The singularity is what preceded the big bang. Just a hot, dense point in a dark vaccum that got so hot and so entropic that it exploded and the universe existed. A bunch of rocks and dust that evolved from the entropy into rocks that could sustain ecologies. That’s the current theory at least.
From disorder came progress. From progress came disorder. And so on.
It’s almost as if this cycle is the definition of in perpetuum. We exist in the cycle and, for a brief moment, we inherit some of its benefits and then we exit the chaos, hopefully having left enough of a mark on the mess to facilitate some progress.
There’s so much economic uncertainly right now that is directly attributed to AI fatigue; particularly concern about the “AI bubble”. Many are absolutely convinced that there will be a burst. Others believe that the paradigm shift in our foundations of this Technological Revolution will result in long-term and lasting gains. Whether one or the other is true, there will certainly be progress that comes from this chaos.
I think about this often: what if the human capital cost isn’t offset by the efficiency gains? Or, for that matter, what if it is? Wouldn’t there need to be policy that ensures basic sustenance for the current working class? Wouldn’t that policy need to extend to all who have been displaced? After all, if no one is working, what entitles one person to a universal basic income versus another, besides time spent out of the workforce?
An AI burst would be catastrophic for the economy. A sustained period of prosperity would be catastrophic for the hoi polloi. One outcome impacts capital, and one doesn’t. And that is where I think the line of demarcation lies.
Recent examples, like the Railway Mania of the 1840s and the Dot-com Bubble of the early 2000s are historical examples of new technologies (railways and the internet) driving economic bubbles due to excessive capital dumping and speculation. When both bubbles burst, they financially ruined not just wealthy investors, but also displaced professional and middle-class workers. The resulting policy responses, like the suspension of the Bank Charter Act in 1847 and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), were crucial for stabilizing global financial systems and allowing the displaced workforce to eventually rebuild within the actual utility of the surviving technology.
The Industrial Revolution attracted massive capital investment and created long, sustained national prosperity. However, this success severely displaced skilled artisans and subjected the working class, including children, to brutal factory conditions and exploitation. Eventually the government had to do something to limit hours and enforce safer conditions, thereby regulating the technology and protecting workers.
That’s where we are. An uncomfortable place to be, but not an unprecedented place to be. Don’t let the feeds convince you otherwise. The real question, or perhaps concern here is, will the progress be worth the entropy? If we go through the pain of an economic crisis and rebuilding, will the end justify the means?
The answer to that question, as I’ve learned over the years in my career of helping build the technology that has led us to this moment, is: it depends.
Signal Intent 