Tag: agriculture

Categories
AI Farming History

The Harvest and the Algorithm: What 1990s Farms Teach Us About AI

There’s a strange kind of wisdom hiding in dusty old books about agriculture.

When you’re caught in the middle of a technological revolution—and with AI, there’s no question that we are—it’s tempting to keep your eyes fixed on the horizon. But sometimes the most clarifying thing you can do is look back.

Tracy Alloway at Bloomberg recently pointed to something genuinely instructive from the past: Richard Critchfield’s 1990 book, Trees, Why Do You Wait? America’s Changing Rural Culture, which traced the collapse of the family farm as industrial agriculture swept through the Midwest.

The broad strokes are familiar. As machinery got more expensive and efficiency became everything, scale won. The 80-acre husband-and-wife operation got swallowed by the 2,000-acre neighbor with access to capital. It wasn’t complicated. It was just gravity.

But here’s the part that should make your ears prick up.

The Seed That Was Supposed to Save Everyone

In the late 1980s, agricultural biotechnology arrived with a very specific promise. The idea was almost elegant: if you could bake the magic directly into the seed, you wouldn’t need all that expensive machinery, all those sprawling acres, all that fertilizer. The playing field would tilt back toward the small farmer.

Critchfield quoted an Office of Technology Assessment report from 1986 that captured the mood of the moment:

“The Office of Technology Assessment in 1986 forecast that biotechnology in crops would be more quickly adopted by richer farmers… Others argue that the more that gets built into the seed itself, the more it means higher yields at lower cost… If it reduced farm income, it could work to the smaller farmer’s advantage. As it is with all new technology, it is hard to foresee the consequences.”

You can feel the cautious optimism in that language. Hard to foresee the consequences. The understatement of a century.

What Actually Happened

The biotech did raise yields. Nobody disputes that. What it didn’t do was leave the gains in the hands of the people doing the actual farming.

Thanks to intellectual property law, patent protections, and a level of corporate consolidation that would have seemed cartoonish if you’d predicted it in advance, the value flowed straight upstream. We didn’t get “more in the seed, less paid for inputs.” We got more in the seed, and vastly more paid for proprietary inputs. The tech giants of agriculture captured the surplus. The farmers got the risk.

Now Listen to How We Talk About AI

We are told AI will democratize expertise. That a one-person startup will be able to code like a ten-person engineering team. That a small business will generate world-class marketing copy. That this is, finally, the great leveler.

Sound familiar?

Alloway’s analysis lands hard precisely because it forces the uncomfortable question: who will actually capture this value? The ownership structure of AI looks eerily similar to the agricultural biotech boom—proprietary models, walled-off training data, and a handful of enormous tech companies positioned to act as tollbooths between everyone else and their own productivity gains.

She’s right to note that “the ultimate distribution of benefits isn’t determined by technology alone. Policy also plays a role.” That sentence is doing a lot of quiet work.

If the agricultural analogy holds, productivity gains from AI won’t naturally flow to the individual worker or the small business owner. Without a robust open-source ecosystem or some deliberate policy intervention, those gains will be captured by whoever controls the compute and the models.

Where the Analogy Might Break Down

Here’s where I think there’s room for genuine optimism—not naive optimism, but structurally grounded optimism.

You cannot open-source arable land. Reverse-engineering a patented biological seed is genuinely hard, legally risky, and practically difficult. Code and model weights are different. They’re infinitely replicable. The marginal cost of distribution is essentially zero.

The battle between closed, proprietary AI and open-source models is still very much live. That’s not nothing. AI is fundamentally more commoditizable than a physical farm, and the history of software suggests that open ecosystems have a real shot when the community is motivated enough to build them.

Who Owns the Harvest?

Technology can reshape daily workflows in months. Power structures take decades to budge, if they budge at all. The mistake would be assuming the former automatically changes the latter.

The question worth sitting with isn’t what can AI do—that list gets longer every week. The question is who decides how the productivity it unlocks gets distributed. That’s not an algorithm problem. It’s a political and economic one.

If we want the AI revolution to be a rising tide rather than another tractor paving over the family farm, we have to look past the technology itself. We have to decide, deliberately, who owns the harvest.

Questions to Ponder

On history and pattern recognition: The agricultural biotech optimists weren’t stupid—they were looking at the technology and making reasonable inferences. What does that tell us about the limits of predicting who benefits from a new technology by studying the technology itself?

On open source as a counterweight: The open-source AI movement (Llama, Mistral, DeepSeek) is often framed as a technical story. Should we be thinking about it primarily as a political economy story—a structural check on proprietary capture?

