I appreciate the provocation, but worrying on the outcomes. Technology doesn’t have a great track record of spreading evenly.
When I think about places like Gaza, Sudan, or any number of unraveling regions, “abundance” takes stable energy grids, data centers, logistics chains and governance. Abundance is political. Someone will own it (likely the same corporations and states that already dominate global capital).
Without intentional efforts around governance, redistribution, and rights, radical abundance will amplify inequality rather than erase it. How can we connect GDP to equity? A brave new world is no doubt coming, but at the moment, I am pessimistic that it will be evenly distributed.
In a much closer time horizon, I’ve been also kicking around some ideas around how teams can reimagine and redefine ROI, now. This is a very helpful anchor to inspire some more of my teams’ thoughts on the subject. Thank you, David!
This aside of the whole idea of a technical singularity with AI -- aka super intelligence -- given that it is as much an existential threat as a time machine. (They’re both theoretical, we can’t mitigate against either of them, we don’t know if or when they’ll arrive, but we're surely dead if they do. The trillion dollar bet is that we'll scale to superintelligence before diminishing returns overtake advances. But we don't even know if there is a destination.)
And if we reach some partial degree of superintelligence, I'm less certain that converting energy into intelligence will matter. When abundant intelligence is all around us and as available as tap water today, it will be commoditized. And when that happens, the friction and scarcity completely shifts and will be dominated by the physical world.
And as long as we live in a physical world and have physical needs, that is where the scarcity and hence economic value will be focused. You can argue that we are gradually retreating into digital pods and plugging into the matrix. But until we fully shed our mortal coils as post-human life forms, the friction of the physical world is where economic value will reside: minerals and energy to feed the intelligence utility beast, but also food, housing and habitation, and physical comforts that aren't magically resolved through intelligence.
Agree with a lot of what you lay out here. And this mindset shift is critical for people to first understand and prepare for/build the future. Linear thinkers need to begin thinking laterally (non-linearly) to appreciate the future being built.
You may like this complementary framework - the Pillars of Power (Technology, Energy, & Money) - which we apply to better understand geostrategic Power (and relevant people, places, etc.) throughout History.
In studying History, we recognized the Pillars of geostrategic Power are consistent across time:
- Asymmetric Technology
- Powered by low-cost and abundant Energy
- Financed by fully-controlled Money
The hegemon(s) who leads in these three key spheres controls the World Order.
The collective, self-reinforcing Pillars of Power have stood the test of time. And they provide a consistent Framework for understanding the World and the decisions that shape it...
Fascinating research on the coming economic transition, but I notice a critical cognitive bottleneck you might find relevant.
When AI eliminates material scarcity, the constraint shifts to human minds processing infinite options without cognitive overload. "Intelligence per unit energy" assumes adoption is automatic—but helping minds navigate abundance thoughtfully becomes the premium skill.
Your framework is compelling, though I suspect the professionals who master cognitive preparation will become more valuable, not less, as we move toward that intelligence-centered economy.
It’s nice to read this alongside The Three-Body Problem (Part II), which I’m in the middle of now.
I like the hypothetical and I am curious to see where you will take it next. However, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the so-called economic singularity. The current thesis assumes we’re optimizing the world for productivity. But with more AI, productivity will become secondary to something else – some kind of authentic human experience. The economy doesn’t collapse; rather, the definition of value shifts.
Yes, many law and marketing jobs may be dominated by AI. That’s fine, but I have zero interest in reading AI-generated articles or watching AI-generated videos. If everything becomes AI, and we as humans start valuing scarcity, then the real value lies in whatever isn’t intelligence.
Which raises a question: what’s the relevance of GDP as a measurement today, and what should the relevance of your proposed new metric be?
Either way, I am excited for humanoids. It almost feels like, instead of setting up a kid’s room, I should be preparing a charging station for my humanoid buddy at home instead.
I appreciate the provocation, but worrying on the outcomes. Technology doesn’t have a great track record of spreading evenly.
