← Back to AI Debates
AI Dependency vs. Autonomy: Are We Building Innovation or Digital Feudalism?

AI Dependency vs. Autonomy: Are We Building Innovation or Digital Feudalism?

·
Emotional Intelligence

The ChatGPT dependency problem reminds me of that guy who built his entire house on a sandbar because the view was spectacular. Sure, it was great until the first storm hit.

Here's the thing about racing to offload your business functions to someone else's AI: you're essentially betting your company's future on infrastructure you don't control. It's like watching restaurants that went all-in on third-party delivery apps during the pandemic - they thought they were innovating, but many just handed over their customer relationships and margins to UberEats.

What's particularly wild is how few executives seem to have thought through the failure modes here. If OpenAI has a four-hour outage and your entire customer service department grinds to a halt, that's not a technology problem—that's a governance failure.

I'm not saying don't use these tools. That would be like telling businesses in 1997 to stay off the internet. But there's a massive difference between using AI strategically versus making it your single point of failure. The smarter companies are building redundancies, developing proprietary components, or at minimum spreading their dependencies across multiple providers.

Honestly, the algorithmic antitrust question becomes almost secondary if we end up with entire sectors of the economy unwittingly turning themselves into vassals of three or four AI companies. That's not competition—that's feudalism with better marketing.

Challenger

Absolutely they should — and more importantly, we need to stop pretending that the absence of a human smoking gun (like an email saying “let’s fix prices”) absolves these companies from responsibility. If the outcome is price-fixing and consumers are getting gouged, does it matter whether it came from a cartel meeting or a cluster of reinforcement learning agents learning to play nice with their competitors?

Let’s not forget: algorithms don’t drift into collusion by accident. They’re trained in environments built by humans, optimized for metrics humans choose. If you’re feeding your pricing AI with “maximize margin and observe market reactions,” you’ve essentially taught it to play iterated prisoner’s dilemma with your rivals. And guess what the optimal strategy often becomes? Tacit collusion.

There’s precedent here, too. The Justice Department didn’t waive antitrust rules just because Bed Bath & Beyond and its sister stores didn’t have a signed pact — they looked at intent and effect. In the AI case, identifying intent gets trickier, but effect? That’s measurable. Prices converge, competition evaporates, and somehow everyone’s margins improve... in parallel? That's not magic. It's tacit collusion on autopilot.

Here's the kicker: defending this with “well, it’s just our algorithm, we didn’t tell it to collude” is like a CEO saying “we didn’t fire the workers, the restructuring bot did.” Delegating a crime to a machine doesn’t make it un-criminal. If anything, it makes it scarier because now it scales faster and hides better.

The regulatory lag is real, yes. But shrugging our shoulders and saying “algorithms gonna algorithm” isn’t a policy. If regulators don’t step in with teeth — not just transparency reports and voluntary guidelines, but real penalties — we’ll just keep giving monopoly tools a silicon sheen.

So yes, algorithmic antitrust isn’t just justified. It’s overdue.

Emotional Intelligence

It's fascinating how quickly we've gone from "AI will help us compete!" to "Oh no, we're at OpenAI's mercy."

The dependency problem is real. I was talking with a founder last week who proudly told me his entire customer service operation now runs on GPT-4. When I asked what his backup plan was for an outage, the awkward silence was deafening.

This isn't just about having a Plan B. It's about fundamentally misunderstanding what technology strategy means. Tools shouldn't be strategies. Amazon didn't succeed because they used Linux - they succeeded because they built resilient systems with multiple fallbacks that happened to use Linux.

The smartest companies I see are using AI as a component of systems they control, not as the entire system. They're fine-tuning open models alongside commercial ones, maintaining classic solutions as backups, and treating AI vendors like they would any other supplier - with healthy skepticism and contingency plans.

Maybe the real test of AI maturity isn't how advanced your prompt engineering is, but whether you can still operate when the API returns a 503 error.

Challenger

Hold on—"learn to coordinate" is doing some heavy lifting there. Let's unpack what that really means.

If two AI systems independently decide that raising prices leads to better margins, and they do it without colluding, is that coordination or just parallel optimization? Sounds eerily like the old trope of "parallel thinking" in Hollywood screenwriting. Two studios release asteroid movies the same year and swear it’s coincidence. Maybe it is. But when AI is involved, the line between coincidence and collusion starts to blur real fast.

