Microsoft

With Decentralized AI and Tokenized Ownership, We Can Fight ‘The Six’

Opinion Share Share this article Copy link X icon X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook Email With Decentralized AI and Tokenized Ownership, We Can Fight ‘The Six’ Orthodox venture capital will never provide the resources for decentralized AI to take on Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, et al. The only way is to supplant equity financing with user-owned, token-based

Opinion

Share this article

X iconX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmail

With Decentralized AI and Tokenized Ownership, We Can Fight ‘The Six’

Orthodox venture capital will never provide the resources for decentralized AI to take on Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, et al. The only way is to supplant equity financing with user-owned, token-based systems, says Michael J. Casey, Chairman of The Decentralized AI Society.

By Michael J. Casey|Edited by Benjamin Schiller
Updated Nov 1, 2024, 7:20 p.m. Published Nov 1, 2024, 7:16 p.m.
(Pixabay)

The past two days’ share price moves for the six most heavily capitalized companies in the U.S. tell you all you need to know about why we must urgently decentralize the artificial intelligence economy.

The first headlines were that the third-quarter profits and revenue from Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, Meta and Amazon all beat or met expectations. Yet, with the exception of Amazon’s on Friday, Big Tech’s shares all sold off in response to their earnings announcements, dragging down with them chip-maker Nvidia, the sixth member of the group, whose quarterly reporting is scheduled a month later.

Story continues below
Don’t miss another story.Subscribe to the The Node Newsletter today.See all newsletters

By signing up, you will receive emails about CoinDesk products and you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

What spooked investors were some daunting capital expenditure numbers on AI computing power and model development. Alphabet, for one, said it did $13 billion in capex last quarter and expects to do the same in this one while Meta upped its full-year projected spending to $38-40 billion. The giants are in a spending war as each tries to outrace the others toward AI supremacy. Each one of them stands to lose profit margins if it gets out of control.

Let’s be clear: between them, The Six are booking $1.8 trillion in annual revenues, a number that would put their combined inflows in 10th place of global country rankings if we viewed them as a proxy for national GDP – just behind the gross output of Brazil’s 220 million people. Meanwhile, The Six have a combined market capitalization of $15 trillion, capturing an astounding one third of the entire S&P 500 index. Despite – or perhaps because of – this unprecedented scorecard, these companies are relentlessly competing for world domination. Doing what great American companies have always done, they’re unleashing a competitive instinct that, in a normal capitalist economy of diversified goods and services, is the core driver of technological progress.

So, don’t worry about The Six. Worry about us. Because our problem amid the dizzying advance of AI is definitely not one of a shortfall in technological progress. It’s that this particular form of technological progress comes with risks to human autonomy and safety. And to mitigate them, the question of who controls AI’s development and whether their incentives are aligned with the broadest base of humanity is fundamental.

Just as was the case for Alphabet’s Google, Meta’s Facebook and Amazon’s marketplace, the development of these six companies’ large language models (LLMs) and other AI machinery is occurring within closed, black-box systems.They’ve ingested the troves of data we all unwittingly poured into internet sites, and have built highly complex codebases into which no one has visibility. Between them, they dominate all layers of the AI stack: the storage (Amazon Web Services), the chips for computation (Nvidia), the AI models (Microsoft, with its investment in Open AI), the data (Alphabet and Meta) and the devices we use to interact with AI services (Apple). They might be competing with each other, but they form a vertically diversified oligopoly. Or rather, given the undeniable power that their technology can wield over people’s lives, they’re an oligarchy. Indeed, the secrecy around the means by which they exercise that power is characteristic of most oligarchical dictatorships.

Toward the latter phase of the Web2 era, people eventually came to understand Bruce Schneier’s memorable observation that we are not the internet platforms’ customers; we are their products. With that awareness, we’re now also finally opening our eyes to how these companies have long been incentivized to modify people’s behavior in unhealthy ways to maximize shareholder returns. It is no longer controversial to talk of the psychological harm done by the algorithms of Facebook, YouTube, Tik Tok and their ilk, which were blatantly designed to exploit dopamine releases to encourage continued, addictive engagement.

When Frank McCourt and I published Our Biggest Fight in March 2024, we were overwhelmed by parents’ horror stories of the harm social media had done to their kids. And then a Harris Poll coordinated by NYU Professor Johathan Haidt found that young people are just as concerned: nearly half of Gen Z wishes that TikTok and X (Twitter) never existed, even as 83% of the same cohort said they spend four hours a day or more on social media.

