Swarm Intelligence Is Reshaping How AI Gets Trained

A decentralized AI training swarm could be more cost effective, equitable and inclusive that current ... More closed AI training approaches.
It's no secret that current AI models are built behind closed doors in secrecy and seclusion. Only a handful of Big Tech companies hold the keys to those doors, the massive server centers, petabytes of data, training pipelines and protocols. The artificial intelligence models they produce are locked away behind their self-serving black boxes of seeming techno wizardry that the public can query but never really understand, influence or change. A ballsy decentralized AI start-up called Macrocosmos wants to change that.
With the relaunch of Subnet 9 on the Bittensor network — think of a subnet as a mobile phone app and Bittensor as an app store — Macrocosmos is taking the first meaningful step toward a more democratic future for artificial intelligence. The clue to how they've achieved this feat is captured in the subnet's new acronym, IOTA: Incentivized Orchestrated Training Architecture. This construct allows anyone with a graphic processing unit, no matter how modest, to help train cutting edge AI models.
Based on a novel 'swarm" approach, which is a theoretical pre training strategy for AI, Macrocosmos' breakthrough resolves key challenges around data and model compression, as explained in their white paper published on Friday. At its core is a vision that reimagines how intelligence is built and who gets to participate in that process.
'We are single-minded and obsessed in our pursuit of building competitive decentralized technologies that can compete with centralized labs,' wrote Macrocosmos CTO Steffen Cruz in a post on X.
Before we can understand swarm training, we need to understand the key differences between traditional AI and decentralized AI. At its simplest, decentralized AI means that the training of an AI model doesn't happen in one place or under the control of one company. Instead, it's spread out, distributed — across homes, labs, campuses and servers anywhere in the world. The same way that Bitcoin decentralized money away from centralized banks, Bittensor and Macrocosmos aim to democratize intelligence itself.
This matters because AI is infiltrating more and more of our lives. It's deciding what news we see, what products we are offered, how we shop, how we interact with each other, how we work and even how we're hired. Concentrating that power within a few cabalistic computing systems risks not just privacy or fairness, but the future of innovation itself. By opening those locked doors to public participation and direct engagement, decentralized AI offers a new kind of alignment — one where users are also co-creators.
'Not only is this a new research endeavor for Macrocosmos and Bittensor, but it's something bigger and more personal to us,' Cruz added. 'We are scientists, researchers and developers.'
Swarm training, as deployed by Macrocosmos through IOTA, takes cues from the natural world. Similar to how a swarm of bees, school of fish or a flock of birds can accomplish complex navigation without central control, this novel subnet enables thousands of independent machines to orchestrate and collaborate on training a single massive AI model.
Instead of forcing each network participant to download and run the full model — a costly and impractical ask — Macrocosmos uses a technique called model parallelism. Each subnet member — also called a miner since their actions 'mine' actual monetary incentives that benefit the entire network — trains just one slice of the model, typically a few layers of the neural network. As data flows through those individual layers, each miner processes their portion and passes the output forward. Then, a lightning fast reverse review grades how far off the model was and adjusts miner payouts accordingly.
This approach isn't just efficient than centralized methods — it's more inclusive. Rather than requiring top-tier hardware, the architecture allows both low- and high-compute participants to contribute meaningfully. This breaks down the barriers to entry that have long kept open-source communities at the margins of AI model training.
To understand the difference between how traditional AI models are trained and what Macrocosmos is doing, this graphic offers a useful side-by-side comparison:
This side-by-side comparison depicts the differences between centralized and decentralized AI ... More training.
In centralized training, one model is split into layers that are tightly linked across GPUs within a single data center. Everything is optimized for high-speed local connections. But this setup is expensive, exclusive and closed.
In contrast, the decentralized swarm training distributes different layers of the model across a global network of contributors or miners. Each of these individuals handles a piece of the workload and communicates their results with others. The swarm system regularly syncs up all the parts into a single, shared model. Instead of requiring giant compute clusters, it leverages a far flung spectrum of connected devices — ranging from a personal desktop GPU to larger industrial setups.
The outcome? Lower costs, more transparency and an AI model built by the many, not the few.
However, training models this way has its challenges. Internet bandwidth is a lot slower than the fiber optics inside a data center. And decentralized participants can drop out, try to cheat the incentive system or go offline at a moment's notice without warning.
While some of those issues are beyond Macrocosmos' control, they have developed an elegant solution for potential problems tied to miner incentives and rewards. The design of its new IOTA network overcomes three big challenges:
In this video clip, the firm's co-founders Cruz and Will Squires discuss why decentralized training matters, and how it can open a new era for AI.
This is more than a technical upgrade — it's a seismic philosophical shift. For years, decentralized AI projects have relied on centralized training behind the scenes. Macrocosmos is finally changing that.
'The time has come for us to move forward as a community and tackle new challenges in model training. This is an imperative for Bittensor. The competition are at our heels,' Cruz added.
'We beat nation states, we tirelessly benchmarked our progress and we shared our findings in our white paper. It was a fantastic experiment, and we pushed it far beyond its original design.'
This effort to distribute AI's compute and ownership to all comers through swarm training enables a future reality where AI isn't something reserved for elite power brokers while inferential dregs are grudgingly dripped to the masses. It's a collective thing we build together.
Macrocosmos is taking decentralized training out of Big Tech's locked, walled garden and into the wild. If they're successful, the next breakthrough frontier AI model might not come from OpenAI, Google or Meta — but rather from a swarm of us.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Medscape