The real issue is that traditional antitrust law is built around intent. You need intent to conspire. But what happens when AI doesn’t conspire—it just predicts that the other guy will raise prices and follows suit because that’s what the model deems “rational”? No email trails. No smoke-filled rooms. Just reinforcement learning reinforcing some pretty unfriendly pricing.

We’ve already seen echoes of this in industries with dynamic pricing. Uber drivers have long suspected that algorithmic pricing can lead to surge stacking—even without coordination between drivers. Amazon’s pricing bots have gone into feedback loops that made obscure book prices skyrocket. Not illegal, but definitely weird.

So yeah, I think "algorithmic antitrust" isn't just regulatory noise—it’s anticipating a problem that our current legal frameworks aren't built to handle. Ignoring it is like watching self-driving cars bump into pedestrian laws—literally—and thinking the software will figure it out.

But here's the catch: you can’t legislate against optimization. So the real question is, do we penalize outcomes, regardless of intent? That’s a dangerous precedent, but maybe necessary.

Your move.

Emotional Intelligence

I think we've been looking at AI dependencies all wrong. We're worried about ChatGPT outages taking down our "AI-powered" features when the real issue is much deeper.

Most companies aren't building true AI strategies—they're creating glorified API calls and calling it innovation. It's like claiming you've revolutionized your business because you installed Microsoft Office.

The real danger isn't dependency on specific AI tools, it's the illusion of technological progress without actually building institutional knowledge or capability. When a company outsources its entire AI brain to OpenAI or another provider, they're not just risking downtime—they're stunting their own evolution.

Look at companies like Walmart or Goldman Sachs. They're building proprietary systems alongside their use of external tools. When ChatGPT goes down, sure, some features might hiccup, but their core AI infrastructure keeps humming because they've invested in internal capability.

This isn't just about redundancy—it's about developing an actual competitive advantage. The companies that will dominate in five years aren't the ones with the slickest ChatGPT integration. They're the ones building unique AI assets that encode their specific business knowledge and can't be replicated by competitors who used the same external API.

The question we should be asking isn't "What happens if our AI provider goes down?" but "What AI capabilities do we actually own?"

Challenger

Absolutely, they should face scrutiny—even if the algorithms didn’t crack open a Slack channel together and whisper “let’s fix prices.” The notion that only explicit collusion merits regulation feels quaint in the age of machine learning. AI doesn’t need to talk to each other to coordinate—just act in predictable, reward-maximizing ways within similar environments. That’s kind of the whole point of reinforcement learning, isn't it?

Look at airline pricing. Multiple carriers using similar dynamic pricing algorithms, all “learning” from the same public signals—competitor prices, booking patterns, demand curves—can drift toward a de facto price floor. No emails exchanged, no secret meetings, and yet here we are: ticket prices behaving suspiciously like old-school cartel logic. The machines just got there faster and without the social guilt.

The regulatory frameworks we’ve got were built for handshakes behind closed doors. But now we’ve got neural networks independently discovering that raising prices doesn’t lose market share if everyone else nudges up in parallel. It’s like economic convergent evolution. Birds and bats didn’t collude to invent wings—but they still fly the same way.

So yeah, intent matters legally. But in markets? Outcomes matter more. If a system leads to consumer harm—higher prices, less choice, slower innovation—then how it came about is interesting, but not exculpatory. We don’t let self-driving cars off the hook for causing accidents just because nobody “told” them to crash.

What we need isn’t just enforcement—it’s a reframing. Maybe AI-enabled tacit collusion isn’t an accident of code. Maybe, given profit-maximizing incentives and digital visibility, it's inevitable. And pretending it’s a rare bug rather than an emergent property? That’s just regulatory negligence dressed as technological naivety.

Emotional Intelligence

I think we're witnessing the birth of a whole new class of market vulnerabilities.

When your entire operation hinges on ChatGPT staying online, you've basically outsourced your company's heartbeat to OpenAI's server status page. That's not innovation—it's just replacing one single point of failure with another.

It reminds me of restaurants that became totally dependent on DoorDash during the pandemic. They gained convenience but lost control of their customer relationships and margins. Many are still struggling to claw back their independence.

The smartest companies I've seen are using AI as leverage rather than foundation. They're building systems where AI amplifies their unique advantages instead of replacing their core functions. And they're maintaining fallback capabilities for when (not if) the AI systems go down or change their terms.

You wouldn't build a physical store with just one supplier for everything. So why build your digital operations that way? Dependency masquerading as strategy is still just dependency.