On the role of policy: Antitrust law, data ownership rights, compute access regulation—which levers, if any, seem realistic? And who has the incentive to pull them?

On the worker vs. the firm: If AI raises individual productivity, does the gain show up in wages, prices, profits, or somewhere else? What would need to be true for workers to actually keep a meaningful share?

On commoditization speed: Software and model weights can be replicated freely—but does speed matter? If proprietary models establish deep lock-in before open alternatives mature, does the theoretical commoditizability even help?

Inspired by Tracy Alloway’s analysis at Bloomberg and Richard Critchfield’s Trees, Why Do You Wait? (1990)

Categories
Authors Books History

The Devil’s Rope

We often mistake simplicity for innocence. When we look at a technological innovation, we tend to judge its weight by its complexity—the microchip, the steam engine, the nuclear reactor. But sometimes, history turns on the axis of something far more rudimentary. Sometimes, the world changes not with a bang, but with a sharp, metallic scratch.

I was recently reading Cattle Kingdom by Christopher Knowlton, and I stopped cold at a passage regarding the invention of barbed wire. It’s an object we pass by on highways or stumble over in overgrown fields without a second thought. Yet, Knowlton writes:

“None was more significant than the creation of barbed wire, which literally reshaped the landscape and set the stage for the era’s eventual destruction—at great personal cost to so many of its key players.”

It is a profound observation. We tend to romanticize the American West as a geography of endless horizons—a place defined by what it didn’t have: fences, borders, limits. It was the Open Range. But that openness was fragile. It existed only as long as the technology to close it was absent.

When Joseph Glidden and others patented their variations of “The Devil’s Rope” in the 1870s, they weren’t just selling steel fencing; they were selling a new concept of ownership. Before wire, a man owned what he could patrol. After wire, a man owned what he could enclose.

The quote strikes a melancholic chord because it highlights a paradox of human progress: the tool created to maximize the land ended up destroying the culture that relied on it. The cowboys, the cattle barons, and the drifters who defined the era were undone by the very efficiency they sought. The wire made the cattle industry profitable on a massive scale, but it also ended the cowboy’s way of life. It stopped the long drives. It turned the cowboy from a navigator of the plains into a gatekeeper.

And, as Knowlton notes, the “personal cost” was staggering. This reshaping of the landscape wasn’t just aesthetic; it was violent. The wire cut off migration routes for bison and the Indigenous tribes who followed them. It sparked the fence-cutting wars, neighbor turning against neighbor in the dark of night, snapping tension wires that represented their livelihood or their imprisonment, depending on which side of the post they stood.

There is a lesson here for us today, far removed from the dusty plains. We are constantly inventing our own versions of barbed wire—digital boundaries, algorithmic silos, tools designed to corral information or efficiency. We build these structures to create order, to claim our stake, and to protect what is ours. But every time we draw a line, we must ask: what era are we destroying? What open range are we closing off forever?

The landscape is always being reshaped. The question is whether we are building fences that protect us, or cages that trap us in.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Claude Creativity Writing

Co-Creation

Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School, has written a popular book on artificial intelligence titled “Co-Intelligence“. Like I do with most books I read, I’ve collected a series of highlights of various passages I found interesting when I read Mollick’s book – a book I enjoyed very much. This morning I came across one of those highlights which sent me off on this exploration.

But first let me share a perspective. A few friends of mine – when exploring how they might use artificial intelligence – reject the use of AI tools for helping them write. They feel strongly that the words an AI creates aren’t their own and strongly reject simply using an AI-generated output to create articles for their blogs, etc. I certainly appreciate their point of view – but I’m finding a more nuanced perspective on this question is more appropriate for me.

What I’m finding is that when I invoke AI to help me explore a topic, an idea, etc. that the result will almost always open up my thinking by exposing me to things, ideas, etc. that I hadn’t considered. In so doing, I come away feeling “richer” in the sense that I’ve learned – and not simply written – in the process. How I use the work product created by the AI varies – sometimes it’s helpful in critiquing something I’ve written. Other times I use it to help me better understand something – or explore by stepping outside my own brain.

Here’s an example from some exploring I did this morning. During my morning review of my Kindle book highlights using Readwise, I came across a quotation from Mollick’s book that I highlighted:

“If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.” (Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence)

I love the idea of how creativity is influenced by the often seemingly random interconnections between ideas – and this quote concisely made that point. I wanted to explore this further so I asked Claude Sonnet to help me by writing an article in the style of author John McPhee that’s based on the quote. Here’s the exact prompt I used with Claude:

You are an expert writer in the style of John McPhee. You are helping me write interesting articles for my blog. Create a 750 word draft article for my blog based on the following quotation: “If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.” (Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence)

I’ve been finding that Claude often does a more creative form of writing as compared to other chatbots. The article that Claude returned in response to my prompt really surprised me – so much so that I thought I’d just share it directly here.