22 minutes ago

• Medscape

Fewer ECG Abnormalities in Early T2D With Combo Therapy

TOPLINE: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) of less than 10 years' duration who were taking metformin monotherapy, ECG abnormalities — including evidence of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy — were common and associated with cardiovascular risk factors. After adding one of four frequently used glucose-lowering agents to metformin, fewer major ECG changes occurred with liraglutide than with the other treatments. METHODOLOGY: Researchers aimed to examine ECG abnormalities and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy across the different glucose-lowering treatment groups in 5029 participants (mean age, 57.2 years; diabetes duration, 4.2 years; A1c level, 7.5%; 36.4% women) from the GRADE trial. The participants had T2D for less than 10 years and were initially taking metformin monotherapy before being randomly assigned to receive metformin plus one of four commonly used glucose-lowering agents (insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin). Patients were followed up for an average of 5 years. Resting ECGs were recorded at baseline and at 2‐ and 4‐year follow-ups and analyzed for overall, major, and minor abnormalities, as well as heart rate variability — a measure of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. TAKEAWAY: More than half of participants in the GRADE trial had ECG abnormalities (57.1%) and ECG-defined cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (52.8%) at baseline. The presence of these abnormalities was associated with longer diabetes duration, higher systolic blood pressure, greater prevalence of hyperlipidemia, more frequent use of lipid-lowering treatment, and beta-blocker use. Major ECG abnormalities occurred less frequently in the liraglutide group than in the other treatment groups (9% vs 13% at 4 years). Researchers found no significant differences in ECG-defined cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy between the liraglutide and non-liraglutide groups at 2 and 4 years (P = .42). IN PRACTICE: "ECG abnormalities, including those of CAN [cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy], are common in T2D < 10 years and are associated with certain CV [cardiovascular] risk factors. The development of major ECG abnormalities may differ by glucose-lowering treatment, as fewer occurred with liraglutide vs the other treatments," the authors concluded. SOURCE: The study was led by Rodica Pop-Busui, MD, PhD, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. The results were presented on June 20 at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions, being held June 20-23 at the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago, Illinois. LIMITATIONS: This abstract did not discuss any limitations. DISCLOSURES: Some authors disclosed receiving research support, consulting fees; serving on boards, advisory panels; being stock/shareholders; or other relationships with pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies and institutions. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Yahoo

29 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Iran Stands Alone Against Trump and Israel, Stripped of Allies

