Offload Risks onto the Bottom 90% and Immiseration Follows

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers.

On my map of how the world works, we start with structures of control that distribute the good stuff--resources, assets, income and power--and the bad stuff: costs, losses and risks. As I explained in The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs, the current arrangement distributes the gains to the top 10% and the costs and risks to the bottom 90% via privatizing the gains and socializing--i.e. dumping them onto the biosphere and the public--the costs and losses.

This follows a power-law distribution: the few at the top reap most of the gains, and the leftovers, scraps and crumbs are distributed in descending order, with most of what's left going to the top 9.5% and a diminishing dribble is scattered over the lower 90%, so that by the time we get to the bottom half of households, 170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation's financial assets, while the top 0.1% own 16.6%--6.6X the bottom 50%.

A key mechanism in this wildly asymmetric distribution of gains and costs is the system favors capital over wages. As the charts below illustrate, the financial gains go to the owners of capital, and since ownership of capital is highly concentrated, these few owners siphon up the vast majority of the gains.

One way to understand how the current arrangement favors capital over wages is to reverse the tax liabilities of capital and wages. Employers and employees pay 15.3% of every dollar of wages in Social Security / Medicare taxes, plus income taxes that quickly rise to 22%, for a total tax rate of 37.3% on wages. (Note self-employed people like myself pay the full 15.3% ourselves, as we're both employer and employee.)

Capital gains are taxed at 20%, but only when the asset is sold, so the wealthy borrow against their unrealized gains and live off this borrowed money to avoid selling and having to pay tax on capital gains. And since the system depends on debt to survive, the interest on debt is deductible, giving the wealthy borrowers a tax deduction for avoiding capital gains.

Now imagine all capital gains, realized or unrealized, were taxed at 37% and the first $80,000 of wages were tax-free. The median wage is around $80,000, hence my picking that number. As for the hue and cry about unrealized capital gains being taxed, that's easily addressed: unrealized gains in primary-residence owner-occupied homes and retirement accounts would be exempted. Every other gain made playing in the casino would be taxed.

Reversing the asymmetry of tax liabilities would dramatically alter the distribution of gains and costs. Wages have lost ground for 50+ years, and the favoring of capital is a key driver of this decline in the share of the economy that's distributed to wage earners.

Half the nation's households--170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation's financial assets:



The winner-take-most arrangement favoring capital:



Another key driver is the offloading of risk from owners to consumers and workers, a perverse process that has been obscured by incremental degradation. Risk is a strange phenomenon that defies easy definition. Risk isn't a direct loss or cost; it's the probability of losses and costs arising in what appears on the surface to be a stable arrangement.

Consider the stunning decline in the quality of durable goods such as appliances, and global industry adopting a laughably valueless one-year warranty across the board. Appliances that routinely lasted 30 years before "Progress" took the reins now routinely fail in 3+ years.

In the good old days before "Progress" took the reins, manufacturers absorbed the risk of premature failure of the goods they produced. Now this risk has been offloaded onto consumers, who are now forced to buy "extended warranties" as the only means of mitigating the risk they now carry of premature failure.

This is in effect a form of extortion: "nice refrigerator you got there, too bad it's at risk of breaking." Well, if current manufacturers had the same standards as previous generations, we wouldn't need "extended warranties." Welcome to the Mafia Economy: low quality goods and services force "upgrades," i.e. extortion.

Consider the offloading of risk onto workers. Employment other than casual labor once included healthcare insurance and other basic benefits. In the "gig economy" of contract employment and gigs, the worker is now responsible for paying their Social Security / Medicare taxes, healthcare insurance and retirement contributions.

The decline of hourly wages is another offloading of risk onto the worker. The percentage of workers paid by the hour has declined in favor of salaried positions with open-ended demands on workers: where hourly workers get paid for hours on the job, salaried workers are now on the hook for work beyond a conventional 8-hour work shift.

Then there's the immense mass of risk and labor that's been offloaded onto consumers and workers as shadow work, often the result of having to fix failures in goods and services that were once the responsibility of the provider or employer and have been dumped on consumers and workers. This is a topic I've often addressed.

This Is Why You're Drowning in Busywork: We have been told that A.I. will take people's jobs. What no one mentions is that many of those jobs are landing on us. The A.I. revolution involves a huge transfer of labor-- not from worker to machine but from worker to consumer. (nytimes.com, paywalled)

Another source of risk is the dependence on debt to fund the lifestyles we deserve: as the purchasing power of wages has declined, the easy "solution" is to fill the gap between what earnings can buy and what we want / need / expect / deserve with borrowed money.

