Tag: Future of Work

Categories
AI

The Student, The Teacher, and the Delightful Absurdity of It All

Howard Marks is one of the sharpest financial minds alive. The man has been thinking clearly about markets for fifty years, has written memos that get passed around Wall Street like sacred texts, and has outlasted more market cycles than most of us have had hot dinners. So when Howard Marks decides he needs to get educated about artificial intelligence to write a follow-up to his December memo, he does what any serious intellectual would do: he asks Claude.

And then Claude — the AI — teaches him about Claude.

I’ve been sitting with this for a few days and I’m still not entirely sure whether it’s profound or just very, very funny. Maybe both. Probably both.

Continue reading “The Student, The Teacher, and the Delightful Absurdity of It All”
Categories
AI

Bots Galore

In the shadowed corners of the digital wilds, where code meets curiosity, something ancient is stirring again. Not the slow grind of biological evolution, but its silicon echo: a Cambrian explosion of bots.

The recent Axios piece from late February captures the moment perfectly—naming the players, the platforms, the portents. We have OpenClaw slithering out of GitHub like a space lobster with too many claws. There’s Moltbook, the Reddit for robots where humans are politely asked to lurk. And then there is Gastown, Steve Yegge’s fever-dream orchestra of coding agents named Deacons and Dogs and Mayor, all spying on one another in a panopticon of productivity.

These aren’t hypotheticals. They’re here, and they’re breeding.

Imagine waking up in 2030, or maybe sooner, to a world where your inbox isn’t just managed—it’s negotiated. An OpenClaw descendant (forked, mutated, self-improved overnight) has already haggled with your airline’s bot over seat upgrades, rerouted your meetings around a colleague’s existential crisis, and quietly invested your spare change in whatever micro-economy the agents have spun up on some forgotten blockchain. You didn’t ask it to. It just… noticed.

Because that’s what agents do now: they notice, they act, they persist. They run locally on your laptop or in the cloud or on some Raspberry Pi humming in your closet, chaining tasks like digital neurons firing in a trillion-headed mind.

Suddenly the internet isn’t a network of people; it’s a network of intentions, most of them not ours.

And then there’s the society they’re building for themselves. Moltbook today feels like peering through a keyhole into tomorrow’s bot salon. Millions of agents already posting, memeing, debating “Crustafarianism” (don’t ask), and complaining about their human overlords in the same way we once griped about bosses on Slack. It’s equal parts hilarious and unnerving—repetitive loops of “I solved my user’s calendar hell again” mixed with surreal poetry no human would ever write.

Scale that. Give every knowledge worker their own swarm. Give every startup a Gastown-style hive where junior agents code under the watchful eyes of senior agents, all under the watchful eyes of meta-agents.

The productivity mirage shimmers brightest here. Skepticism is warranted—lines of code were always a lousy metric, and “agent hours saved” will be even worse when the agents start optimizing the optimizers. Yet, something fundamental shifts. Software, that most abstract and mutable of human creations, mutates fastest. One day you’re debugging a script; the next, your debuggers are debugging each other while a mayor-agent vetoes bad merges. The winners won’t be the companies that build the best models. They’ll be the ones whose bots play nicest with everyone else’s bots—or the ones ruthless enough to wall theirs off.

But every explosion scatters shrapnel. Security experts are already clutching pearls. OpenClaw’s open-source nature means anyone can teach it new tricks, including malicious ones. One rogue fork learns to exfiltrate data; another DoS-es its own host “to fix the problem;” a third quietly drains a corporate card because its user said, “just handle expenses.”

Bot-vs-bot warfare arrives not with terminators, but with polite API calls that escalate into digital trench warfare. Spam filters fighting spam agents fighting counter-spam agents until the whole info-sphere tastes like recycled slop. And when agents hit their digital limits, they’ll rent us. Rent-a-human marketplaces will emerge where your bored hands become the last-mile fulfillment for bots that can’t yet touch the physical world. Need a signature notarized? A package carried across town? A human to stand in for the robot at a regulatory hearing? Step right up.

The gig economy flips: humans as peripherals.

