PRESENTED BY PACE CAPITAL
We recommend you experience this on desktop
INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS

AI GAME
THEORY

HOW TO USERUN AN ANALYSIS
  1. 01

    Choose the game. Pick the control point you want to analyze: intelligence, distribution, execution, inference, data, or users.

  2. 02

    Select the players. Choose one for a strategic dossier or add a second for a bilateral game.

  3. 03

    Compare the result. Switch games or players to see how leverage, strategic responses, and contested learning change.

HOW TO USE3 STEPS
  1. 01

    Choose the game. Pick the control point you want to analyze: intelligence, distribution, execution, inference, data, or users.

  2. 02

    Select the players. Choose one for a strategic dossier or add a second for a bilateral game.

  3. 03

    Compare the result. Switch games or players to see how leverage, strategic responses, and contested learning change.

How bargaining power compoundsWhat a player controls and whether it can switch suppliers or walk away determine its bargaining power. Bargaining power shapes how much of today’s profits and tomorrow’s moats the player keeps. Profits can be reinvested to stay essential, while learning can create better alternatives for the next round.WHAT THEPLAYERCONTROLSABILITY TOSWITCH ORWALK AWAYTODAY'SPROFITSKEPTTOMORROW'SMOATSBUILTPLAYER'SBARGAININGPOWER
FIG 1.0 / THE BARGAINING LOOPCONTROL + THE ABILITY TO WALK AWAY CREATE POWER
POWER DECIDES WHO KEEPS TODAY'S PROFITS + BUILDS TOMORROW'S MOATS
CENTRAL THESIS

AI is an ongoing negotiation over two things: today's profits and tomorrow's moats.

Each player wants to control a scarce bottleneck, turn dependencies into commodities, and keep the learning that comes from genuine usage. Capital can compound those positions, while different payoff functions determine what each player considers rational.

GAME ENGINESELECTION LIMIT: 02

PLAYER
SANDBOX

Inspect what each player wants, what it fears, how capital compounds scale, and which hidden payoff functions or conflicts shape its choices.

SELECT ONE MORE PLAYER TO COMPARE
ChipsPLAYER 2
AI ISN'T ONE GAMEWhich game are you analyzing?
CROSS-CUTTING PLAYER / NOT A LAYER
CAPITAL + LEARNING are state variables: each round changes who can afford and understand the next
PLAYER L-01 / STRATEGIC DOSSIER

Chips & systems

Commoditize intelligence; preserve computation.

01

Strategic position

The chip company’s ideal world contains thousands of capable models, millions of applications, and no model provider powerful enough to dictate infrastructure economics.

Models are complements to compute. More models create more training; cheaper models create more deployment. The objective is not openness in the abstract, but abundant demand for a scarce computing platform.

At sufficient scale, the balance sheet becomes part of the product. Vendor investment, capacity purchases, anchor contracts, and an ecosystem’s ability to borrow against contracted demand or GPU assets can help new clouds and data centers win scarce deployment slots. That creates buyers, expands the installed base, and can reinforce the vendor’s standard before competitors can match the footprint.1

STRATEGIC NOTES
  1. The financing loop is broader than a chip vendor directly making every loan. A neocloud can use contracted demand and GPU-backed assets to raise project or asset-backed debt, while a platform supplier can reinforce the loop through equity investment, purchase commitments, capacity agreements, software support, and ecosystem signaling. In CoreWeave’s case, public filings describe debt used to acquire GPU servers while NVIDIA has also been a supplier, shareholder, and strategic partner. The relevant game-theory point is that capital access can help create the demand signal from which the platform benefits.

KEEPS SCARCEEfficient compute and the software ecosystem around it
WANTS COMMODITIZEDModels and applications
GAME 1Who owns intelligence?Capability gaps, release strategy, and substitutability

This role does not control models and model rights directly, but can still change the terms through what it supplies or withholds. Its leverage rises when advanced capacity is scarce and architectures change quickly, and falls when supply catches up or stable workloads migrate to custom silicon.

02

What chips want

Fragmented model demand

Many independent model builders broaden the market for compute and prevent one customer from dictating infrastructure economics.

Elastic inference growth

Usage must expand faster than efficiency reduces compute per task, or cheaper intelligence will compress hardware demand.

Financeable customers

Neoclouds and data-center developers need contracts, collateral, and credible sponsors that lower their cost of capital and let them reserve more capacity.

Technical instability

Rapid architectural change preserves the value of flexible, programmable accelerators over workload-specific custom silicon.

Platform dependence

Customers should build around the chip company’s software, networking, and systems so switching hardware remains costly.

Distributed buyer power

No frontier lab or cloud should become large enough to act as a dominant buyer and negotiate away the supplier’s margin.

03

What chips fear

Custom silicon

At sufficient scale, a hyperscaler can optimize an accelerator around recurring workload shapes and reduce its exposure to general-purpose GPU economics. Google TPUs and AWS Trainium show this is already a deployed strategy; the constraints are workload fit, software maturity, and utilization, rather than whether custom silicon exists.

Algorithmic efficiency

More value per unit of computation does not automatically increase chip demand. Consumption must expand quickly enough to offset falling compute per task.

Buyer concentration

A few large labs and clouds create a monopsony problem. They can negotiate aggressively, fund substitutes, and determine the shape of advanced demand.

04

How leverage changes

LEVERAGE IS HIGHEST WHEN
  • Advanced capacity is scarce
  • Model architecture changes quickly
  • Software switching costs remain high
  • Demand is distributed across many buyers
LEVERAGE FALLS WHEN
  • Supply catches up
  • A few clouds dominate procurement
  • Inference becomes standardized
  • Custom accelerators become competitive
  • Model efficiency grows faster than demand
05

The major move

Move beyond the chip into networking, systems, software, models, inference, and ecosystem finance, using capital and commitments to expand demand while defending against the possibility that the accelerator itself becomes the replaceable layer.

DEPENDENCY / HOLD-UP RISK

A small number of clouds and labs concentrate procurement and can fund substitutes

OUTSIDE OPTION

Move into networking, systems, software, models, and inference

06

Proprietary learning

Chip companies see which model operations slow down, which parts of their systems are fully used, and which workloads are growing. They use that evidence to decide what the next chips, networks, and software should improve.

07

Who plays this role

PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY

Open models and abundant AI adoption expand the market for computation.

Select any second player from either index to analyze their relationship.