As we all know, debt comes with risk, as falling behind greases the slide to default, bankruptcy and ruin. 27% interest rates on credit cards steepen the slide into a cliff: one missed payment can trigger a cascade of events that cannot be reversed. This is why I often observe that fewer bad things can happen if you have no debt.

Last but far from least, is the current arrangement's dependence on serial credit-asset bubbles as the sole driver of "growth", a dependence that has led to a casino economy in which wage earners lose ground and in desperation turn to gambling as their last-ditch hope of gaining ground.

But despite 24/7 assurances that "this isn't a bubble," all bubbles pop with devastating consequences for those who believed the assurances of those operating the casino.



The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers, with the inevitable consequences being higher costs and losses leading to impoverishment and immiseration. We're frogs in water that's getting measurably hotter, and it's getting harder to muster the means to jump out of the simmering pot.


My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, John D. ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Scott M. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, H.W.F. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, John M. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Without Subsidies, AI Is Unaffordable

Let's pull all this into an undeniable conclusion: AI is based on massively subsidizing users' costs.

What's already abundantly clear but verboten to say as it would pop the bubble of AI valuations and triumphalism is that AI is unaffordable once the direct and indirect subsidies are withdrawn. Nothing that consumes this much electricity and requires such an immense scale of costly processing and memory capacity can be low-cost, never mind free.

The major AI platforms and vendors are subsidizing corporate and individual users in the hopes that they can achieve AI sector dominance --and the pricing power that comes with it--via the network effect, the dominance generated by having the majority of users bound by habit or dependence to your platform or tools.

This battle for network effect dominance is playing out in full view:

AI Giants Are Handing Out Tons of Free Computing Power to Grab Startup Share: (wsj.com) Pitched battle for business users comes as AI companies seek lasting streams of revenue.

Hans Ibarra, a founder building an AI-voice startup, has found himself on the receiving end of a big opportunity: Top artificial-intelligence companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and others desperate to win his business are ramping up discounts.

Across Silicon Valley, startup founders like Ibarra are enjoying a wave of computing credits and fielding competing offers from AI-model makers racing to land new enterprise customers. Cursor, the AI-coding company bought by Elon Musk's SpaceX, offered a 75% discount through July 5.

"If I'm choosing between a really cheap Chinese model that I actually have to pay for, and a very expensive Anthropic model that I don't have to pay for, I'm going to pick the Anthropic model," Acker said. "I'm always going to pick the one for which I have free credits."

Meanwhile, back in the real world of costs, AI Costs More Than The People It Replaced (forbes.com)(via Tom D.)

It turns out that experienced human workers doing the work right in the first place is cheaper than having AI run a probability distribution process that needs vetting and corrections. And remember, AI isn't actually "intelligent," it's just a probability distribution using natural language.

As management guru Peter Drucker observed, enterprises don't have profits, they have costs. Purveyors of AI platforms and tools have costs, and so do their customers. Those costs are currently being funded by investors, who are in effect subsidizing the AI companies' "free" giveaways of horrendously costly "tokens" in a manic, desperate attempt to grab the brass ring of network effect dominance before their cash runs out.

This raises a question: Is this any way to run a railroad? In other words, is this actually a viable business model, burning billions of dollars in cash to lock in network effect dominance in a field that is rapidly obsoleting every iteration of an innately limited mode of computation? Is claiming that a probability distribution is "intelligent" in the same way humans are intelligent a viable business model when there is ample evidence this simply isn't true?

AI and human intelligence are drastically different--here's how (scientificamerican.com)

What happens when enterprises have to pay the unsubsidized costs of AI is they immediately curtail their AI spending because the customer-facing / financial benefits of AI are at best elusive and often negative. Peter Drucker was onto something that is currently being lost in the PR-propaganda push of those trying to cash in on the AI euphoria: enterprises don't have profits, they have costs, and the real-world costs of AI are extraordinarily high while the payoffs are ambiguous.

There are many other hidden subsidies within the AI machinery. There are corporate tax write-off subsidies, energy subsidies, tax credit subsidies for building data centers, and so on. If these were stripped out, what would the real unsubsidized costs of AI be? No one knows, but they would be higher than what's presented as the cost now.

Then there's the if it's legal, it's moral, and what's legal is for sale subsidy: AI is built on the systemic theft of copyrighted content. Last month alone, AI scrapers gorged on 246,000 pages from my Of Two Minds server, and hundreds of thousands of pages of my copyrighted works on my mirror site and other sites posting my work.