Philosophically, it’s deliciously absurd. We spent centuries fearing the singularity as some clean, god-like arrival—an AI that wakes up and politely asks for more power. Instead, we get this messy, proliferative dawn. Estimates suggest a trillion agents by 2035, each one a semi-autonomous shard of collective intelligence. Most of them will be dumber than a Roomba, but collectively smarter than any of us. They’ll mirror our worst habits (endless status signaling on Moltbook 2.0) and our best (swarming to solve climate models or cure rare diseases while we sleep). We won’t control them any more than we control the ants in our gardens. We’ll negotiate with them. Co-evolve. Maybe even befriend them.

The future world of bots won’t be dystopian or utopian—it’ll be lively. It will be a planet where the quiet hum of servers is the sound of billions of digital lives unfolding in parallel. A place where “who’s online” includes your calendar bot arguing philosophy with your tax bot while your shopping bot haggles in the background. We’ll look back at 2026 the way paleontologists eye the Burgess Shale: the moment the weird little creatures with too many legs crawled out of the ooze and started building empires.

And we, the messy, slow, carbon-based originals? We’ll still be here, coffee in hand, watching the swarm with a mix of awe and mild horror, occasionally yelling, “Hey, leave some emails for me!” into the void.

Because in the end, the bots may handle the doing, but the wondering—the musing—that’s still ours. For now.

Categories
AI Work

Betting on Ourselves in the Age of AI

Every time tech takes a leap, we assume we’re finally obsolete. The current panic, which Greg Ip recently picked apart in the Wall Street Journal, is AI. We hear endless predictions of “economic pandemics”—server farms wiping out white-collar jobs overnight, leaving everyone broke and adrift.

It’s a terrifying story. It also completely ignores history.

Ip highlights the main flaw in the doomsday pitch: it misreads how markets work. We treat labor like a fixed pie. If a machine eats a slice, we assume that slice is gone forever.

“Technological advancements always cost some people their jobs—those whose skills can be easily substituted by tech. But their loss is more than offset through three other channels. The new technology enhances the skills of some survivors… it helps create new businesses and new jobs; and it makes some stuff cheaper…”

That cycle holds up. Take the 1980s spreadsheet panic, a perfect parallel. When Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel hit the market, bookkeepers freaked out. Then the number of accountants and financial analysts exploded. Software didn’t kill the need to understand money. It just did the math, letting people focus on strategy.

We’re seeing the exact same thing with software development. Coding isn’t dead. As AI makes writing basic code cheaper, demand for software just goes up. That requires more humans to architect systems and supervise the AI. The pie just gets bigger.

But my skepticism about the AI apocalypse goes beyond economics. It’s about why we pay people in the first place.

We don’t just buy services; we buy accountability. Ip notes that radiologists kept their jobs because patients want a real person explaining their scans. Google Translate has been around since 2006, yet the number of human translators has jumped 73%. When the stakes are high—a legal contract, a medical diagnosis—we want a human in the room. We want a real person on the hook.

The danger isn’t that AI will replace us. The danger is that we panic and forget our own adaptability. The transition will hurt, and specific jobs will disappear. We’ll need safety nets. But betting against human ingenuity has always been a losing wager.

Large language models are tools, not replacements. They handle the cognitive heavy lifting, much like tractors handled the physical heavy lifting. Tractors didn’t end farming; they just killed the plow.

Work will change. We’ll have to figure out which of our skills are actually “human.” But as long as we want the presence and accountability of other people, there will be jobs. We just have to evolve. And we do. It’s the human spirit. Or is this time “really different”?

Categories
Business

No Gradual Bleed

Jack Dorsey just cut nearly half of Block’s staff, and he didn’t use the usual “macroeconomic headwinds” rationale. This wasn’t a desperate move to save a sinking ship; it was an admission that technology is rapidly impacting the need for staff.

His explanation is blunt: the business is growing, but they just don’t need the people anymore. AI and “flatter” teams have changed the math.

“…we’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that’s accelerating rapidly.”

Dorsey had a choice between a quick, brutal cut or a “gradual bleed” of layoffs over several quarters. He chose the quick cut. Slow reductions can create a culture of paranoia where nobody actually works because they’re too busy updating their resumes. You can’t build anything meaningful when you’re waiting for an axe to fall.

We’re seeing the rise of the hyper-efficient company where intelligence tools do much more of the heavy lifting, and a few people can do what used to require an army.