So here we go…the following wasn’t written by me – rather, it was co-created based on a prompt from me and written by my co-intelligent partner Claude.

The Art of Cross-Pollination: Cultivating Innovation in Unlikely Places

In the verdant fields of central New Jersey, not far from where I sit typing these words, a peculiar ritual unfolds each spring. Farmers, their hands calloused from generations of working the land, don white protective suits that make them look more like astronauts than agriculturists. They move deliberately through their orchards, carrying small paintbrushes and vials of pollen.

These are the pear farmers of Mercer County, and they’re engaged in a practice as old as agriculture itself: cross-pollination. But why, you might ask, are they doing by hand what bees have done for millennia? The answer lies in the delicate biology of pear trees and the fickle nature of their reproduction.

Pear trees, it turns out, are notoriously poor self-pollinators. To produce fruit, they need pollen from a different variety of pear tree. But pear blossoms produce relatively little nectar, making them unattractive to bees. So these farmers, in their space-age suits, play the role of bees, manually transferring pollen from one variety to another, ensuring a bountiful harvest come autumn.

As I watched this process unfold on a crisp April morning, I was struck by a quote I’d recently encountered from Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School: “If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.”

The pear farmers of Mercer County, in their own way, embody this principle. They’ve taken an idea from one field (entomology) and applied it to another (agriculture), adding their own creative twist (the paintbrushes and protective suits). The result? A thriving pear industry in a region where it might otherwise be impossible.

This concept of cross-pollination – of ideas rather than pollen – is not unique to agriculture. In fact, it’s a principle that underpins much of human innovation and creativity.

Consider, for a moment, the work of Frances Glessner Lee, often called the “mother of forensic science.” Lee was born into wealth in the late 19th century and, like many women of her social standing, was skilled in the domestic arts, particularly miniature-making. But Lee had a passion for criminal investigation, nurtured by her friendship with George Burgess Magrath, a medical examiner.

In the 1940s, Lee combined these seemingly disparate interests to create the Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death – intricately detailed dioramas of crime scenes used to train detectives. These miniature crime scenes, built with the precision of a dollhouse maker but imbued with the gruesome details of a murder scene, revolutionized forensic training. Lee had taken skills from the traditionally feminine world of crafts and applied them to the male-dominated field of criminal investigation, creating something entirely new and profoundly useful in the process.

This principle of creative cross-pollination extends far beyond the realms of agriculture and crime scene investigation. The history of human progress is littered with examples of innovations born from the unlikely marriage of disparate fields.

Take, for instance, the development of GPS technology. The seeds of this now-ubiquitous system were planted when physicists William Guier and George Weiffenbach at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory realized they could track the Soviet Sputnik satellite by monitoring its radio transmissions. This was an impressive feat in itself, but it was their colleague Frank McClure who made the cognitive leap that would change the world. McClure realized that if the scientists could track a satellite from the ground, they could also use satellites to track positions on the ground.

This insight – born from the collision of rocket science, radio engineering, and a healthy dose of Cold War paranoia – led to the development of the Transit system, the precursor to modern GPS. Today, this technology guides everything from missile systems to the smartphone in your pocket, all because a group of scientists were able to flip their perspective and see their work from a new angle.

But perhaps the most striking example of creative cross-pollination comes from the field of medicine. In the early 1940s, a Scottish bacteriologist named Alexander Fleming was researching influenza. One day, he noticed that mold had contaminated one of his petri dishes – a common enough occurrence in a microbiology lab. But Fleming observed something unusual: the area around the mold was clear of bacteria.

This chance observation, combined with Fleming’s willingness to investigate rather than simply discard the contaminated sample, led to the discovery of penicillin. Fleming had linked the disparate fields of mycology and bacteriology, added a dash of serendipity, and created something that would revolutionize medicine and save countless lives.

As we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the ability to cross-pollinate ideas from different fields becomes ever more crucial. The challenges we face – from climate change to antibiotic resistance – are too complex to be solved within the confines of a single discipline.

So perhaps we should all take a cue from the pear farmers of Mercer County. Don our metaphorical protective suits, pick up our idea-paintbrushes, and venture into unfamiliar orchards of thought. For it’s in these unlikely places, where disparate ideas collide and combine, that the seeds of innovation are sown.