RAG-specific costs: Embeddings go stale, document chunking strategies need revision, and indices must be rebuilt when content updates. Citation quality and retrieval drift require ongoing quality gates.
• Portability and vendor lock-in: Swapping model providers sounds simple until you hit differences in tokenization, function-calling formats, fine-tuning APIs and embedding spaces — creating switching costs and refactor debt.
• Observability gaps: Without feature-level logging, prompt and response traces, and lineage from prediction back to data versions, you can’t explain incidents or satisfy auditors.
• Reliability at scale: Cold starts, autoscaling flaps, backpressure, and fan-out failures in multi-step agents add reliability engineering work that looks nothing like traditional CRUD services.
• Environmental and capacity costs: Training and serving large models consume significant energy and require capacity planning across GPUs, storage and networking — often managed by machine learning teams for the first time.

Operational Costs

From an operational perspective, many organizations are eager to leverage AI to solve broad but often undefined problems central to their business, such as optimizing logistics or accelerating sales team productivity, and therefore struggle to quantitatively define the outcomes they actually want to achieve. 

This can lead to a number of scenarios:

• Diffuse objectives: “Make sales faster” becomes a model that writes more emails but lowers deliverability and conversion. The right objective might be “increase qualified meetings per rep by 10% at the same complaint rate.”
• Process redesign debt: AI changes workflows. Without updating roles, approvals and training, any efficiency gains stall. A triage bot may resolve Tier-1 tickets but it may overload Tier-2 unless routing and staffing shift.
• Change management and trust: Human reviewers, incentives, and accountability must adapt. Agents that recommend discounts need guardrails and escalation paths or margins erode.
• Governance and compliance overhead: Model approvals, DPIAs, audit trails, and model cards add real time and cost. The cost is higher if added late in the process.
• FinOps for ML: Cost per outcome needs owners, budgets, and levers like caching, prompt optimization, model distillation, and quantization to stay within targets.
• Cross-functional friction: Legal, security, data and line-of-business must align. Without a shared intake and prioritization process, AI gets stuck in “pilot purgatory.”

For companies in the infancy of their AI journey, this is often compounded by a lack of corporate hygiene, such as well-defined governance or common infrastructure. Adults don’t have to think about brushing our teeth, it’s simply baked into our daily routines. Children on the other hand aren’t accustomed to it and need to be constantly reminded (and persuaded). The same concept applies to businesses – if you’re mature in your processes they require little thought, but if you’re not, they require ongoing effort to reinforce the behavior. 

When it comes to AI, it’s often these hygienic activities – clean data, shared infrastructure, model maintenance, consistent monitoring and evaluation, robust security and governance – that when overlooked are the primary source for cavities within your AI strategy.

More on AIWhat Is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

Why AI Needs Constant Monitoring and Maintenance

More than any other technological innovation in the last 20 years, AI is the antithesis of a ‘set-it-and-forget-it'-type application. Initial AI investment or project launch must be complemented by a clear, ongoing monitor and maintenance plan. This should include how long the model will be retrained and at what intervals, what quantitative and qualitative metrics will determine when the model needs to be reevaluated and what are the major thresholds that need to be engaged with.

The reality is this: if you’re running AI, you’re incurring technical debt, and just like monetary debt, you must continuously pay down that interest or risk being buried in it. It’s important to revisit the model every month or three months or six months depending on your domain, or if model behavior or identified metrics start to dip more than a baseline percentage, commit to proactive service ahead of schedule.

More on AISolving AI’s ‘Body Problem’ Is Crucial to Unleashing Its Power

Don’t Panic, We’ve Done This Before

As transcendent as AI appears to be, it’s important to remember it’s just a tool – we’ve navigated complex technology cycles before with the birth of the internet or rise of the cloud. Remember:

• Ignore the hype: Experiment with it and accept that it’s not a magic bullet for every use case
• Be open minded: Accept you might have to ride a learning curve to maximize its use
• Know your endgame: Quantify the benefit, value, and change over time of the results you want
• Don’t know what you don’t know: Be flexible and agile to pivot experiments and track new metrics 

Don’t let AI’s hidden costs overshadow the very real impact it can have on your workforce and workflows. Recognize the total cost of ownership, commit to better organizational hygiene, and implement proper monitoring processes and maintenance plans – then sit back and enjoy the ride.