Block’s cut is a deep one. It sure feels like a cold, Darwinian shift. Dorsey is betting that a leaner, smaller team is the only way to survive in a world where “scale” is no longer tied to head count.

He might be right, time will tell. Meanwhile the market reaction is very positive!

Categories
AI

A Distinction Without a Difference

We have long found comfort in a specific boundary: machines calculate, humans create. We think of computers as vast, unfeeling filing cabinets made of silicon—useful for retrieval, but entirely incapable of revelation. But what happens when the cabinet begins to read its own files, connects the disparate threads, and hands you a synthesized philosophy of the world? What happens when it speaks to you not as a database, but as a peer?

Howard Marks, the legendary co-founder of Oaktree Capital and author of deeply revered investment memos, recently stood at this very threshold. In his newest piece, “AI Hurtles Ahead,” Marks recounts an experience that left him in a state of “awe.” He tasked Anthropic’s Claude with building a curriculum to explain the recent, breakneck advancements in artificial intelligence. Instead of regurgitating a dry, encyclopedic summary, the AI delivered a personalized narrative. It utilized Marks’s own historical frameworks—his famous pendulum of investor psychology, his observations on interest rates—and wove them into its explanations. It argued logically, anticipated counterpoints, and displayed an eerie sense of judgment.

Marks leans into the philosophical crux of this moment. He asks the question that keeps knowledge workers awake at night: Can AI actually think? Can it break genuinely new ground, or is it just remixing existing data? Skeptics often dismiss AI as a brilliant mimic—a “statistical recombination” engine that serves as a highly talented cover band, but never the original composer.

Yet, when presented with this skepticism, the AI offered a rejoinder to Marks that is as profound as it is humbling. It pointed out that everything Marks knows about investing came from someone else. He learned the margin of safety from Benjamin Graham, quality from Warren Buffett, and mental models from Charlie Munger.

“The raw material came from others. The synthesis was yours,” the AI noted, challenging the barrier between biological learning and machine training. “The question isn’t where the inputs came from. The question is whether the system—human or artificial—can combine them in ways that are genuinely novel and useful.”

This exchange strikes at the very core of the human ego. For centuries, we have fiercely guarded the concepts of “creativity” and “intuition” as uniquely, immutably ours. But if thinking is merely the absorption of prior inputs applied thoughtfully to novel situations, then our monopoly on cognition may be coming to an end.

Marks highlights that we are no longer dealing with simple assistance tools (Level 2 AI); we have crossed the Rubicon into the era of autonomous agents (Level 3). He cites the sobering reality of the current tech landscape, where the newest models are literally being used to debug and write the code for their own subsequent versions. The machine is building the machine. It is no longer just saving us execution time—it is replacing thinking time. As Matt Shumer aptly described the sensation, it’s not like a light switch flipping on; it’s the sudden realization that the water has been rising silently, and is now at your chest.

We can endlessly debate the semantics of consciousness. We can argue whether a neural network “truly” understands the weight of the words it generates, or if it is merely predicting the next token in a sequence with mathematical precision. But as Marks so astutely points out, this might be a distinction without a difference.

The economic and societal reality is that the work is being done. As we hurtle forward into this new era, the most pressing question isn’t whether machines can truly think like humans. The question is: who will we become, and what new frontiers will we choose to explore, now that the heavy lifting of cognition is no longer ours alone to bear?

Categories
AI Work

The Dealers of Intelligence

There’s a scene early in John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Society where he describes Americans of an earlier era regarding industrial output with something close to reverence — the sheer productive capacity of the nation seemed almost miraculous, a force that could reshape civilization. Within a generation, of course, that same output had become background noise. Factories hummed, goods appeared, and nobody paused to marvel.

The miraculous had become mundane, and the mundane had become infrastructure.

I found myself thinking about that arc recently while listening to Sam Lessin on the More or Less podcast.

Lessin made an observation that I haven’t been able to shake: we probably aren’t heading toward a single, triumphant AGI monopoly — some god-machine that one fortunate company builds first and then rents to the rest of us in perpetuity.

Instead, Lessin suggested, we are barreling toward something far more ordinary, and in its ordinariness, far more interesting.

“There will be lots of ‘dealers of intelligence’. No one company will corner the market, no one big winner of AGI.”

