Who Pays for AI’s Data Hunger?

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

The current machine learning ecosystem is built on an unsustainable foundation of inequitable data access, demanding a new approach to value sharing.

This review proposes a framework for equitable data exchange to build a sustainable AI economy, focusing on provenance, valuation, and synthetic data solutions.

Despite the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, the machine learning value chain faces a fundamental sustainability problem: value concentrates with aggregators while diminishing returns flow to data generators. In “A Sustainable AI Economy Needs Data Deals That Work for Generators,” we analyze seventy-three public data deals to demonstrate this economic data processing inequality, revealing near-zero creator royalties and widespread opacity. This inequity isn’t merely a welfare concern, but a systemic risk to the feedback loops driving algorithmic learning. Can a framework like our proposed Equitable Data-Value Exchange (EDVEX) reshape data deals to foster a more transparent and sustainable AI ecosystem?

The Data Extraction Racket: Who Really Benefits?

The contemporary economic landscape is fundamentally reshaped by data, now considered a crucial component alongside traditional factors of production like labor and capital. However, this reliance on data as a primary economic input is creating demonstrable imbalances in wealth distribution. While data generation is often widespread, with contributions from numerous individuals and devices, the resulting economic benefits accrue disproportionately to those who control the infrastructure for data collection, processing, and analysis. This dynamic isn’t simply a matter of technological progress; it represents a systemic shift where the value created from collective data contributions is not equitably shared, fostering conditions where existing economic disparities are exacerbated and new forms of inequality emerge. The increasing concentration of wealth derived from data highlights a growing need to re-evaluate existing economic models and consider mechanisms for more inclusive value capture.

A subtle but pervasive economic exchange is reshaping modern interactions: the ‘Data for Service’ transaction. Individuals routinely provide personal information in return for access to digital services – social media, search engines, even basic utilities – often without fully understanding the extent of data collected or the potential value it holds. This isn’t necessarily a conscious trade; rather, lengthy terms of service and complex privacy policies obscure the true cost of these ‘free’ services. Consequently, valuable data – detailing preferences, behaviors, and even intimate details of daily life – is relinquished without direct compensation or true ownership retained by the individual. This systematic transfer of personal data fuels numerous industries, yet the benefits rarely accrue to those who generated the information in the first place, creating a growing disparity between data producers and those who profit from its analysis.

The modern data economy operates through a complex ‘Machine Learning Value Chain’, and a recent analysis of 73 publicly disclosed data deals illuminates a significant imbalance in value distribution. This chain sees ‘Data Aggregators’ – entities specializing in the collection and packaging of information – capturing a disproportionately large share of the economic benefits. While downstream actors utilize this aggregated data for developing valuable machine learning applications, the initial providers of the raw information – often individuals – receive minimal or no compensation. This structure concentrates wealth upstream, creating a system where the entities facilitating data transfer benefit far more than those whose data fuels the entire process, ultimately fostering economic inequity and raising questions about the fairness of data-driven value creation.

Data Provenance and the Illusion of Ownership

Invisible Provenance refers to the systematic loss of information detailing the origin and processing history of data. This occurs through the stripping of metadata – data about data – and the lack of consistent recording of data lineage, which tracks the data’s transformations from creation to current form. Consequently, establishing clear ownership and verifying the authenticity of data becomes difficult. The absence of this crucial information hinders the ability to accurately attribute value to data contributions and effectively enforce royalty payments or licensing agreements, creating systemic issues for Data Generators attempting to monetize their contributions.

Economic Data Processing Inequality is exacerbated by a systemic lack of data traceability, obscuring the contributions of Data Generators. Analysis of 73 data deals revealed that 57, or 78%, do not publicly disclose revenue information, indicating a significant absence of transparency regarding financial compensation. This lack of publicly available revenue data hinders assessment of fair value exchange and prevents verification of appropriate remuneration for data contributors, ultimately contributing to an imbalanced economic relationship between data aggregators and those who generate the initial data.

Inefficient price discovery in data markets stems from the absence of standardized, dynamic pricing models. Currently, data valuation relies heavily on manual negotiation and often lacks transparency, resulting in prices that do not accurately reflect the data’s inherent value or potential utility. This is exacerbated by the difficulty in quantifying data quality, relevance, and scarcity. The lack of established benchmarks and real-time market signals prevents effective price discovery, leading to suboptimal outcomes for both data generators and consumers. Consequently, data is frequently under- or over-valued, hindering efficient allocation and innovation within the data economy.

