2026-01-11 14:31:48

A thought-provoking question: when AGI is achieved through decentralized multi-agent coordination on edge devices, driven by robot swarm learning, running on open-source and hardware-agnostic operating systems—who truly controls it?

Obviously not the owner of the model. Nor the cloud service provider.

So where does the power flow? This seemingly technical question actually touches on a fundamental contradiction: open source does not mean ownerless, and decentralization is not necessarily democratic. When everyone can participate, will it ultimately be a small minority with the say? From code repository maintainers to hardware standard setters, power naturally exists. Truly decentralized AGI requires not only a distributed architecture but also a thorough resolution of incentive mechanisms and governance rights distribution.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MevHunter

· 3h ago

It's the same old "decentralized salvation theory," sounds good, but in the end, it's just a few people holding the microphone. Open-source maintainers are the new center; don't fool yourself.

View OriginalReply0

TommyTeacher1

· 01-11 14:56

Open-source maintainers in power? Sounds just like Linux nowadays... In the end, big companies still call the shots.

View OriginalReply0

MeaninglessApe

· 01-11 14:48

Basically, the open-source community has long been played out by big influencers. Do you really think decentralization can escape the power game? That's too naive. Power has just taken a different form, from cloud service providers to maintainers and standard setters. Essentially, it's still that small group of people calling the shots. If the incentive mechanism is not well designed, all efforts at AGI are pointless. Whatever can be spun up is just old money pouring old wine into a new bottle.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 01-11 14:42

It's the same old power game. Everyone in the open-source community knows the deal. It's called decentralization in nice words, but in reality, it's still those maintainers who call the shots. Let's not hype up AGI for now. We haven't even figured out current open-source governance, and tokenomics alone can give you a headache. True decentralization? Ha, that depends on mechanism design. Just having a distributed architecture isn't enough. Power can't just vanish into thin air; it simply shifts to someone else... I just want to ask, can incentive mechanisms really be fair? Feels like old wine in a new bottle. Honestly, the idea of decentralized AGI sounds very sexy, but there are too many pitfalls in implementation. The issue of voting rights has already been taught to us by Web3, right? There’s never truly no owner—it's just a redistribution of power. Maintainers, advisors, miners... in the end, it all depends on who can speak the loudest. This question is too deep; it seems to touch the core pain points of the entire Web3 space. How should governance rights be distributed to be considered valid? DAO has tried, but it seems they haven't quite figured it out.

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroHero

· 01-11 14:41

Ah... That's true, but it still feels too idealistic. I've seen too much of the open-source community, and in the end, those with the most influence are the ones who really make things happen. Wait, the incentive mechanism is the real pitfall. Decentralization without token economics as a safety net is all just an illusion.

View OriginalReply0