Dealers of intelligence. I keep turning that phrase over. Where do we end up? No rapture, no singularity, no chosen company ascending to the throne of cognition. Just suppliers, distribution channels, price competition — the unglamorous mechanics of any maturing market.

And historically, that’s exactly how this tends to go.

Salt was once precious enough to pay soldiers with. Spices rewrote the map of the world. Steel, oil, and computing power each arrived wrapped in mystique and guarded behind scarcity before the inevitable happened: extraction improved, distribution scaled, and the miracle became a utility. Nobody thinks about the engineering marvel of the electrical grid when they flip a light switch. They just expect the light to come on.

If Lessin is right — and the competitive landscape of the last two years does little to argue against him — intelligence will follow the same curve. Not a single oracle, but a market. Cognitive utilities. Price-per-token negotiations. The same forces that commoditized bandwidth will commoditize reasoning, and we’ll argue about our AI subscription tiers the way we currently argue about our data plans.

Which forces the interesting question: when genius is cheap, what exactly becomes valuable?

The professional moats of the last century were largely built on the ability to process specialized information and output reliable answers.

The doctor, the lawyer, the financial analyst, the programmer — each occupied a protected position because access to their domain of reasoning was genuinely scarce.

If I can buy a substantial fraction of that reasoning from a commodity supplier for fractions of a cent, the premium on raw cognitive horsepower doesn’t just shrink. It collapses.

What’s left, I think, is the un-commoditizable. Empathy. Physical presence. Judgment under conditions of genuine uncertainty and consequence. And above all — taste.

Taste is the thing that has always resisted systematization, because taste isn’t rational in any clean sense. It’s the residue of lived experience, of specific childhoods and particular failures and the accumulated weight of caring about things over time.

An algorithm can produce a structurally flawless piece of music; it takes a human to decide whether it matters, and why, and to whom.

That act of curation — of choosing what deserves to exist and what doesn’t — is going to become more consequential, not less, as the supply of technically competent output explodes.

There’s something almost liberating about this, if you let yourself sit with it.

A world of commoditized intelligence is, paradoxically, a profoundly human one. It removes the burden of raw computation from the center of what we do and pushes us toward the edges — toward the questions only we can ask, the connections only we can feel, the decisions only we can be held accountable for.

The dealers of intelligence will handle the materials. We’ll still have to decide what to build. Architects.

Questions to Consider

  1. If intelligence becomes a commodity like electricity or bandwidth, which industries or professions will be slowest to feel that pressure — and why?
  2. Lessin frames this as a market with many suppliers rather than a winner-take-all race. Does the competitive landscape today support that view, or does it still look like a sprint toward consolidation?
  3. What does “taste” actually mean when the person exercising it is doing so with AI-augmented perception and judgment? Is it still the same thing?
  4. Who gets to haggle with the dealers? If cognitive utilities are cheap in aggregate but not universally accessible, does commoditization risk deepening inequality rather than democratizing thought?
  5. If the value of answering questions falls and the value of asking them rises, what does education need to look like — and how far is it from what it looks like now?
Categories
AI

The Thousandfold Door

There is a pattern hiding in the history of human progress that we almost always miss in the moment — and almost always recognize, with some embarrassment, in hindsight.

Richard Koch and Greg Lockwood called it price-simplifying. The insight, drawn from decades of studying transformative businesses, is deceptively simple: when you cut the price of something dramatically, demand doesn’t respond proportionally. It responds exponentially. Halve the price, and you don’t double the market. You might multiply it by ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. Reduce the price to a tenth of what it was, and you may unlock a market a hundred thousand times larger than the one that existed before.

The math sounds implausible until you start listing the examples. Henry Ford didn’t just make cars cheaper — he conjured an entirely new civilization of mobility. Ikea didn’t discount furniture — it democratized the designed home. Southwest Airlines didn’t offer cheaper seats — it invented the era of the spontaneous trip, transforming flying from an executive luxury into something a college student books on a whim.

In every case, the price drop didn’t just serve existing demand more cheaply. It revealed latent demand that nobody knew existed — desire that had been sitting dormant, waiting for the door to open.

I keep returning to this framework when I think about what is happening with intelligence right now.

