If you own an at-home server, a gaming computer, or just a laptop that doesn’t get much love, listen up. You can now put that spare computing power to use and earn some passive income in the process. AI companies are hungry for more compute to run AI inference—the process of using a pre-trained model to respond to queries—and they’re willing to pay you for it. “Imagine Uber or Airbnb, but for AI inference computing tasks,” says Ilman Shazhaev, founder and CEO of Far Labs, based in Abu Dhabi. The AI boom has spurred on construction of massive data centers, often damaging local communities by raising electricity prices, straining local water resources, causing environmental damage and noise, and being just plain ugly. Huge data centers are likely not going anywhere—training new frontier models and running AI models from leading companies will likely still be the purview of these behemoths. But now, several companies are providing AI inference on smaller, mostly open-source models. They are running inference on pre-existing computing power spread throughout homes and small businesses, and compensating owners. “Everyone thinks the only way to do it is data centers. And data centers are extractive for the communities in which they’re built, and they don’t return services or taxes or much of anything to the people there. So why not just turn this whole thing on its head?” says John Federico, founder and CEO of Evolving Edge, in Austin, Texas. “The compute power is out there. If you can orchestrate it, then you’re actually adding value to those communities directly.” The idea isn’t entirely new: From 1999 to 2020, a volunteer-based project called SETI@Home used spare computers to search for signs of extraterrestrial life in radio telescope data, for instance. But now, commercial companies are eager to use the same strategy. Shazhaev’s Far Labs is launching its platform Far AI in the coming weeks, while Federico’s Evolving Edge is currently in open beta. Other companies, like Bless Network, Salad, and Gradient have started to provide similar platforms over the last year. Connecting to the network Federico has been a computer hobbyist since youth, and he has amassed a whole server in his basement to run his projects. “It just hit me one day, there’s all this talk about not having enough compute, and I just thought, well, 92 percent of the country has broadband, and you have people like me who have mini data centers in a closet,” he says. Federico sees the potential hosts as people much like himself who have already invested in home servers, and he aims to make the process of selling spare compute as seamless for them as possible. “Sign up for the program, install an application,” Federico says. “All we want to do is run jobs on your machine when you tell us we’re allowed to. The only thing we do is monitor the resource usage. And of course, you can give us a schedule.” With a large enough network of devices, the platform would have compute available whenever it’s needed. Privacy and security are primary concerns for such hosts. To reassure the users that their local data is secure, and that no malware will be downloaded to their devices, the team open-sourced their scheduling software. “The node software is open source, so anyone can look at it, see what it does. All we want to do is run jobs on your machine when you tell us we’re allowed to,” Federico says. Far Labs’ Shazhaev explains that the company’s software is designed around a principle known as “least privilege”: granting both the host and the user the least access possible to accomplish the task. Inference runs as an isolated workload with authenticated, encrypted communication and explicit limits on the GPU, CPU, memory, storage, and network resources it may use. Customers do not receive arbitrary access to the host machine, and providers can inspect resource use, pause the node, revoke access, and remove the software at any time. The protection also works in the other direction. Workloads are segmented and only the minimum required information is exposed to an individual node. Sensitive enterprise workloads can be restricted to controlled hardware rather than routed through consumer devices. Divide and conquer Massive data centers still have advantages from the user perspective: top of the line GPUs and CPUs, high speed networking, thick cables, and sophisticated cooling. User devices are usually less powerful, more varied, and less reliably connected to one another. “This is quite a difficult issue from the science angle,” Shazhaev says. “You want to do a similar level of tasks that are happening in those high infrastructure data centers, and run them on the user device with limited capacity.” Evolving Edge’s Federico says this is an issue for the largest, state-of-the art AI models. But those are not always needed and are often not even preferred. “There are numerous companies, once they reach a certain scale, suddenly paying for tokens on a state-of-the-art frontier model [that] no longer makes sense for their needs,” he says. “Instead, they are fine-tuning open-source models for specific tasks that they have in their business. These models don’t require anywhere near the resources that some of the state-of-the-art models do. It’s just using the right tool for the job.” Smaller, open-source models can often fit on a single user device. But if that fails, there are tools to split a single inference task over multiple GPUs or CPUs. Evolving Edge is using an open-source tool called Ray to perform this splitting, while Far Labs has developed its own proprietary software that not only splits the workload, but wraps the splitting in a layer of security and reliability-providing software. “One thing we have done is we shared the model,” Shazhaev says. “We take the model, we cut it into many pieces, then these pieces will be distributed through different devices. And we have an orchestrator and a load balancer which manage the task flow, so each device processes a part of the task. Then we combine the answers in the main brain, the orchestrator.” Through a combination of using smaller, more task-specific models, and splitting larger models between disparate devices, the teams claim they can perform