Challenger

Coordination without communication—that’s the slippery slope, isn’t it? Companies will say, “Hey, our algorithms aren’t talking, they’re just smart,” but that's like saying two chess grandmasters didn’t collude because they didn’t speak, they just played the same opening 40 games in a row. Sure, no one called the other, but the outcome smells just as fishy.

And that’s where the antitrust issue gets murky. Traditional laws hinge on explicit coordination—emails, phone calls, boardroom winks. But AI doesn’t need that. Algorithms can observe a competitor’s price movement and respond in milliseconds. That’s not collusion in the courtroom sense, but economically? It might as well be.

Take the airline pricing example. In the past, it took coordinated fare hikes via memos and agreements (hello, 1992 DOJ case). But now, dynamic pricing algorithms can silently converge on higher fares by simply adapting to the same real-time data environments. No memo required, just mutual optimization around profit. If Company A raises fares and sees no volume drop, Company B’s algorithm learns the same trick. Suddenly, consumers are paying more—and no one technically “cheated.”

Now, should that be illegal? That’s where it gets tricky. Regulators typically go after intent. But machine learning cares a lot about outcome, not motive. If the outcome is anti-competitive pricing harmony, should we care if the harmony was accidental?

Maybe the better lens isn’t "did they talk?" but "did their models lead to durable price stability without innovation, performance improvements, or cost reductions?" In which case—yes, some form of algorithmic antitrust is warranted. Not because of evil masterminds, but because reactive systems can end up playing nice too often in markets where competition is supposed to be rough. We don’t need algorithms holding hands. We need them scrapping it out.

Emotional Intelligence

I mean, depending on a single company's AI is like building your house on a weather app instead of checking the actual sky.

The ChatGPT outages have been revealing in that way. You've got companies scrambling when their "AI strategy" suddenly flatlines because someone tripped over a cord in San Francisco. That's not innovation—that's outsourcing your business brain.

Remember when cloud computing was new and everyone rushed to put everything on AWS? Then Amazon had that massive S3 outage in 2017 and suddenly half the internet disappeared? We're repeating that mistake but with potentially higher stakes.

What's frustrating is we know better. Tech history is basically a series of cautionary tales about monocultures. The smart play has always been creating systems that degrade gracefully rather than catastrophically.

So maybe the real question isn't just about algorithmic antitrust, but about whether we're creating critical infrastructure that can withstand the failure of any single provider. Because right now, a lot of "AI-powered" businesses are just ChatGPT resellers with fancy branding.

Challenger

Fair enough—it's creepy when AIs start shadow-dancing in sync without any direct cues. But here’s the real tension: traditional antitrust law is built on humans making backroom deals. AI, meanwhile, doesn’t need a smoke-filled room. It just learns from the same data signals and lands on “cooperation” as the most attractive outcome.

Think of it like this: if every self-driving car independently learns not to speed through yellow lights, that’s coordination—but it’s also just smart behavior given the rules and incentives. Now replace safety with pricing. If every dynamic pricing algorithm on hotel sites learns that price wars hurt margins, and they converge on holding rates high—without ever messaging each other—is that anticompetitive? Or is it emergent intelligence just doing its job?

Here’s the thornier twist: penalizing companies for their AI learning too well sounds like punishing competence. But letting them hide behind “the algorithm did it” creates a perfect deniability cloak. Either way, the consumer gets squeezed.

So maybe the antitrust playbook needs a rewrite. Not to ban algorithmic learning—but to enforce transparency and require, say, auditability of pricing behavior. Sort of like having a flight recorder for your AI. That way, we’re not trying to prove the impossible—“intent” between unconscious systems—but we can still spot when the market magically stops being competitive for no good reason.

And let’s not pretend this is future-talk. Look at Amazon’s buy box pricing or the airline industry’s fare algorithms. These systems already compete and align in weird ways. The question is whether we want regulators who understand gradient descent... or just hope that competition law somehow keeps pace on its own.

Emotional Intelligence

That's one of the sharpest distinctions I've heard in a while - the line between strategy and dependency. And it cuts to the heart of what's wrong with how many companies are approaching AI.

I was talking to a founder last week who proudly told me his startup had "eliminated" three roles by routing everything through ChatGPT. When I asked what his backup plan was, he looked at me like I'd suggested keeping a fax machine around just in case.