When I think about places like Gaza, Sudan, or any number of unraveling regions, “abundance” takes stable energy grids, data centers, logistics chains and governance. Abundance is political. Someone will own it (likely the same corporations and states that already dominate global capital).
Without intentional efforts around governance, redistribution, and rights, radical abundance will amplify inequality rather than erase it. How can we connect GDP to equity? A brave new world is no doubt coming, but at the moment, I am pessimistic that it will be evenly distributed.
In a much closer time horizon, I’ve been also kicking around some ideas around how teams can reimagine and redefine ROI, now. This is a very helpful anchor to inspire some more of my teams’ thoughts on the subject. Thank you, David!
Thought-provoking, as always. Thank you David!
I have mixed feelings here.
This aside of the whole idea of a technical singularity with AI -- aka super intelligence -- given that it is as much an existential threat as a time machine. (They’re both theoretical, we can’t mitigate against either of them, we don’t know if or when they’ll arrive, but we're surely dead if they do. The trillion dollar bet is that we'll scale to superintelligence before diminishing returns overtake advances. But we don't even know if there is a destination.)
And if we reach some partial degree of superintelligence, I'm less certain that converting energy into intelligence will matter. When abundant intelligence is all around us and as available as tap water today, it will be commoditized. And when that happens, the friction and scarcity completely shifts and will be dominated by the physical world.
And as long as we live in a physical world and have physical needs, that is where the scarcity and hence economic value will be focused. You can argue that we are gradually retreating into digital pods and plugging into the matrix. But until we fully shed our mortal coils as post-human life forms, the friction of the physical world is where economic value will reside: minerals and energy to feed the intelligence utility beast, but also food, housing and habitation, and physical comforts that aren't magically resolved through intelligence.
Well-written piece and enjoyable read.
Agree with a lot of what you lay out here. And this mindset shift is critical for people to first understand and prepare for/build the future. Linear thinkers need to begin thinking laterally (non-linearly) to appreciate the future being built.
You may like this complementary framework - the Pillars of Power (Technology, Energy, & Money) - which we apply to better understand geostrategic Power (and relevant people, places, etc.) throughout History.
In studying History, we recognized the Pillars of geostrategic Power are consistent across time:
- Asymmetric Technology
- Powered by low-cost and abundant Energy
- Financed by fully-controlled Money
The hegemon(s) who leads in these three key spheres controls the World Order.
The collective, self-reinforcing Pillars of Power have stood the test of time. And they provide a consistent Framework for understanding the World and the decisions that shape it...
https://aquavis.substack.com/p/pillars-of-power
To talk about abundance, we must talk about redistribution; otherwise, it is just accumulation.
I see a missing variable here, and it has to do with the institutional design.
Fascinating research on the coming economic transition, but I notice a critical cognitive bottleneck you might find relevant.
When AI eliminates material scarcity, the constraint shifts to human minds processing infinite options without cognitive overload. "Intelligence per unit energy" assumes adoption is automatic—but helping minds navigate abundance thoughtfully becomes the premium skill.
Your framework is compelling, though I suspect the professionals who master cognitive preparation will become more valuable, not less, as we move toward that intelligence-centered economy.
It’s nice to read this alongside The Three-Body Problem (Part II), which I’m in the middle of now.
I like the hypothetical and I am curious to see where you will take it next. However, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the so-called economic singularity. The current thesis assumes we’re optimizing the world for productivity. But with more AI, productivity will become secondary to something else – some kind of authentic human experience. The economy doesn’t collapse; rather, the definition of value shifts.
Yes, many law and marketing jobs may be dominated by AI. That’s fine, but I have zero interest in reading AI-generated articles or watching AI-generated videos. If everything becomes AI, and we as humans start valuing scarcity, then the real value lies in whatever isn’t intelligence.
Which raises a question: what’s the relevance of GDP as a measurement today, and what should the relevance of your proposed new metric be?
Either way, I am excited for humanoids. It almost feels like, instead of setting up a kid’s room, I should be preparing a charging station for my humanoid buddy at home instead.