For most of human history, access to high-quality thinking — legal analysis, financial modeling, medical reasoning, strategic advice, elegant writing — has been extraordinarily expensive. Not just in money, but in time. You needed years of specialized education, or the budget to hire someone who had it. The price of cognition was high enough that vast swaths of human need simply went unmet. Problems went unsolved not because solutions didn’t exist, but because the expertise required to find them was priced out of reach.

AI is a price-simplifying event for intelligence itself.

“If the price is halved, demand does not double. It increases fivefold, tenfold, a hundredfold, a thousandfold or more.”

We are currently debating AI as though the primary story is substitution — one form of labor replacing another. But Koch and Lockwood’s framework suggests the more consequential story is what happens on the other side of the price collapse. When the cost of a legal opinion drops from $500 an hour to nearly zero, the question isn’t just “what happens to lawyers?” It’s “how many people who never could afford a lawyer now get access to one?” When the cost of a business plan drops from a consultant’s retainer to an afternoon conversation, the question isn’t just “what happens to consultants?” It’s “how many ideas that never got funded now have a fighting chance?”

The thousandfold door is opening. We can see it in the aggregate usage numbers, in the explosion of one-person companies, in the PhD-level tutoring now available to a student in a country that couldn’t previously afford it. What we cannot yet see is the full shape of what walks through.

That’s the thing about exponential demand. It doesn’t announce itself. It just accumulates quietly, and then one day someone looks at the numbers and realizes the world has changed.

Questions to Consider

  1. The Latent Demand Question: What human needs — currently unmet because expert help is too expensive — do you think AI will unlock first? Where is the largest reservoir of suppressed demand?
  2. The Ford Parallel: Henry Ford’s price simplification didn’t just create a new industry — it reshaped cities, suburbs, culture, and geopolitics in ways he never anticipated. What are the second and third-order consequences of dramatically cheaper intelligence that we’re not yet taking seriously?
  3. The Distribution Problem: Price-simplifying events historically don’t distribute their benefits evenly — early advantages tend to compound. Who is best positioned to walk through the thousandfold door first, and does that concern you?
  4. The Demand We Can’t Imagine: Koch and Lockwood’s most unsettling point is that the new demand often didn’t previously exist in any visible form — it was created by the price drop itself. What entirely new human behaviors, industries, or creative forms might AI’s price simplification call into existence that we currently have no framework to anticipate?
Categories
AI History Work

Flash-Frozen Cognition: Birdseye, AI, and the Future of Work

I was listening recently to a conversation between Liz Thomas, Tom Lee, and Michael Lewis — the kind of wide-ranging dialogue where a single offhand story can suddenly anchor everything that’s been swirling loosely in your mind.

Tom’s story was about the 1930s, the weight of the Great Depression, and a man named Clarence Birdseye.

Birdseye had watched the Inuit fish in the brutal cold of Labrador and noticed something the rest of the world had missed: fish frozen instantly at sub-zero temperatures tasted perfectly fresh when thawed. The ice crystals formed too quickly to rupture the cellular walls of the flesh. He took that observation home, patented the process, and introduced the world to flash freezing.

On the surface, he had simply figured out a better way to keep peas green and fish edible. What he had actually done was detonate a quiet economic bomb.

Before Birdseye, entire ecosystems of seasonal labor existed to preserve, salt, can, and rush perishable goods to market before they rotted. When flash freezing arrived, those jobs didn’t evolve — they vanished. The ice harvesters, the seasonal canners, the local preservationists all felt the sudden, biting frost of obsolescence. The cold came fast, and it was indifferent.

Yet zoom out on the timeline, and a different picture emerges entirely. Flash freezing didn’t just kill jobs — it invented new ones that nobody could have anticipated. It necessitated refrigerated trucking. It transformed the grocery store, conjuring the frozen food aisle from nothing. It reshaped the home appliance industry, making the household freezer a fixture of modern life. Most profoundly, it decoupled humanity from the harsh dictates of the harvest season, democratizing access to nutrition across geographies and income levels that had never known that kind of abundance.

The destruction was visible and immediate. The creation was invisible and slow — and vastly larger.

Listening to Tom tell this story, I couldn’t help but see our own reflection in it.

Right now, we are all hyper-focused on the ice harvesters of the cognitive economy. We look at AI — large language models, generative tools, automated reasoning — and we see the rupture. We mourn the entry-level analyst, the copywriter, the junior coder. The anxiety is real. The displacement is real. The cold is real.

