The White House's Michael Kratsios reframes "AI sovereignty" as owning American-built hardware and infrastructure, not renting access to US cloud models. This strategy encourages partner nations to buy the AI stack ("They build it. It's yours.") rather than remaining dependent on subscriptions.

Related Insights

The US focus on exporting hardware (chips, data centers) over proprietary models suggests a strategic belief that open-source AI will eventually dominate. If models become a free commodity, the most valuable and defensible part of the AI stack becomes the underlying compute infrastructure.

The competition in AI infrastructure is framed as a binary, geopolitical choice. The future will be dominated by either a US-led AI stack or a Chinese one. This perspective positions edge infrastructure companies as critical players in national security and technological dominance.

After backlash to his CFO's "backstop" comments, CEO Sam Altman rejected company-specific guarantees. Instead, he proposed the government should build and own its own AI infrastructure as a "strategic national reserve," skillfully reframing the debate from corporate subsidy to a matter of national security.

As countries from Europe to India demand sovereign control over AI, Microsoft leverages its decades of experience with local regulation and data centers. It builds sovereign clouds and offers services that give nations control, turning a potential geopolitical challenge into a competitive advantage.

A nation's advantage is its "intelligent capital stock": its total GPU compute power multiplied by the quality of its AI models. This explains the US restricting GPU sales to China, which counters by excelling in open-source models to close the gap.

The US and China have divergent AI strategies. The US is pouring capital into massive compute clusters to build dominant global platforms like ChatGPT (aggregation theory). China is focusing its capital on building a self-sufficient, domestic semiconductor and AI supply chain to ensure technological independence.

The push for sovereign AI clouds extends beyond data privacy. The core geopolitical driver is a fear of becoming a "net importer of intelligence." Nations view domestic AI production as critical infrastructure, akin to energy or water, to avoid dependency on the US or China, similar to how the Middle East controls oil.

The new "American AI Exports Program" and "Tech Corps" initiative mirror the strategy used to compete with Huawei's 5G dominance. By offering attractive financing and on-the-ground training, the US aims to provide developing nations a complete solution to build AI capabilities with American technology.

For many companies, 'AI sovereignty' is less about building their own models and more about strategic resilience. It means having multiple model providers to benchmark, avoid vendor lock-in, and ensure continuous access if one service is cut off or becomes too expensive.

The primary driver for running AI models on local hardware isn't cost savings or privacy, but maintaining control over your proprietary data and models. This avoids vendor lock-in and prevents a third-party company from owning your organization's 'brain'.

The US Government Pivots to Selling AI Sovereignty, Not Renting Cloud Services | RiffOn