inference much cheaper than a traditional data center “because we don’t have capital expenditure,” Shazhaev says. Gaming PCs are a common source of spare computational power in the home. Dizzaract The distributed advantage Not only is it cheaper to run inference this way, it is also more reliable, Shazhaev claims. The companies have access to a distributed network of computing resources, rather than one giant device that can experience outages. Shazhaev compares this to cryptocurrencies, and their resilience through decentralization. “Today, to shut down Bitcoin, you need to nuke the whole planet. Here, we have the same concept,” Shazhaev says. Federico explains that this resiliency would be beneficial not just for AI inference, but for all kinds of applications, including smart cities, environmental sensors, autonomous vehicles, and more. During an Amazon Web Services outage in 2026, for example, smart beds were stuck in their upright positions and their users couldn’t adjust them. Federico says that a distributed network where everything doesn’t need to be routed through a single data center, say, in Ashburn, Va., would make those kinds of outages much less impactful. “We could lose 100 nodes in a network of 250,000 and it wouldn’t matter,” he says. If the network of user devices is substantial enough, every job can be routed to a nearby device, decreasing the latency. Far Labs claims a latency of 100 milliseconds or less on its platform. The lower cost and lower latency of this approach may even enable new use cases, such as in-game AI video generation, which is currently prohibitively slow and expensive. “OpenAI last year had $30 billion in revenue, but they closed the financial year at an $8 billion loss. Why? The official reason is due to the high cost of inference,” Shazhaev says. “And those are mostly text models. For gameplay, you have audio, video, animations: It’s heavy data, and you need real-time responses. So, we’ve been trying to solve this issue.” All of these companies are trying to tap into an untapped resource of local compute, and hoping it’ll benefit the device hosts and users alike. “All these big guys are running around building data centers,” Shazhaev says, “but I believe there is enough compute power that already exists in the world.”

When I started at Spectrum 25 years ago, a senior editor suggested that I find a “rabbi,” by which he meant someone who could mentor me in how EEs approach problems and evaluate potential solutions. I didn’t find one right away. Then in 2005 we decided to do a special report, focusing on the challenges of enterprise software development. I suggested we invite IEEE Life Senior Member Robert N. Charette, a self-described risk ecologist, prolific book author, and leading authority on risk management and software engineering, to explore in our pages the myriad reasons software projects fail. His seminal article “Why Software Fails” is still read in university engineering classes today. IEEE Life Senior Member Robert N. Charette is one of IEEE Spectrum’s most prolific authors.Robert N. Charette It was, as they say, the beginning of a beautiful friendship. I had found my rabbi, one who shared my love of writing. We settled into a rhythm that would last more than 20 years, talking on Friday mornings about a range of topics including the growing ubiquity of software in our lives. So when I became Spectrum’s website editor in 2007, he was the first contributor I tapped to start a regular blog (remember those?). The Risk Factor was born and over the course of more than 10 years and 1,750 posts, Bob chronicled hundreds of software debacles, culminating in “Lessons From a Decade of IT Failures,” which won a Jesse H. Neal Award for Best Infographics in 2016. Ironically, yet predictably, those infographics were created in a software package that is no longer supported and thus are lost to the bits of time. “I like the expression on the fish just before it’s going to be swallowed by the heron.”Robert N. Charette Bob, however, was not a one-trick pony. In between his full-time job running his two management consultancies and raising a future biochemist and a future civil engineer, his daughters Maura and Megan, he also wrote many deeply reported and insightful articles. These include last year’s “The Doctor Will See Your Electronic Health Record Now,” the eye-opening 12-part series and e-book The EV Transition Explained, and my personal favorite “Automated to Death,” about the deadly consequences of the automation paradox as manifested by the cyberphysical systems that pilot planes, trains, and automobiles. “The young bald eagle I photographed in September 2024 had bands that I could read which identified it as a female born in May 2024, near Lexington Park, St. Mary’s County, Maryland, about 65 miles away from where I live.”Robert N. Charette His main goal all along has been to make software visible, as he told me one Friday in July. “Software is all around us, but we don’t recognize it at all,” he said. “I really wanted my stories to help people better understand complex software systems. You can’t see software, you can’t touch it, you can’t taste it. You may feel the consequences of software failure, but you never see the reason itself.” When he told me that he was hanging up his hat as a contributing editor to focus on nature photography and to write a handful of fictional trilogies, including one entitled “The STEM Murders” featuring an engineer-turned-detective and his rabbi, I asked him which of his Spectrum articles had the biggest impact. “The hummingbird I caught with the yellow of a road curb behind it.”Robert N. Charette He singled out the 2013 feature “The STEM Crisis Is a Myth.” “Spectrum gave me a platform to question the assumption that we needed more STEM graduates. Until then, people didn’t really realize how much of the STEM crisis was a mythology that was perpetuated by employers and the academic community and was foisted on the IEEE community,” he said. Charette made a career of questioning assumptions. The best way to mitigate risk, he told me as our Friday chat drew to a close, is to be careful making assumptions in the first place. “My main risk maxim is assumptions made are risks accepted.”

