Skip to content
LongtermWiki

Concentration of Power

📋Page Status
Page Type:RiskStyle Guide →Risk analysis page
Quality:65 (Good)⚠️
Importance:72.5 (High)
Last edited:2026-01-28 (4 days ago)
Words:1.2k
Backlinks:17
Structure:
📊 6📈 1🔗 19📚 5•13%Score: 13/15
LLM Summary:Documents how AI development is concentrating in ~20 organizations due to $100M+ compute costs, with 5 firms controlling 80%+ of cloud infrastructure and projections reaching $1-10B per model by 2030. Identifies key concentration mechanisms (compute, cloud, chips, capital) and links to governance interventions, though defers comprehensive analysis to a linked parameter page.
Issues (2):
  • QualityRated 65 but structure suggests 87 (underrated by 22 points)
  • Links1 link could use <R> components
See also:80,000 HoursEA Forum
Risk

Concentration of Power

Importance72
CategoryStructural Risk
SeverityHigh
Likelihoodmedium-high
Timeframe2030
MaturityGrowing
TypeStructural/Systemic
Related
Risks

Overview

Section titled “Overview”

AI is enabling unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of a few organizations, fundamentally altering traditional power structures across economic, political, and military domains. Unlike previous technologies that affected specific sectors, AI’s general-purpose nature creates advantages that compound across all areas of human activity.

For comprehensive analysis, see AI Control Concentration, which covers:

  • Current power distribution metrics across actors
  • Concentration mechanisms (compute, data, talent, capital)
  • Factors that increase and decrease concentration
  • Intervention effectiveness and policy options
  • Trajectory scenarios through 2035

Risk Assessment

Section titled “Risk Assessment”
DimensionCurrent Status5-10 Year LikelihoodSeverity
Economic concentration5 firms control 80%+ AI cloudVery High (85%+)Extreme
Compute barriers$100M+ for frontier trainingVery High (90%+)High
Talent concentrationTop 50 researchers at 6 labsHigh (75%)High
Regulatory capture riskEarly lobbying influenceHigh (70%)High
Geopolitical concentrationUS-China duopoly emergingVery High (90%+)Extreme

How It Works

Section titled “How It Works”

Power concentration in AI follows reinforcing feedback loops where early advantages compound over time. Organizations with access to compute, data, and talent can build better models, which attract more users and revenue, which funds more compute and talent acquisition, further widening the gap.

The Korinek and Vipra (2024) analysis identifies significant economies of scale and scope in AI development that create natural tendencies toward market concentration. Training costs for frontier models have increased from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, with projections reaching $1-10B by 2030. This creates entry barriers that only well-capitalized organizations can clear.

Loading diagram...

The January 2025 FTC report documented how partnerships between cloud providers and AI developers create additional concentration mechanisms. Microsoft’s $13.75B investment in OpenAI, Amazon’s $8B commitment to Anthropic, and Google’s $2.55B Anthropic investment collectively exceed $20 billion, with contractual provisions that restrict AI developers’ ability to work with competing cloud providers.

Key Concentration Mechanisms

Section titled “Key Concentration Mechanisms”
MechanismCurrent StateBarrier Effect
Compute requirements$100M+, 25,000+ GPUs for frontier models↗Only ≈20 organizations can train frontier models
Cloud infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP control 68%↗Essential gatekeepers for AI development
Chip manufacturingNVIDIA 95%+ market share↗Critical chokepoint
Capital requirementsMicrosoft $13B+ into OpenAI↗Only largest tech firms can compete
2030 projection$1-10B per model↗Likely fewer than 10 organizations capable

Why Concentration Matters for AI Safety

Section titled “Why Concentration Matters for AI Safety”
ConcernMechanism
Democratic accountabilitySmall groups make decisions affecting billions without representation
Single points of failureConcentration creates systemic risk if key actors fail
Regulatory captureConcentrated interests shape rules in their favor
Values alignmentWhose values get embedded when few control development?
Geopolitical instabilityAI advantage could upset international balance