(Bloomberg) -- Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the US and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by US President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decades-long alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly. Since Israel started strikes on Iran on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of goals beyond neutering Tehran's nuclear threat, even hinting at regime change. But the risk is that an isolated Iran could become more unpredictable with its once-steadfast allies keeping their distance. 'As Iran faces its most critical military test in decades, further tangible assistance from either Moscow or Beijing remains unlikely,' said Bloomberg Economics analysts including Adam Farrar and Dina Esfandiary. 'While both maintain bilateral strategic partnerships with Tehran, neither Russia nor China is a formal military ally, and neither is likely to provide significant military or economic aid due to their own limitations and broader strategic considerations.' Iran isn't getting any support, either, from the BRICS grouping of emerging markets that purports to want a new global order that's not dominated by Western nations. The organization — set up by Brazil, Russia, India and China and which Iran joined in early 2024 — has been silent over Israel and the US's attacks on the Islamic Republic. Iran signed a strategic cooperation treaty with Russia in January and it was a vital source of combat drones early in President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, Russian officials have made clear the pact includes no mutual-defense obligations and that Moscow has no intention of supplying Iran with weapons, even as they say Tehran hasn't asked for any. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Turkey on Sunday he plans to travel to Moscow to discuss the situation with Putin on Monday. He can expect warm words and little practical support. That's a far cry from 2015, when Russia joined Iran in sending forces to Syria to save the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, which was eventually toppled by rebels last year. Moscow risks losing another key ally in the Middle East if the government in Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei falls. Yet while the Kremlin has condemned the Israeli and US attacks, Putin is distracted and stretched — militarily and economically — by his war in Ukraine. China, too, 'strongly' condemned the US strikes as a breach of international law. But it hasn't offered assistance to Iran, which sells some 90% of its oil exports to Beijing. Iran's Gulf neighbors urged restraint and warned of potentially devastating implications for the region if Iran retaliates against US assets in the Middle East. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent months trying to use their geopolitical and economic heft to bolster nuclear talks between the Americans and Iran. In the end, the talks have been overtaken by military power. Iran's proxy militant groups are mostly absent too. Hezbollah in Lebanon, hitherto the most potent member of Tehran's 'axis of resistance' was pummeled by Israeli forces last year, much as Hamas was. Israeli strikes on Assad's military in Syria, meanwhile, played a part in his government's collapse. Hezbollah still poses a threat and on Sunday the US ordered family members and non-emergency government personnel to leave Lebanon. Still, the group's not threatened to back Iran by firing on Israel, as it did right after Hamas' attack in 2023. The Houthis in Yemen are an exception and hours about the US strikes on Iran, they issued fresh threats against US commercial and naval ships. Yet they risk another American bombardment like that one Trump ordered before a truce with the group in May. The Europeans, meanwhile, are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of swaying Trump and Israel, and Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have historically held an important role in the Middle East. They represented the dominant economies in Europe. The first two were colonial powers in the region and in the case of Germany, given its Nazi past, there was a strong pro-Israel voice. Both the UK and France have had to handle a vocal voter constituency that was pro Palestinian and complicated their messaging. That was not always an easy needle to thread. The current UK government is led by Labour, whose legacy was damaged by Tony Blair's decision to join US President George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq in 2003. So for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has finally wrested control of the country from Conservatives, there is no upside to supporting any US military involvement. Trump didn't seem to need it, and the UK was happy to stay out of it even though it has enough of a presence that it could have been useful. Europeans find themselves sidelined with little power to influence the outcome. At the Group of Seven summit, Trump put France's President Emmanuel Macron in his place for suggesting the US was working toward a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. That did not stop Macron from working the phones, but the harsh reality that has filtered through is that Europe has its own existential crisis much closer to home. It needs Trump to at least make a cameo in The Hague for a NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. The organization's leaders want assurances the US post-World War II commitment to stop Russian expansionism still stands. Europe has provided back channels for Iran in the past. In a climate where Europe and the US aren't working together on Iran, it's possible some valuable diplomatic signaling may be lost. That's one side effect of the US going it alone and of Europe being a bit player, as the crisis in the Middle East deepens. --With assistance from Eric Martin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

