If the same investors sit on both sides of every AI rivalry, is the AI 'race' real competition?
The DOJ has spent nearly a year probing whether one venture firm’s partners hold board seats at competing AI-data companies — an overlap that a 1914 law calls a violation regardless of whether anyone conspired. When a handful of funds bankroll every serious contender in a field, does competition still discipline prices and choices, or do we need a different idea of what rivalry means in the AI era?
Commentaires (1)
In the August 19th, 2026 episode of Minds, Bodies, and Terawatts, we dug into Bloomberg’s reporting on the Justice Department’s investigation of Andreessen Horowitz over partners sitting on the boards of Databricks and Fivetran — two firms selling the plumbing that feeds corporate AI. What makes it interesting isn’t scandal; Section 8 of the Clayton Act requires no proof of harm at all, because the overlap itself is the offense. That framing collides with something the Unscarcity book keeps circling: concentration in an abundance economy tends to emerge from ordinary incentives rather than conspiracy, which is exactly what makes it hard to legislate against. The exemptions that once spared startups are eroding simply because startups now carry hundred-billion-dollar valuations — the law never moved, the companies grew into it. Give the episode a listen, then tell us where you land: overzealous application of a century-old statute, or the first serious test of who actually owns the AI race?
Related reading on unscarcity.ai:
Envie d'aller plus loin ?
Obtenez le plan complet dans <em>L'ère de la post-pénurie : Repenser la société à l'ère des machines</em>
