The concept of data colonialism—extracting value from a population's data—is no longer limited to the Global South. It now applies to creative professionals in Western countries whose writing, music, and art are scraped without consent to build generative AI systems, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few tech firms.

Related Insights

Contrary to the post-COVID trend of tech decentralization, the intense talent and capital requirements of AI have caused a rapid re-centralization. Silicon Valley has 'snapped back' into a hyper-concentrated hub, with nearly all significant Western AI companies originating within a small geographic radius.

If AGI is concentrated in a few US companies, other nations could lose their economic sovereignty. When American AGI can produce goods far cheaper than local human labor, economies like the UK's could collapse. They would become economically dependent "client states," reliant on American technology for almost all production, with wealth accruing to Silicon Valley.

There is emerging evidence of a "pay-to-play" dynamic in AI search. Platforms like ChatGPT seem to disproportionately cite content from sources with which they have commercial deals, such as the Financial Times and Reddit. This suggests paid partnerships can heavily influence visibility in AI-generated results.

The fear of AI in music isn't that it will replace human artists, but that it will drown them out. The real danger is AI-generated music flooding streaming playlists, making genuine discovery impossible. The ultimate risk is platforms like Spotify creating their own AI music and feeding it directly into their algorithms, effectively cutting human artists out of the ecosystem entirely.

AI systems from companies like Meta and OpenAI rely on a vast, unseen workforce of data labelers in developing nations. These communities perform the crucial but low-paid labor that powers modern AI, yet they are often the most marginalized and least likely to benefit from the technology they help build.

As AI drives the cost of content creation to zero, the world floods with 'average' material. In this environment, the most valuable and scarce skill becomes 'taste'—the ability to identify, curate, and champion high-quality, commercially viable work. This elevates the role of human curators over pure creators.

Venture capitalists calling creators "Luddite snooty critics" for their concerns about AI-generated content creates a hostile dynamic that could turn the entire creative industry against AI labs and their investors, hindering adoption.

Actors like Bryan Cranston challenging unauthorized AI use of their likeness are forcing companies like OpenAI to create stricter rules. These high-profile cases are establishing the foundational framework that will ultimately define and protect the digital rights of all individuals, not just celebrities.

The market reality is that consumers and businesses prioritize the best-performing AI models, regardless of whether their training data was ethically sourced. This dynamic incentivizes labs to use all available data, including copyrighted works, and treat potential fines as a cost of doing business.

Frame AI not as a tool, but as a wave of "digital immigrants" with superhuman cognitive abilities. Similar to how the NAFTA trade agreement outsourced manufacturing, AI will outsource knowledge work. This will create abundance for some but risks hollowing out the middle class and social fabric.