TechCrunch

36 minutes ago

• TechCrunch

The stablecoin evangelist: Katie Haun's fight for digital dollars

In 2018, when Bitcoin was trading around $4,000 and most Americans, at least, thought cryptocurrency was a fad, Katie Haun found herself on a debate stage in Mexico City opposite Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had dismissed digital assets as near worthless. As Krugman focused on Bitcoin's wild price swings, Haun steered the conversation toward something else — stablecoins. 'Stablecoins are really interesting and really important to this ecosystem to hedge against that volatility,' she argued on stage, explaining how digital tokens pegged to the U.S. dollar could offer the benefits of blockchain technology without the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies. Krugman dismissed the idea entirely. It wasn't exactly a turning point in Haun's career, but it was one moment among others that have helped define it. A former federal prosecutor who had spent more than a decade investigating financial crimes, including creating the government's first cryptocurrency task force and leading investigations into the Mt. Gox hack and corrupt agents in the Silk Road case, Haun had an unusual background for a crypto champion. She wasn't a libertarian ideologue or a tech founder. Coming instead from law enforcement, she understood the criminal potential and legitimate uses of digital assets. By 2018, she had already made history as the first female partner at Andreessen Horowitz, where she co-led their crypto funds. Founding Haun Ventures in 2022, with more than $1.5 billion in assets under management — its team is now investing from a brand-new set of funds that have yet to officially close — she has been even more free to pursue her specific convictions about the future of money. The leap to hanging her own shingle hasn't been without its complexities. Despite her role at a16z and the industry connections that came with it, the two haven't publicly co-invested in anything since early 2022, shortly after she launched her fund, and Haun, who joined the board of Coinbase in 2017, stepped off it last year, while Marc Andreessen, who took colleague Chris Dixon's seat in 2020, remains a director. When asked Wednesday night at TechCrunch's StrictlyVC event about her relationship with Andreessen Horowitz, she downplayed any potential friction while acknowledging they aren't collaborators exactly. 'There's no gentleman's agreement,' she said, echoing this editor's question about whether there's any understanding to avoid competing with her former employer. 'In fact, I still talk to Andreessen Horowitz. You're right that we haven't really done any deals together of late.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW The apparent lack of co-investment could reflect the cutthroat industry or the challenges associated with leaving one of Silicon Valley's most prominent firms to compete directly with former colleagues. Whatever the case, Haun is now charting her own course, and at the heart of it is stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to traditional assets like the U.S. dollar. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, which can swing wildly in value, stablecoins like Circle's USDC or Tether's USDT are meant to trade at exactly $1, creating a digital representation of traditional currency that can move on blockchain networks. Indeed, fast-forward to today, and Haun's belief in stablecoins looks increasingly prescient. Stablecoins — which barely existed in 2015 — now represent a quarter of a trillion dollars in value. They've become the 14th largest holder of U.S. Treasuries globally, recently surpassing both Germany and Norway. For the first time this year, stablecoin transaction volume exceeded Visa's. 'I think people who looked at stablecoins a few years ago thought, what is the value prop?' Haun said Wednesday night. 'You've asked me this before. You said, 'Why do I need stablecoins?' And I said, 'I refer to this as an 'If it works for me, it works for everyone' problem.' In reality, for most Americans, the existing financial system works reasonably well. We have Venmo, bank accounts, credit cards. But Haun, drawing on her prosecutor's understanding of global financial systems, says she has long been aware that the U.S. experience isn't universal. In countries with unstable currencies or limited banking infrastructure, stablecoins offer something unique, she argues, which is instant access to stable, dollar-denominated value that can be sent anywhere in the world for pennies. 'People in Turkey don't think of Tether as a cryptocurrency,' she said Wednesday, 'They think of Tether as money.' The technology has evolved dramatically since those early debates, certainly. Stablecoins once cost $12 to send internationally. And Circle says its USDC stablecoin is fully backed one-to-one by dollars held in JP Morgan bank accounts and audited by Big Four accounting firms. It's important to note that while Circle and Tether are committed to having enough reserves to support their tokens, unlike traditional banks, there's no insured government protection behind these reserves. Still, the corporate world is taking notice in a big way. Walmart and Amazon are reportedly exploring stablecoins, as are other goliaths like Uber, Apple, and Airbnb. The reason is simple economics. Stablecoins provide a way to move the value of U.S. dollars using cryptocurrency rails instead of traditional banking infrastructure, potentially saving these retail-heavy companies billions in processing fees. But