Tech leaders catastrophize about AI causing a job apocalypse to make their technology seem seminal and revolutionary. This narrative is a thinly veiled attempt to justify massive valuations and encourage enterprises to invest heavily in their platforms before tangible ROI is proven.
Instead of viewing grief as a problem to be solved or 'gotten over,' it should be seen as a feature of a well-lived life. Grief is the natural and proportional receipt for the love you have for someone. Experiencing deep grief means you experienced deep connection, and that is not something to be erased.
Frictionless online interactions are eroding young people's ability to handle rejection. This resilience, built by hearing 'no' in professional and social pursuits, is the common trait among self-made successful people. The willingness to risk rejection is what allows one to 'punch above their weight class.'
Despite predictions of mass unemployment from tech leaders, the actual economic data shows the opposite. U.S. unemployment is below historical averages, and new business creation has doubled in the last decade. The predicted 'exogenous meteor coming for the employment market' is not reflected in reality.
Unlike a capitalist transaction, finding one's purpose means investing in something—like children, a cause, or country—from which you can never get a full return. This one-way investment of love, concern, and effort is precisely what creates a profound sense of meaning and purpose in life.
The top 0.1% are so sequestered from societal problems—using private jets, concierge medicine, and private security—that they are no longer invested in the health of the nation. Their focus shifts from strengthening public systems to creating personal escape plans ('go-bags' and bunkers), which is a nihilistic and unhealthy trend.
The perception of AI has soured dramatically, especially for middle-class individuals who see rising energy costs and job threats, not portfolio gains. The brand has shifted from a scary but optimistic wealth creator to a tool that only benefits the already-rich, causing significant brand erosion.
Contrary to fears, AI is acting as a supplement, not a replacement, for skilled professionals. For example, job listings for radiologists and coders have increased. AI handles mundane tasks, allowing experts to focus on higher-value work like diagnosis and creative problem-solving, thus boosting productivity and demand.
Preventing market corrections and bailing out established businesses protects the wealth of older generations at the expense of the young. Recessions and asset dips are healthy, as they allow those in their prime income-earning years to buy assets like stocks and real estate cheaply—a crucial mechanism for wealth building that is now being stifled.
The common mantra 'AI won't take your job, someone using AI will' is an understatement. A single employee who is highly competent with AI can automate and streamline workflows to such a degree that they can perform the work previously done by five people, leading to a consolidation of roles, not a 1-to-1 replacement.
A potential economic strategy for China is to flood the global market with cheap or free open-weight AI models. This 'AI dumping' would make it impossible for US AI companies to justify their massive valuations, potentially triggering a market crash, as a huge portion of the S&P 500 is tied to the AI investment boom.
We have replaced religious figures with tech CEOs, viewing them as saviors with our best interests at heart. This 'idolatry of innovators' makes us forget their primary job is to increase shareholder value by any legal means, even if it causes societal harm. We shouldn't trust them; we should regulate them.
Not all seminal technologies create a small number of trillion-dollar companies. Industries like jet transportation, PCs, and vaccines have been transformative for society but have collectively generated little to no net profit for shareholders over time. AI could follow this path, benefiting users immensely without creating massive company valuations.
Scott Galloway argues that GLP-1 drugs (like Ozempic) will have a greater impact on people's lives and ultimately create more shareholder value than artificial intelligence. When asked, individuals who use both would likely give up AI before their GLP-1 medication, highlighting its profound personal impact.