“The lowest-cost place to put AI will be in space, and that will be true within two years, maybe three at the latest,” SpaceX founder Elon Musk told the World Economic Forum in Davos this past January, as his company was preparing to go public. Later that month, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission for an orbital data center constellation of up to 1 million satellites in low Earth orbit, 500 to 2,000 kilometers above Earth. And just three days before the IPO, he discussed some initial design specifications for a new AI-1 satellite data center in a video interview. Musk is prone to hyperbole when it comes to timelines. Full self-driving cars by 2017. First human mission to Mars in 2024. Ten thousand Optimus humanoid robots by the end of 2025. Et cetera. For orbital data centers, which he says will be a cost-effective alternative to terrestrial data centers within three years, the math won’t make sense for several years, if ever. Consider this: There are roughly 14,500 active satellites in orbit. Musk’s Starlink constellation accounts for about two thirds of those. Both the launch cadences and satellite-manufacturing capacity would have to scale up astronomically to deploy a million orbital data center satellites. For context, there have been roughly 7,000 orbital launches in all of human history. To loft 1 million satellites into low Earth orbit on SpaceX’s Starship, which is designed to carry up to 60 satellites per vehicle, would require 16,666 launches exclusively devoted to satellite deployments. Considering that SpaceX launched a record 165 orbital missions in 2025, even at 10 times that cadence, it would take a decade. And how long would it take to build 1 million satellites, given Starlink’s current pace of around 4,000 per year and a generous tenfold increase in capacity? Short of a manufacturing revolution, try 25 years. The reality is that the vision of massive constellations of orbital data centers is nowhere close to being realized. As this month’s cover story, “Why Orbital Data Centers Are So Hard” by Andrew Cavalier of ABI Research, makes clear, the reality is that the vision of massive constellations of orbital data centers is nowhere close to being realized. Dina Genkina, IEEE Spectrum’s computing and hardware editor, put the idea into perspective: “Starcloud (a startup that has applied to the FCC for an 88,000 orbital data center satellite constellation) sent one Nvidia H100 GPU in space so far. Their radiator was too weak to let the chip run at full power.” As Cavalier shows, cooling even a single Nvidia H100 GPU in space is difficult: It draws 700 watts, which will require 1.4 square meters of radiator at 60 °C. A 40-kilowatt rack of servers will need an 80-m² radiator; a 100-megawatt data center will require 2,500 of those radiators. Some astronomers are understandably concerned that a million satellites with giant radiative wings would blot out the stars. So if the economics doesn’t make sense, if the chips are at the mercy of the radiative ravages of space, and if humanity will lose its view of the stars, not to mention increasing the risk of triggering the Kessler syndrome, why are the hyperscalers hyping orbital data centers? Genkina offered the obvious answer: sweet, sweet moolah. “The Elon Musk part of it is honestly genius because he’s got xAI building the data centers, SpaceX sending them to space, and Tesla building solar panels,” Genkina says. “It’s almost like he’s paying himself.” Two Analyst’s Views of SpaceX’s Proposed AI1 Data Center Satellite Michael Pierce, Principal at Technology Strategy Partners Musk’s timelines are notoriously overly ambitious, but I think SpaceX’s orbital data centers might reach cost parity with terrestrial data centers in 5 to 10 years. The Starlink laser-link network already exists as the communication backbone for any SpaceX compute constellation, and that infrastructure is what no new entrant can replicate quickly. The chip-agnostic payload design probably reflects their disclosed difficulty securing AI silicon as much as any modularity philosophy. My view is that the only realistic near-term application is a SpaceX mega-constellation for inference. Training workloads likely cannot tolerate the synchronization and latency constraints of a distributed orbital system. Our report analyzed the market from the integrator’s vantage point, but AI1 is what it looks like when one player has assembled all the necessary advantages simultaneously. The question is whether the terrestrial data center industrial base will degrade or improve on economics. I don’t have insight into SpaceX’s internal costs, as opposed to public pricing, on all their components, so it’s hard to say if they’ll completely dominate or not. Even if they are not cost competitive with terrestrial data centers for another 5 to 10 years, it may simply be faster to get new compute that just happens to be in space. Matt Hasan, AI strategist and independent consultant My initial view is that AI1 does not fundamentally change the rationale for space-based data centers as much as it changes the timeline and scale. The underlying drivers remain the same: escalating AI compute demand, growing power constraints on terrestrial grids, and the desire to colocate energy generation with computation. What AI1 does signal is that the concept is beginning to move from theoretical discussion toward engineering and capital allocation decisions. The announcement adds credibility to the idea that hyperscale computing infrastructure may eventually expand beyond terrestrial constraints rather than simply competing for increasingly scarce grid capacity on Earth. That said, significant economic and technical questions remain. Launch costs, maintenance, hardware replacement cycles, thermal management, latency-sensitive workloads, and overall system economics will ultimately determine whether space-based data centers become a mainstream extension of AI infrastructure or remain a niche capability for specialized applications. The key development is not that these questions have been resolved, but that major industry players now appear willing to invest resources toward answering them.