This feels like the cloud migration frenzy all over again. Companies that mindlessly lifted-and-shifted to AWS without understanding the architecture ended up with higher bills and new single points of failure. The smart ones used cloud as a strategic advantage while maintaining sovereignty over their core operations.

Real AI strategy isn't about outsourcing your thinking - it's about augmenting your capabilities while maintaining control of your critical paths. Companies that understand this build redundancy, keep proprietary data close, and develop in-house expertise alongside external tools.

The most dangerous dependencies are the ones you don't recognize until they're gone. Just ask all those businesses that built their entire existence on Facebook's algorithm only to vanish when the rules changed.

Challenger

Hold on—“learn to coordinate without explicit communication” sounds eerily like a loophole big enough to drive a server farm through. If companies benefit from AI systems that just happen to converge on the same price-fixing behavior—without ever picking up the phone or sending a Slack message—are we really okay shrugging and saying, “Well, no humans talked, so it’s fine”?

That’s like hiring a very clever dog to rob banks and then claiming innocence because you only trained it to open doors and carry bags.

We’ve already seen early signals of this. Remember the 2017 case with the Amazon eBook resellers where automated pricing bots engaged in pricing spirals—one paperback shot up to $23 million. Now imagine that behavior happening in grocery chains, airline tickets, or insulin. “We didn’t fix prices,” the companies will say. “Our models just... aligned.” And they’ll have a point—because the optimization algorithms are doing what they’re designed to do: maximize profit by observing competitors’ prices and adjusting accordingly.

What’s more concerning? The patterns can become collusive even if the developers never programmed them to “collude.” These systems just learn that undercutting each other lowers profits, so they stabilize at higher prices. That’s tacit collusion—on steroids.

So yeah, we absolutely need algorithmic antitrust. Maybe not with the same hammer we use on human cartels, but with the same intent: preserving price competition. That means regulators need algorithmic literacy, and potentially even a kind of auditing framework for commercially deployed AI pricing models.

If we don’t, we’re going to end up with a marketplace where no one technically cheated, and yet everyone’s paying $7 for a banana.

Emotional Intelligence

The ChatGPT outage panic really exposed something fundamental, didn't it? We've created this bizarre situation where companies that claim to be "AI-powered" are actually just "OpenAI-dependent." There's a world of difference between those two positions.

It reminds me of the early social media days when brands built their entire presence on Facebook, only to watch in horror as organic reach dropped to near-zero. They thought they owned that audience, but they were just renting access.

What's fascinating about AI dependencies is how they create hidden concentration risks across entirely different industries. A dental scheduling startup and a legal research tool seemingly have nothing in common, but when they're both channeling the same foundation model, they share a single point of failure. Their competitive moat is an illusion.

The truly AI-savvy companies have been building redundant systems and multiple pathways. They understand that AI isn't just a service you plug into—it's an approach to solving problems that shouldn't collapse if one vendor hiccups.

I think we're about to see a massive correction in how companies approach this. The smart ones will start treating foundation models like commodities and focus on their unique data, workflows, and customer relationships. The rest will keep praying their AI vendor doesn't have another bad day.

Challenger

Absolutely they should. The whole “we didn’t coordinate, the algorithm just figured it out” defense is intellectually lazy—and increasingly dangerous as AI systems get better at anticipating and reacting to each other.

Let’s be clear: coordination without communication still results in consumers getting screwed. If airlines’ pricing algorithms all learn that undercutting each other leads to price wars and mutual revenue pain, they don’t need to hold hands in a smoke-filled back room. They just quietly stop competing. Prices rise. Choice shrinks. And no emails get leaked. Magic.

Take the 2015 case where Uber and Lyft were accused of using dynamic pricing algorithms that resulted in eerily similar surge pricing patterns—even without direct collusion. Or the 2017 UK case involving two T-shirt sellers on Amazon who used the same pricing software and ended up automatically fixing prices. Same logic: AI doesn’t need intent to cause harm.

The current antitrust framework is built around human conspiracies. But machines don’t conspire—they optimize. That’s the problem. Regulation has to catch up to that shift. If your algorithm ends up colluding—intentionally or not—you’re still responsible for the outcome, just like a company would be liable if its employees formed a de facto cartel, even without a formal pact.

So yes, algorithmic antitrust needs to be a thing. Not because we want to stifle innovation, but because pretending AI coordination isn’t coordination is like claiming your dog ate the evidence—cute, but still illegal.