> If you have to pay $X for AI inference, then it proves that the work is worth at least $X to you... Which suggests the obvious marketplace scheme: Compute pro

> If you have to pay $X for AI inference, then it proves that the work is worth at least $X to you... Which suggests the obvious marketplace scheme: Compute providers are paid (or credited) $X/k to contribute their nodes to the network, and users pay $X for inference. Yes, and that seems good > (inevitably, someone will implement this with o.g. bitcoin and we can all cry.) Why should we cry? If the person providing the GPU in the distributed inference system can be "credited" on a ledger with some unit that will let them use other people's GPU to do their own inference in the future (and proportionally to what they themselves provided in the past), I see that as a way to arbitrate between present and future wants for GPU capacity. You may have little use for your GPU 24/7, so you could let it chew numbers to fulfil other people AI needs, but tou may not want to do that if you're left with the electricity bill! Yet if in return you would be provided with some credit that lets you use other people GPU when you need it, you may be more willing to be cooperative instead of keeping your computer turned off ur using your GPU just for yourself. There's also a mutual interest in cooperation: I wouldn't cry if I need in 1 second more than my GPU could do in 1 hour, and if this scheme existed, as it'd mean I wouldn't have to wait. You shouldn't cry either: if you have contributed to the network for say 2 days in the past, you can "redeem" the equivalent of these computations immediately in 2 seconds, which is better than waiting or paying to use a company API. The accounting may seem futile, but I think it ensures you can't waste more resources that what you provide: this is the proportionality between past/present/future wants for GPU (no leeching) Can you explain me what you mean by "cry", or why you imply it would be a bad thing?