Analysis of 73 data deals reveals a significant power imbalance favoring data aggregators over individual data generators, manifesting as asymmetric bargaining power. Specifically, only 6 of the analyzed agreements include provisions for revenue-sharing with the contributors of the underlying data. This lack of revenue-share mechanisms indicates a systemic disadvantage for data generators, who often lack the resources or leverage to negotiate equitable terms with aggregators possessing greater financial and legal capacity. The prevalence of deals lacking revenue-share suggests a market structure where value accrues disproportionately to those controlling data aggregation and processing, rather than to those generating the initial data inputs.

Reclaiming Control: Data Unions and Synthetic Solutions

Data Unions represent a novel approach to data governance, enabling individual data generators to collectively negotiate terms of data usage and revenue sharing with data-consuming entities. These unions function by aggregating data contributions from numerous participants, thereby increasing the collective bargaining power that any single individual lacks. This aggregated approach allows for standardized contracts, transparent revenue distribution models, and potentially, fairer compensation for data provision. The structure of a Data Union can vary, ranging from formal cooperatives to decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), but the core principle remains consistent: to shift the balance of power from data processors to those who generate the data itself, fostering a more equitable data economy.

Data Unions function by combining the datasets of individual data generators – often consumers or small businesses – into a larger, collectively-managed resource. This aggregation directly addresses the current imbalance of bargaining power that favors data-collecting entities. Individually, these generators possess limited negotiating leverage; however, as a unified group, they can negotiate terms for data usage, access, and revenue sharing with significantly increased efficacy. The collective structure allows for standardized contracts, transparent revenue distribution models, and the potential to demand fair compensation for data utilized by larger organizations. This shifts the dynamic from a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario to a more equitable negotiation, fostering a more balanced data economy.

Synthetic data, artificially generated data that mimics the statistical properties of real data, presents a viable alternative to direct reliance on personally identifiable information (PII). This data is created algorithmically, allowing for the preservation of data utility while minimizing privacy risks associated with direct data sharing. Current advancements focus on techniques like Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) to produce high-fidelity synthetic datasets. These datasets can be used for model training, testing, and analysis without exposing sensitive individual records, addressing key concerns related to data ownership and compliance with regulations like GDPR and CCPA. The utility of synthetic data is contingent on its accurate representation of the original data’s statistical characteristics and avoidance of re-identification risks, areas of ongoing research and development.

The pursuit of a truly equitable data exchange, as outlined in the paper’s EDVEX framework, feels…familiar. It’s a recurring pattern: elegant solutions proposed, complexity embraced, and then, inevitably, the reality of production systems asserting themselves. Ken Thompson observed, “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not going to be able to debug it.” This sentiment applies perfectly to the data economy; striving for perfect valuation and provenance is laudable, but the inherent messiness of real-world data-and the incentives to game any system-suggests a constant state of refinement will be necessary. The notion of ‘sustainable’ often proves optimistic when faced with economic pressures and the unpredictable behavior of those participating in the machine learning value chain.

What Breaks Down From Here?

The proposal for an Equitable Data Exchange – EDVEX – feels, predictably, like a beautifully crafted solution to a problem production will inevitably mutate. Establishing provenance at scale is rarely as clean as a blockchain diagram suggests; edge cases bloom exponentially. The paper rightly identifies value distribution as the core ailment, but quantifying ‘value’ in a machine learning pipeline is an exercise in applied hope. Tests are a form of faith, not certainty, and the market will find inventive ways to externalize costs – or simply ignore the framework if it impacts short-term gains.

Synthetic data, offered as a potential palliative, introduces its own flavor of uncertainty. It shifts the problem from acquiring labeled examples to verifying the fidelity of the simulation. The incentive structures around maintaining representative synthetic datasets are, as yet, largely unaddressed. One anticipates a thriving market for ‘reality injection’ services – patching synthetic worlds to avoid catastrophic model drift.

The true test won’t be the elegance of the EDVEX proposal, but its resilience against the predictable messiness of implementation. The paper maps a desirable state; the field now requires a detailed taxonomy of failure. Because, ultimately, it isn’t about building a sustainable economy. It’s about building something that doesn’t completely fall apart before Tuesday.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.09966.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-01-16 13:35