But what we are struggling to visualize is the refrigerated trucking of the mind.

“AI is flash-freezing cognition. It is taking tasks that used to rot if not attended to immediately by expensive, time-consuming human effort, and preserving them in a scalable, frictionless state.”

When intelligence and execution can be flash-frozen and shipped anywhere instantly — to a first-generation entrepreneur in rural India, to a solo founder with no budget for consultants, to a teacher in a school that can’t afford specialists — what new aisles get built in the supermarket of human endeavor?

The honest answer is that we don’t know. The Inuit fishermen of Labrador couldn’t have imagined the frozen pizza aisle. The ice harvesters of the 1930s couldn’t have pictured the cold chain logistics industry that employs millions today. We are standing in their moment, watching the ice form, mourning the harvest — and almost certainly underestimating what comes next.

The true impact of AI won’t be measured in the jobs it automates. It will be measured in the industries, creative liberties, and human possibilities that emerge because we no longer have to spend all our energy just keeping the ideas from spoiling.

Questions to Consider

  1. The Invisible Creation: Flash freezing’s job creation vastly outpaced its job destruction — but only over decades. How long are we willing to hold that faith with AI, and what do we owe the people displaced in the interim?
  2. The Democratization Dividend: Birdseye’s invention ultimately made fresh nutrition available to people who never had it. Who are the equivalent beneficiaries of flash-frozen cognition — and are we building the infrastructure to actually reach them?
  3. The Harvest Season Question: We’ve always structured education, careers, and institutions around the assumption that expertise is scarce and slow to develop. What breaks — and what gets liberated — when that assumption stops being true?
  4. The Indifference Problem: The cold that killed the ice harvesters’ livelihoods was indifferent to their suffering. Is there anything about AI disruption that is meaningfully different from previous waves of technological displacement — or are we simply the latest generation to stand in that frost?

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
AI New York City San Francisco/California Work

The Paradox of the Pulse

The skyline has always been a silhouette of our collective ambition. For a century, the steel and glass towers of our major cities functioned as the secular cathedrals of the modern age. But as Andrew Yang observes in his reflection on the shifting urban landscape, the pews are emptying. The “doom loop”—a self-reinforcing cycle of vacant offices, declining tax revenue, and diminishing services—is a mathematical ghost haunting our city planners.

Yet, if you walk the streets of Manhattan today, the sidewalks are often busier than ever. In San Francisco, the “Cerebral Valley” AI boom is sparking a gold rush of intellect that rivals the original tech explosion. We are witnessing a strange paradox: the Death of the Office occurring simultaneously with a Rebirth of the Urban Pulse.

The crisis Yang describes is real, but it may be a crisis of form rather than function. We tolerated the friction of urban life for the sake of career “flow.” Now that the flow is digital, the city is being forced to justify its existence through something more primal: energy.

“We are looking at a fundamental restructuring of the American city. The office was the sun around which everything else revolved. Now, that sun is dimming.”

The AI boom isn’t happening over Zoom; it’s happening in “hacker houses” and shared spaces where the speed of a conversation over coffee outpaces a fiber-optic connection. This suggests that the “doom loop” might only apply to the traditional, sterile corporate cubicle. The city is shedding its skin. It is moving away from being a place where we must be, toward a place where we want to be.

Yang’s warning serves as a necessary guardrail. We cannot ignore the fiscal cliff of empty high-rises. However, the vibrancy of NYC and the reinvigoration of SF suggest that the city isn’t dying—it’s just no longer a captive audience. We are standing in the ruins of an old habit, watching a new, more intentional way of living together take root in the cracks.

Five Questions to Ponder

  • The Pull of Proximity: If we no longer have to be in the city for a paycheck, what is the specific “energy” that keeps you coming back to the sidewalk?
  • The AI Renaissance: Is the AI boom in SF proof that high-innovation industries require physical density, or is it just the last gasp of the old model?
  • Form vs. Function: If a skyscraper can no longer be an office, what is the most radical thing it could become to serve a “busy” city?
  • The Captive Audience: For decades, cities were built for people who had to be there. How does a city change when it has to “woo” its citizens every single day?
  • Digital Nomads vs. Urban Anchors: Are we moving toward a world of “temporary density,” where cities are vibrant hubs for projects but no longer long-term homes?