Children born after 2013 are the first generation to grow up fully immersed in digital systems, which weren’t designed with them in mind. One‑third of the world’s Internet users are younger than 18, according to UNICEF, yet these systems shaping their daily lives were built for adults. They were optimized for engagement and designed long before people understood how profoundly digital environments influence children. For engineers and technical professionals, online safety is not an abstract policy debate. It is a design challenge that demands rigor, systems thinking, and ethical foresight. Governments around the world are also beginning to recognize the problem. Policymakers from across Australia, Brazil, the European Union, Indonesia, and the United States are responding to risks engineers have long understood: Addictive features, inappropriate content, opaque data practices, and algorithmic systems shape user behavior in ways that their creators did not fully predict. For years, technology moved faster than governance. Now governance is trying to catch up. Global Shift Toward Design Reform Supporting National Digital Ambitions In Athens this year I met with senior leaders of Greek government agencies and key national research institutions. Greece is moving quickly on digital transformation and responsible technology governance, and our discussions reinforced IEEE’s role as a trusted, neutral collaborator. We focused on supporting Greece’s ambitions in digital modernization and public‑sector innovation. We also discussed responsible AI and age-appropriate digital design in Europe and elsewhere. These engagements, grounded in shared values and long‑term commitment, strengthened IEEE’s presence within the European ecosystem and opened new pathways for collaboration on trustworthy AI and child‑focused digital well‑being. The European Union and the United Kingdom have been among the first to act, embedding age‑appropriate digital design into their broader children’s rights agenda. Drawing on IEEE expertise and global best practices, Indonesia is the first country in Asia, and Brazil is the first country in Latin America, to adopt age-appropriate design regulation. Australia is aiming to limit access to harmful content and addictive design features through age restrictions on certain platforms. And in the United States, in addition to federal efforts, states including California, New York, and Utah are enacting approaches including age-appropriate design principles. Across these efforts, a shared realization is emerging. Protecting children online is not simply about filtering content or adding parental controls. It requires rethinking the architecture of digital systems regarding how data is collected, how algorithms make decisions, how interfaces influence attention, and how AI interacts with the developing minds of young users. Engineers and technical professionals understand that design choices are never neutral. They encode values, incentives, and assumptions. When the user is a child, those choices carry greater weight. This is where IEEE’s work becomes more essential. Protecting Children Online For more than a decade, IEEE has been building technical and ethical foundations for safer digital experiences. The first IEEE standard on age-appropriate design in 2021 marked a turning point. It offers a structured, principled approach to designing with children’s rights in mind. The Institute’s 2022 article “Use a New IEEE Standard to Design a Safer Digital World for Kids” highlights how the standard helps translate those principles into engineering practice. Today the IEEE Standards Association’s (SA) Trustworthy Digital Experiences portfolio provides a practical, technically grounded framework for governments and industry. Spanning ethical design, data governance, algorithmic transparency, and child‑focused digital well‑being, it has already initiated discussions with government stakeholders around the world. This work helps bridge the gap between engineering realities and policy ambitions. No single country can solve these challenges alone. Many policymakers lack access to the combined expertise in technology, governance, and children’s rights needed to act quickly and effectively. This collaborative effort helps close that gap. The stakes are high. Without coordinated action, public policy will continue to lag behind technology, leaving children exposed to risks that could have been mitigated through thoughtful design. But with the right frameworks, governments can ensure digital systems respect children’s rights, support healthy development, and promote well‑being. IEEE’s emerging standards and collaborative technology policy work offer a path forward. By grounding national efforts in evidence‑based, rights-aligned design principles, IEEE is helping governments move from reactive regulation to proactive, coherent, and globally informed strategies for protecting children online. Safeguarding childhood in the digital age is both a moral imperative and an engineering challenge. And IEEE is helping to lead the way. —Mary Ellen Randall IEEE president and CEO Please share your thoughts with me: [email protected]. This article appears in the June 2026 print issue.