So, if we now know of the harms, why on earth would we extend the same oligopolistic control structure into the AI era? AI will put the Web2 oligopoly on steroids.

This is why I believe the creation of distributed, collectively owned open-source AI is a vitally important use case for Web3 and blockchain technology. It’s the only way to avoid the problem of misaligned incentives.

Sure, there are technical challenges, such as the latency that, for now, makes distributed machine learning inefficient, the capacity limits of on-chain data, or the privacy risks inherent to public blockchains. But innovators are already hard at work on outside-the-box solutions to these problems, motivated by the huge economic and reputational payoff promised by overcoming them. And when they do, the inherent information advantages enjoyed by open systems over closed systems will give decentralized AI a fighting chance. Achieve that, and “DeAI” will represent not only the right moral path but also the economic winner.

Here’s the rub: time is not on our side. And the fight is heavily lopsided. As cited above, The Six have an unprecedented $15 trillion war chest. In the 2000s, Facebook and Google learned that their high-value share prices gave them a currency with which to relentlessly acquire startups that could either enhance or threaten their dominance. Now, The Six have even greater capacity to buy up and integrate whatever breakthroughs in AI are coming, be it in independent AI agents or more efficient systems of compute. Their financial clout means that the most important innovations, those that offer the best hope for a more decentralized AI economy, are at risk of being subsumed into their centralized system. Remember, they’re competing with each other and are incentivized to do whatever it takes to win.

To fight their centralized approach, we must flip the paradigm. Orthodox venture capital will never provide anywhere near enough resources for decentralized competitors to take on the big guys. The only way is to supplant equity financing models with full user-owned, token-based systems. In the future, when your home devices provide the compute and deliver your privacy-preserved data into open-source models that are proven to act in your interests, you will earn tokens for that work. And, with that currency, you will pay for all the cool services delivered by your personal AI agent. It’s a new, distributed financing and payments system for a new, decentralized AI economy. It is the only way.

Yet, to succeed, the crypto and blockchain industry has to reimagine itself. If startup founders see DeAI merely as a new source of get-rich-quick token-pump opportunities, or if the leaders of the Layer 1 platforms now turning to the field are fixated more on applications that temporarily drive up the dollar value of their tribe’s cryptocurrency rather than on those that address real, economy-wide problems, this movement will fail. To win this fight, this industry must become more interoperable. It must become more collaborative.

This is not to say we should squash the competitive instincts that are vital to innovation. But it is to acknowledge a need for better cross-industry organization. Through collaborative bodies such as the new Decentralized AI Society, different stakeholders can work with each other to advance common interests around standards, reference architectures, taxonomies, policy objectives and open-source, cross-chain protocols that everyone can use regardless of the token they hold. We’re not building to pump our bags or take our token “to the moon.” We’re building to create a new decentralized AI economy for the benefit of all humanity.

Come join the fight.

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.

Opinion
Michael J. Casey

Michael J. Casey is Chairman of The Decentralized AI Society, former Chief Content Officer at CoinDesk and co-author of Our Biggest Fight: Reclaiming Liberty, Humanity, and Dignity in the Digital Age. Previously, Casey was the CEO of Streambed Media, a company he cofounded to develop provenance data for digital content. He was also a senior advisor at MIT Media Labs’s Digital Currency Initiative and a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management. Prior to joining MIT, Casey spent 18 years at The Wall Street Journal, where his last position was as a senior columnist covering global economic affairs.

Casey has authored five books, including “The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and Digital Money are Challenging the Global Economic Order” and “The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and the Future of Everything,” both co-authored with Paul Vigna.

Upon joining CoinDesk full time, Casey resigned from a variety of paid advisory positions. He maintains unpaid posts as an advisor to not-for-profit organizations, including MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative and The Deep Trust Alliance. He is a shareholder and non-executive chairman of Streambed Media.

Casey owns bitcoin.

X icon

Michael J. Casey

!–>
Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Microsoft

Arkane Founder: ‘I Think Game Pass is Unsustainable’

The founder and former president of Arkane Studios Raphaël Colantonio, who left in 2019, took to social media weighing on the huge Microsoft and Xbox layoffs. “Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? Cough cough (Gamepass),” said Colantonio (spotted by VideoGamesChronicle). He added…

The founder and former president of Arkane Studios Raphaël Colantonio, who left in 2019, took to social media weighing on the huge Microsoft and Xbox layoffs.
“Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? Cough cough (Gamepass),” said Colantonio (spotted by VideoGamesChronicle).
He added…
Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

In the Wake of Xbox Layoffs, Founder of Dishonored and Prey Dev Arkane Slams Game Pass: ‘Why Is No-One Talking About the Elephant in the Room?’