Contributing Factors

Section titled “Contributing Factors”
FactorEffectMechanism
Scaling lawsIncreases riskPredictable returns to scale incentivize massive compute investments
Training cost trajectoryIncreases riskCosts rising from $10M (2020) to $100M+ (2024) to projected $1-10B (2030)
Cloud infrastructure dominanceIncreases riskAWS, Azure, GCP control 68% of cloud compute, essential for AI training
Network effectsIncreases riskUser data improves models, attracting more users
Open-source modelsDecreases riskMeta’s Llama, Mistral distribute capabilities more broadly
Regulatory fragmentationMixedEU AI Act creates compliance costs; US approach favors incumbents
Antitrust enforcementDecreases riskDOJ investigation into Nvidia; FTC scrutiny of AI partnerships
Talent mobilityDecreases riskResearchers moving between labs spread knowledge

The AI Now Institute (2024) emphasizes that “the economic power amassed by these firms exceeds that of many nations,” enabling them to influence policy through lobbying and self-regulatory forums that become de facto industry standards.

Responses That Address This Risk

Section titled “Responses That Address This Risk”
ResponseMechanismStatus
Compute GovernanceControl access to training resourcesEmerging
Antitrust enforcementBreak up concentrated powerLimited application
Open-source AIDistribute capabilities broadlyActive but contested
International coordinationPrevent winner-take-all dynamicsEarly stage

See AI Control Concentration for detailed analysis.

Historical Precedents

Section titled “Historical Precedents”
EraEntityMarket ShareOutcomeLessons for AI
1870-1911Standard Oil90% of US refined oilSupreme Court breakup into 37 companiesVertical integration + scale creates durable monopolies
1910s-1984AT&TNear-total US telecomConsent decree, Bell System divestitureRegulated monopolies can persist for decades
1990s-2000sMicrosoft90%+ PC operating systemsAntitrust suit; avoided breakup via consent decreePlatform lock-in extremely difficult to dislodge
2010s-presentGoogle90%+ search marketDOJ lawsuit; August 2024 ruling found illegal monopolyNetwork effects in digital markets compound rapidly

The DOJ’s historical analysis of technology monopolization cases shows that intervention typically comes 10-20 years after market dominance is established. By contrast, AI market concentration is occurring within 2-3 years of foundation model deployment, suggesting regulatory action may need to occur earlier to be effective.

Unlike Standard Oil’s physical infrastructure or AT&T’s telephone network, AI capabilities can be replicated and distributed globally through open-source releases. However, the compute and data advantages of frontier labs may prove more durable than software alone, as noted by the Open Markets Institute: “A handful of dominant tech giants hold the reins over the future of AI… Left unaddressed, this concentration of power will distort innovation, undermine resilience, and weaken our democracies.”

Key Uncertainties

Section titled “Key Uncertainties”

  1. Scaling ceiling: Will AI scaling laws continue to hold, or will diminishing returns reduce the value of massive compute investments? If scaling hits a ceiling, smaller players may catch up.

  2. Open-source competitiveness: Can open-source models (Llama, Mistral, etc.) remain within striking distance of frontier closed models? The gap between GPT-4 and open alternatives has narrowed, but may widen again with next-generation systems.

  3. Regulatory timing: Will antitrust action come early enough to prevent lock-in? Historical precedents suggest 10-20 year delays between market dominance and effective intervention.

  4. Geopolitical fragmentation: Will US-China competition lead to bifurcated AI ecosystems, or will one bloc achieve decisive advantage? The outcome affects whether concentration is global or regional.

  5. Talent distribution: As AI capabilities become more automated, will human talent remain a meaningful differentiator? If AI can accelerate AI research, talent concentration may matter less than compute access.

  6. Benevolence of concentrators: Even if concentration is inevitable, does it matter who holds power? A concentrated but safety-conscious ecosystem might be preferable to a diffuse but reckless one.

Section titled “Related Pages”

Primary Reference

Section titled “Primary Reference”
  • AI Control Concentration — Comprehensive parameter page with mechanisms, measurement, and interventions
Section titled “Related Risks”
  • Lock-in — Path dependencies reinforcing concentration
  • Racing Dynamics — Competition accelerating unsafe development
  • Authoritarian Takeover — Concentrated power enabling authoritarianism
Section titled “Related Parameters”
  • Regulatory Capacity — Government ability to constrain concentration
  • Coordination Capacity — Multi-actor cooperation on governance
  • Institutional Quality — Checks and balances strength

Sources

Section titled “Sources”

What links here