Contrary to the feeling of rapid technological change, economic data shows productivity growth has been extremely low for 50 years. AI is not just another incremental improvement; it's a potential shock to a long-stagnant system, which is crucial context for its impact.

A paradox of powerful AI is that it can be 'GDP-destroying.' When AI substitutes for a service you would have paid for (e.g., hiring a contractor), it creates immense personal value but removes a transaction from the economy. This makes GDP a poor metric for AI's true economic contribution, which may be understated.

Traditional metrics like GDP fail to capture the value of intangibles from the digital economy. Profit margins, which reflect real-world productivity gains from technology, provide a more accurate and immediate measure of its true economic impact.

Despite widespread adoption, Patrick Collison notes that AI has not yet produced measurable gains in macroeconomic productivity. He points to recent studies and the lack of corresponding GDP growth outside the U.S. as evidence that the diffusion of these technologies through the economy is slow and complex.

For current AI valuations to be realized, AI must deliver unprecedented efficiency, likely causing mass job displacement. This would disrupt the consumer economy that supports these companies, creating a fundamental contradiction where the condition for success undermines the system itself.

The stock market's enthusiasm for AI has created valuations based on future potential, not current reality. The average company using AI-powered products isn't yet seeing significant revenue generation or value, signaling a potential market correction.

The slow adoption of AI isn't due to a natural 'diffusion lag' but is evidence that models still lack core competencies for broad economic value. If AI were as capable as skilled humans, it would integrate into businesses almost instantly.

While AI investment has exploded, US productivity has barely risen. Valuations are priced as if a societal transformation is complete, yet 95% of GenAI pilots fail to positively impact company P&Ls. This gap between market expectation and real-world economic benefit creates systemic risk.

The primary macroeconomic impact of AI in 2025 was not from supply-side productivity improvements but from demand-side wealth effects. A surge in AI-related stock values boosted the economy. The sustainability of this boost in 2026 depends on whether actual productivity gains materialize to justify high valuations.