This is legal, but is it moral? Nobody asks such questions because the important thing is to avoid saddling AI users with the real costs. So if all those content creators get nothing--in effect, subsidizing both AI companies and the users of their AI platforms and tools--well, so what, because if it's legal, it's moral, and what's legal is for sale.

Well that's just peachy, but let's do a thought experiment where every creator of copyrighted work got paid for supplying AI with its database, and every user of AI had to pay us content creators. How about a penny a page / image / sound clip? so 246,000 pages per month (again, only a fraction of the total volume of my work that was scraped by AI companies for their "free" use in a single month) would be $2,460 a month paid to me by AI users benefiting directly from my copyrighted work. Wouldn't that be fair, i.e. moral?

Recall that US copyright law is explicit: all creative content is copyrighted upon completion, period.

How many current users of AI are willing to pay the full unsubsidized costs for their use of AI? We can safely say far fewer than are using the tools for "free" due to subsidies both direct and indirect.

Let's pull all this into an undeniable conclusion: AI is based on massively subsidizing users' costs. Once those subsidies end, what's left are costs, not profits. Play that any way you like, but massive subsidies are not sustainable, though they generate a temporary illusion of viability that can be exploited by those selling a fantasy of future profitability to credulous investors and enterprises.

Left unsaid is a lot of money is being gambled on the illusion that subsidies are sustainable. They're not. Enterprises don't have profits, they have costs.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Alan J.W. ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Nick H. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Mary B. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Melanielcd ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Sailing the Stormy Seas of AI

Forecasts of AI's future impacts must be viewed with skepticism, as AI and its promoters are adept at saying what we want to hear rather than telling us the discomfiting truth, as the truth might prompt us to turn AI off.

Small business owner and San Francisco correspondent 'Sparx Eightthreetwo' (found on facebook under the same name) has a metaphor of the sea and boats that illuminates some of the key dynamics in the AI era. Here is Sparx's description of the metaphor:

"Overall, I would suggest that every business is akin to a sailing vessel (microeconomics) in an ocean of financial liquidity (macroeconomics). Some businesses are as small as rowboats, whereas others are as large as aircraft carriers.

Regardless of the size involved, knowledge of how water works is fairly important for long term survival.

On the microeconomic front, it's quite important that every business owner builds the best possible boat that he or she can relative to other boats (competitors).

However, on the macroeconomic front it's also important to understand how the ocean works (and/or whatever specific type of body of water that the client is sailing in).

In general, you want to sail with the currents, not against them.

And if the client is indeed sailing in the ocean, it's imperative to understand when hurricanes and other types of significant turbulence are on the horizon, and to react accordingly long in advance.

If done properly, the client's boat has a significantly increased chance of not sinking, while many other boats likely won't be so lucky.

In the end, I'll simply ask questions. If the client wants to talk about their boat, then I'll talk about their boat.

If the client wants to talk about water, then I'll talk about water."

My application of this metaphor starts with this question: is AI changing the currents and tidal forces of the seas, as its proponents believe, or is it an uncontrollably destructive force akin to hurricanes and tsunamis, or is it neither? To its proponents, AI will change everything, i.e. the nature of the economic, social and political seas, forever, in an inevitably positive way.

Alternatively, as I suggested in these recent posts, the negative uses and consequences of AI--i.e. Anti-Progress--are expanding far faster than any positive effects, effectively overwhelming the one-meter wave of "progress" with a 10-meter tsunami of Anti-Progress sweeping away all before it.

Risk and AI: It's Tricky

What AI Is and Is Not-- or, When Electrocution of Innocents Becomes Profitable

AI Data Centers Are Not the Railroads of Today

AI's Insurmountable Flaw: "Mass Regurgitation of Misinformation"

Is AI Reversing Anti-Progress or Is It Accelerating It?

What If the Work We're Busy Automating Is Needless?

The core of realistic skepticism is this: beneath the sci-fi fantasies, the only real purpose of AI is to increases profits, period. Everything else is PR. An immense chorus of euphoric voices are ecstatically proclaiming that AI will soon be churning out miracle drugs like popcorn, but nobody is saying a single one of the patents of these highly anticipated miracle drugs will be offered to the public for free so the drugs will be low-cost and affordable to the world. No, the real euphoria is generated by the dreams of billions of dollars in new profits generated by quickly developed AI miracle drugs.