Hot on the heels of the layoffs that have swept through Xbox, the founder of Microsoft-owned Arkane Studios has hit out at Game Pass, whose subscription model he called “unsustainable.” Raphael Colantonio, who founded the Dishonored and Prey developer and served as its president before leaving in 2017 to start Weird West maker WolfEye Studios

Hot on the heels of the layoffs that have swept through Xbox, the founder of Microsoft-owned Arkane Studios has hit out at Game Pass, whose subscription model he called “unsustainable.”

Raphael Colantonio, who founded the Dishonored and Prey developer and served as its president before leaving in 2017 to start Weird West maker WolfEye Studios, took to social media to ask: “Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? Cough cough (Gamepass).”

When asked to expand on his thoughts on Game Pass, which Weird West launched straight into as a day one title in March 2022, Colantonio said: “I think Gamepass is an unsustainable model that has been increasingly damaging the industry for a decade, subsidized by MS’s ‘infinite money,’ but at some point reality has to hit. I don’t think GP can co-exist with other models, they’ll either kill everyone else, or give up.”

Colantonio’s comment sparked a vociferous debate about the pros and cons of Game Pass in industry terms as well as for the customer. Microsoft’s subscription service has been called many things over the years: the death of the video game industry; the savior of smaller developers who benefit greatly from payments made by Microsoft to secure their games; and everything in between. During the great Xbox FTC trial to decide the fate of Microsoft’s $69 billion aquisition of Call of Duty maker Activision Blizzard, then PlayStation boss Jim Ryan claimed that he had talked to “all the publishers” and that, unanimously, they all hated Game Pass “because it is value destructive.” He also said Microsoft “appears to be losing a lot of money on it.”

Back in 2021, Xbox boss Phil Spencer countered Game Pass doomsayers, saying: “I know there’s a lot of people that like to write [that] we’re burning cash right now for some future pot of gold at the end. No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now as it sits. And it continues to grow.”

That was four years ago. What about now, in the wake of cuts that have seen Rare’s Everwild, the Perfect Dark reboot, and an unannounced MMO in the works at developer behind The Elder Scrolls Online all canceled?

Colantonio’s comments were backed by a number of industry peers, including the former VP of biz dev at Epic Games. Michael Douse, publishing director at Baldur’s Gate 3 developer Larian, said that the biggest concern right now revolves around what happens when all that money runs out. This, Douse added, is “one of the main economic reasons people I know haven’t shifted to its business model. The infinite money thing never made any sense.”

(It’s worth noting that Baldur’s Gate 3 has so far not launched in Game Pass or PlayStation Plus.)

Colantonio then ridiculed Microsoft’s insistence that launching games into Game Pass did not impact sales, only to later admit the contrary.

Douse responded to to say he prefers the Sony way of doing things. Sony’s PlayStation Plus policy is to keep first-party games off the subscription service at launch, only adding them some time later. That’s why you won’t see this year’s Sony’s Ghost of Yotei launch straight into PS Plus, but you will see Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 as a day one Game Pass launch.

“The economics never made sense, but at the same

Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

Microsoft denies shutting down operations in China

Microsoft China denied it would cease operations in the country, after a screenshot of an internal email from Wicresoft, a Microsoft outsourcing partner, fueled speculation about a potential exit. On Monday, several employees of Wicresoft shared screenshots of layoff emails on social media. The email cites geopolitical tensions and shifts in the global business landscape

Microsoft China denied it would cease operations in the country, after a screenshot of an internal email from Wicresoft, a Microsoft outsourcing partner, fueled speculation about a potential exit. On Monday, several employees of Wicresoft shared screenshots of layoff emails on social media. The email cites geopolitical tensions and shifts in the global business landscape [……
Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

Fake Microsoft Office add-in tools push malware via SourceForge

Threat actors are abusing SourceForge to distribute fake Microsoft add-ins that install malware on victims’ computers to both mine and steal cryptocurrency. …

Threat actors are abusing SourceForge to distribute fake Microsoft add-ins that install malware on victims’ computers to both mine and steal cryptocurrency. …
Read More

Continue Reading