For much of the last decade, progress in artificial intelligence has been synonymous with scale. Larger models, larger data centers, and larger budgets have defined the pace of advancement. As a result, decentralized AI has often been dismissed as an interesting experiment but an impractical competitor.
That assumption is becoming harder to defend.
Evidence from live decentralized systems suggests that while centralized AI remains larger in absolute terms, decentralized development is advancing at a meaningfully faster rate. In environments where improvement compounds, growth velocity matters more than starting size.
Curated from an article originally written by Andy ττ, this piece examines live performance data from the Bittensor network alongside recent research on decentralized AI training to argue that decentralized AI development is compounding faster than most observers realize.
Growth Rate Over Absolute Scale
Centralized AI systems tend to scale linearly. Development follows a familiar pattern of large releases separated by long training cycles. Improvements are substantial, but infrequent.
Decentralized AI, by contrast, evolves through continuous iteration across many independent actors. On Bittensor, dozens of subnets train, optimize, and deploy models simultaneously and the result has been parallel experimentation rather than serial progress.
Recent performance from IOTA (Subnet 9) illustrates this dynamic. Over a 12-day period in December, the subnet reduced training loss by approximately 21%. Improvements of that magnitude are uncommon in centralized frontier models over such short timeframes.
While decentralized systems remain smaller overall, their rate of improvement is accelerating.
Recursive Improvement is No Longer Theoretical
A critical shift occurs when AI systems begin improving other AI systems. Research has shown this is possible in controlled settings. On Bittensor, it is happening in production.
Apex (Subnet 1), originally designed for algorithmic optimization competitions, has begun optimizing training workflows for IOTA. The recent performance gains on IOTA coincided with strategies discovered and validated through Apex tournaments.
This marks an important transition. Subnets are no longer improving in isolation and they are beginning to form feedback loops where progress in one area directly accelerates progress in another.
Efficiency Over Infrastructure
Recent research has challenged the assumption that only massive infrastructure produces meaningful AI gains. Results from several Bittensor subnets support this view.
The improvements were achieved quickly and with modest infrastructure, highlighting the effectiveness of specialization and focused optimization.
These results align with broader findings that better data selection, training strategies, and evaluation frameworks can outperform brute force scaling.
An Emerging Decentralized AI Stack
Bittensor is beginning to resemble a modular AI stack rather than a collection of independent projects.
For example, pre-training is handled by subnets such as Templar and IOTA, post-training and refinement are handled by Gradients, reinforcement learning is provided by Grail, and optimization emerges from Apex.
Also, deployment and inference are supported by revenue generating subnets like Chutes.
Each layer operates independently, yet improvements propagate across the network. This structure enables experimentation at every stage of the AI lifecycle without requiring centralized coordination.
Specialized Systems Outperform General Models
Another advantage of decentralized development is specialization. Rather than training general purpose models, many subnets on Bittensor focus narrowly on specific tasks, for example:
a. Ridges (Subnet 62) has achieved state-of-the-art performance on production grade coding benchmarks,
b. NOVA (Subnet 68) has delivered drug discovery results comparable to centralized pharmaceutical tools,
c. Score (Subnet 44) has deployed computer vision systems in real-world environments, and
d. Zeus (Subnet 18) has improved weather forecasting accuracy beyond existing baselines.
These systems often outperform larger general models while consuming less compute and serving well defined use cases.
Economic Validation is Emerging
Decentralized AI is also beginning to demonstrate economic viability.
Several subnets now generate recurring revenue, including Chutes and Leadpoet. These results are particularly notable following recent emission reductions, which have increased pressure on subnets to deliver real utility.
The network is increasingly rewarding efficiency, specialization, and market fit rather than experimentation alone.
Why This Trajectory Matters
Centralized AI development is constrained by organizational structure. One team, one roadmap, and one training pipeline limits how quickly new approaches can be tested and adopted.
Decentralized AI, by contrast, evolves through selection. Hundreds of independent experiments run in parallel, while successful strategies spread, inefficient ones disappear.
This dynamic historically favors decentralized systems over time.
A Shift Already Underway
Decentralized AI is not yet larger than centralized AI but size is not the decisive factor. Rapid improvement in training efficiency, recursive optimization between subnets, and the rise of specialized production systems suggest that decentralized development is moving faster than commonly assumed.
The most important question may no longer be whether decentralized AI can compete, but how long it takes before its growth rate reshapes the broader AI landscape.
Be the first to comment