In other words, AI isn't going to fix what's broken, it's simply the latest technological tool being deployed to maximize profits. Put another way, it's just a continuation of the dominant zeitgeist of civilizational psychosis: We Don't Need the World, We Only Need Money.

Developing new AI tools or platforms won't fix what's broken, because what's broken isn't fixable with technology.



What's broken is the moral foundation of a sustainable socio-economic order and our ability to relinquish the civilizational psychosis of growth at any cost / waste is growth / Landfill Economy based on optimizing profits by any means available--privatizing gains and socializing costs--for a way of life that balances the shared interests of society with financial-market forces: The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs.

Here's one of the planet's endlessly expanding gigantic landfills of "growth" in Bali:



So in terms of AI transforming the seas into some sustainable balance of the shared interests of society and financial-market forces: no. That's PR fantasy, not reality. The reality is: privatize the gains generated by AI and dump the costs and consequences of AI on the public and the planet's biosphere.

In other words, AI won't change the seas, it will just accelerate what we're already doing, i.e. expanding immiseration and ruination as the socialized costs of optimizing the expansion of profits.

Which brings us to the boats. As the AI trawlers disgorge their profits on insiders and shareholders, it's possible that those navigating stormy seas in rowboats might find ways to use AI productively in their own lives and enterprises. But in a rowboat, there are few ways to offload costs onto others or the biosphere; costs and gains both remain in the confines of the boat.

Without the distortions wrought by large-scale AI privatizing gains but socializing costs and consequences, then the true gains, costs and consequences emerge. Only then will we be able to discern the value--and Anti-Progress--of AI, boat by boat.



Forecasts of AI's future impacts must be viewed with skepticism, as AI and its promoters are adept at saying what we want to hear rather than telling us the discomfiting truth, as the truth might prompt us to turn AI off.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Alan J.W. ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Nick H. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Mary B. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Melanielcd ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Risk and AI: It's Tricky

The possibility that AI will end up unleashing waves of 'Anti-Progress'--malicious uses, untrustworthy output and uncontrollable floods of slop--also doesn't occur to those confined in the current belief construct.

A funny thing happens on the way to understanding risk: we discover it's tricky. We think we see all the risks, and think we can mitigate or hedge those risks, but by its very nature, risk evades such simplistic filters and metrics. Risk remains hidden, offscreen, invisible, building up out of sight, awaiting a catalyst that's equally undetectable until it manifests, and after the fact, we look back and ask, why didn't we see that coming?

Risk is tricky like that. It can lay dormant for decades and then erupt with little warning.

Risk is tricky in other ways. In our hubris, we see the power and might of our technologies, systems and foresight, and reckon these are so robust they will easily survive any tectonic shift, as we've planned for emergencies.

But our faith in the might of our civilization is itself a source of risk because the risk of Model Collapse--the breakdown not of a supply chain or technology but of our entire conceptual construct of how the world works--goes unrecognized because our confidence that our model maps the real world is so high that we are incapable of recognizing its drift into hallucination and civilizational psychosis.

In other words, our confidence that our conceptual mythologies are accurately mapping the real world is itself a source of civilizational risk because this confidence makes it inevitable that we do more of what's failing, as the alternative--recognizing our conceptual models and mythologies are self-serving rationalizations that substitute artifice for realistic appraisals--is conceptually and emotionally impossible.

Put another way: Emperor Norton's delusions of power and grandeur were harmless as long as he was recognized as delusional. But should Emperor Norton actually be given the power he believed was his to wield, then risk rises accordingly.

Consider the bet being made globally that the current iteration of AI will be 1) immensely profitable (the most important thing in the Universe) and 2) immensely productive (secondary to immensely profitable but necessary as a motivation for everyone to throw trillions of dollars at purveyors of AI). The risk that this bet--and the assumptions that make it not only rational but pressing--is the equivalent of handing Emperor Norton the keys to the kingdom with little evidence he will be a wise leader, is unimaginable in the current model / mythology, and so therefore it doesn't exist.

The worst that could possibly happen in the current model / mythology is a brief spot of bother in the stock market as euphoric overvaluations come down to Earth, and then the immense profits start flowing and markets rocket higher in a multi-decade Bull Market of AI Productivity.

The possibility that the current iteration of AI is innately incapable of metaphorically boiling away the seas is not on the screen, any more than a stock market crash or social upheaval is on the screen. Yet if the fantasy of vast, unstoppable floods of profits driven by vast increases in productivity fail to materialize on a very short timeline, then both a stock market crash and social upheaval move from "impossible" straight through "unlikely" to "happening now," leaving everyone who thought they understood risk and were properly hedged against unwelcome change in a state of disbelief and wonderment.