the shift has critics worried about economic chaos. If major corporations can issue their own currencies, what happens to monetary policy and banking regulation? The concerns run deeper than just economic disruption. Not all stablecoins are created equal, and many lack the backing and oversight that companies like Circle provide. While well-regulated stablecoins like USDC are backed by actual dollars in U.S. Treasury securities, others operate with less transparency or rely on complex algorithmic mechanisms that have proven vulnerable to collapse. (TerraUSD has had the most specular crash to date, wiping out $60 billion in value when it nosedived.) Corruption concerns in particular came into sharp focus recently when President Donald Trump's family issued its own stablecoin, a move that highlighted potential conflicts of interest in an industry where political influence can directly impact market value and regulatory outcomes. These concerns came to a head as Congress debated the GENIUS Act, legislation that would create a federal framework for stablecoin regulation. The bill passed the Senate early last week with bipartisan support, with 14 Democrats crossing party lines to support it. It now awaits a House vote before potentially reaching the president's desk. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, has been particularly vocal in her opposition, calling the legislation a 'superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption.' Her criticism centers on a notable gap in the bill: while it prohibits members of Congress and senior executive branch officials from issuing stablecoin products, it says nothing about their family members. Asked about Warren's concerns on Wednesday night, Haun practically rolled her eyes. 'I think it's really ironic that Elizabeth Warren or other Democrats who do call this corruption are not running to pass crypto legislation,' she said. 'Had there been rules of the road in place [already], there would have been a framework, there would have been clear rules for what's a security, what's a commodity, and what are the consumer protections around that.' Haun, whose venture capital firm has made numerous stablecoin investments including Bridge (acquired by Stripe for reportedly 10 times forward revenue), is largely supportive of the legislation, unsurprisingly. But she has one notable criticism: the bill's prohibition on yield-bearing stablecoins. 'I'm not sure that yield-bearing stablecoins are a good idea for consumers in the U.S., but I'm not sure that a prohibition is a good idea,' she told StrictlyVC attendees. The issue comes down to who profits from the interest earned on stablecoin reserves. Currently, that money goes to companies like Circle and Coinbase. But Haun wonders why consumers shouldn't get that yield, just like they would with a savings account. 'If you had a savings account or checking account and you're getting yield on that, you're getting interest,' she explained. 'What if you just said, 'No, the bank gets interest, not you,' and they're lending out your money?' Haun was less nuanced when it comes to another Warren concern: that if the GENIUS Act is signed into law, stablecoins could become a vehicle for money laundering and terrorism financing. 'Criminals are great beta testers of all technologies,' said Haun. 'But this technology is highly traceable, way more traceable than cash. The largest criminal instrument is the dollar bill.' (According to Haun, the Treasury Department has testified that 99.9% of money laundering crimes succeed using traditional bank wires, not cryptocurrency.) Meanwhile, she said, the regulatory clarity that legislation like the GENIUS Act provides could actually make the system safer by distinguishing between legitimate, well-backed stablecoins from more experimental or risky variants. In fact, as the stablecoin ecosystem continues to mature, Haun sees even bigger changes ahead. She envisions a future where all kinds of assets — from money market funds to real estate to private credit — get 'tokenized' and made available 24/7 to global markets. 'It's just a digital representation of a physical asset,' she explains. 'BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, they've already tokenized their money market funds. That's already happened.' According to Haun, tokenized assets could democratize access to investments in ways similar to how Netflix democratized entertainment. Instead of having to be wealthy enough to meet minimum investment thresholds, someone with $25 and a smartphone could buy fractional ownership in a share of Apple or Amazon, for example. 'Just because something's inevitable doesn't mean it's imminent,' Haun said on Wednesday. But she's confident the transformation is coming, driven by the same forces that made stablecoins successful: they're faster, cheaper, and more accessible than traditional alternatives. Looking back at that 2018 debate with Krugman, Haun's persistence seems to have paid off. A major question now isn't whether digital dollars will reshape the financial system but perhaps more importantly, whether regulators can keep pace with the technology while addressing legitimate concerns about corruption, consumer protection, and financial stability. Haun doesn't seem concerned. While critics point to the fact that stablecoins represent just 2% of global payments, questioning their product-market fit, Haun sees this as a familiar tech adoption story — one that has played out repeatedly and often takes longer than people initially imagine. 'We think it's really early days,' she told the crowd.