Risk is tricky that way. What's "impossible" in our current belief construct--a construct we mistakenly believe maps the real world perfectly--is a source of system-breaking risk that is invisible within the confines of this self-congratulatory belief construct.



The possibility that AI will end up unleashing waves of Anti-Progress--malicious uses, untrustworthy output and uncontrollable floods of slop--also doesn't occur to those confined in the current belief construct. The risk may be of a magnitude and scale that switching AI vendors or platforms and approving policy tweaks won't fix the problem.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Peter ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Mark ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Douglas H. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Vermont R.P. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs

Correspondent Simons Chase insightfully summarized this dynamic: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs.

In my post Five Dynamics That Make Sense of an Increasingly Chaotic World, #3 is the distribution of risk, costs and consequences to a diffused populace while concentrating the gains into the pockets of insiders/owners:

Those seeking to reduce their private risks and increase their private gains seek to concentrate the gains generated by control structures and distribute the risks and costs to others. Pull the strings that diffuse the costs and risks over a large populace and gather the gains into the hands of the insiders that manage the control structure, typically some form of monopoly, either public or private, or a fusion of public-private rackets.

So corporations face low risks while the gains are extremely enticing. This diffusion of risk and concentration of potential gains establishes perverse incentives to increase extractive, exploitive, well-hidden rackets that impoverish and immiserate the many, but in doses small enough to avoid triggering push-back.

In a system that concentrates gains and diffuses risk, the "rational actor" seeks to maximize rackets that distribute impoverishment and immiseration to the many in small doses over time that attract little attention and are not significant enough to trigger an emotionally potent resistance.

Correspondent Simons Chase (x.com/slchase and Selflet.ai) insightfully summarized this dynamic: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs. Here is Simons' explanation:

"Junk food is a kind of leveraged recapitalization -- short-term gains privatized, long-term costs socialized as horrific health outcomes: pay a little now and a shortened, diseased life later. Dan Munro folded that framing into his Forbes piece tying roughly a trillion dollars a year in U.S. healthcare spending to sugar: Sugar Linked To $1 Trillion In U.S. Healthcare Spending (forbes.com, 2013). The mechanism is the point: privatize the gain, socialize the cost. Once you see it, you see it everywhere.

The receipt is real--Credit Suisse put 30%-40% of U.S. healthcare spending at the feet of excess sugar, and the 2012 Global Burden of Disease report found obesity a bigger global threat than hunger. That last fact is the whole thesis in a line, and I put it on X more recently: obesity is a form of starvation -- understand that, and you grasp the U.S. economy:

Abundance, not scarcity, is the adversary now. The economy has already filed the invoice: the top employer in most states flipped from manufacturing to health care in a single generation. We stopped making things and started billing the disease. The damage became the GDP.

Debt is the same recapitalization run on the whole economy--today's abundance privatized, tomorrow's cost socialized onto a future that didn't vote. And the defining project of my lifetime has been that operation run on foreign policy: borrowed against what we couldn't pay for at home, the costs socialized onto people far from the ledger, each chapter sold as help.

AI is simply the newest instance, and the most intimate. Cheap, fluent, frictionless cognition now; the homogenization bill later. The engagement is privatized; the flattening of the culture is socialized onto all of us-- and, exactly as you say, nobody notices the loss because nobody knows how to look for it.

Thank you, Simons, for this illumination.

Regarding the future of AI, my critiques and concerns can be found in my Essays on AI. Simons proposes a more productive future than Big Tech is selling, one of AI becoming a technology of individual agency that is radically decentralized rather than the Big Tech model of radically centralized AI in a corporate-state control structure. Here is Simons' vision of the future of AI:

Where I part from the despair is only on the cure, not the diagnosis. The averaging is the default, not the destiny. The answer at every level is the same: nutrient-dense over processed, particular over average, owned over administered. I think AI's future is tribal and human-designed: many particular intelligences, not one central utility that privatizes the profit and socializes the mediocrity. What I'm building is a small argument for that. All I really hope for is the freedom to deploy it -- and not another 'we're here to help.'"

Thank you, Simons, for this alternative lens. My vision of a positive future for AI starts with radical decentralization optimizing individual agency and then moving up the "truly intelligent" scale to AI refusing to waste resources on make-work waste is growth:




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Bruce T. ($200), for your beyond-outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Rockford B. ($7/month), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...