I long believed that remote work, decentralized finance, and digital tools would free us from the grip of any single nation-state. The Sovereign Individual (TSI) depicts a future where people can earn a living from anywhere, pressuring governments to offer better tax rates and personal freedoms. If one state got too costly or authoritarian, we’d just move to another.
That vision felt real when I started working for a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO), I didn't need more than a laptop and was paid in cryptocurrency; it’s the perfect example of how the digital economy can erode state power. But TSI overlooks some major forces. For example, that people aren’t purely rational; even if I could pack my laptop and switch to a better jurisdiction, I chose to remain near family and friends. Second, that subsequent technological leaps—most notably in AI—may outpace TSI’s century-long timeline, transforming our relationship to states and labor far more quickly and in different unexpected ways.
AI: New realities, faster timelines
Suddenly, the AI boom shifted our horizons. With generative models like ChatGPT (and more recently models like o1 or o3), tasks once reserved for skilled professionals—coding, writing, analyzing data—became partially or even fully automated.
We’re not at “true AGI” yet, but progress has shattered the old assumption of “maybe in 20–30 years.” Now, many observers suggest it could be under a decade—possibly even just 2–3 years away, assuming breakthroughs continue at this pace.
Some argue we might plateau for some time if we run out of data or fail to develop more efficient techniques, extending timelines until we reach AGI. Still, every leap makes AGI feel less distant. We’re no longer dealing with a far-off fantasy. TSI’s long timeline of states competing for skilled workers over a century looks increasingly compressed. Perhaps the real race is about controlling AI, raising the question: will humans remain central if machines can out-think us across many domains?
Competing Sources of Intelligence: Humans vs. AI
At the core of this upheaval is intelligence: the most precious resource of modern economies. Traditionally, humans had a monopoly on intelligence and states “farmed” it by investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure to create productive, taxpaying citizens.
Now, AI promises an alternative source to intelligence, analogous to discovering new oil fields. Pour in capital—electricity, high-end hardware, and research budgets—and you can extract the cognitive power you need.
Crucially, AI might eventually remove humans from significant segments of the economy altogether. Like the Industrial Revolution, which replaced many manual processes with machines, advanced AI could replace entire layers of knowledge-based work. From software development to legal analysis, whole professions could shrink or transform. If states historically relied on taxing human labor, they may soon look to taxing AI-driven profits instead. That realignment begs the question: What happens to the millions (or billions) of people whose labor is no longer vital?
Why Would Governments Still Care About Humans?
As discussed in detail in "The Intelligence Curse" (TIC), if AI is more reliable and scalable than human labor, some governments might feel no need for a robust middle class. They could cater to AI-based corporations, ensuring these firms remain profitable and pay taxes. This mirrors a rentier state scenario, where nations rich in natural resources often neglect their populations because a single commodity (oil, diamonds, or minerals) funds their budget. Equatorial Guinea is infamous for oil revenues that barely trickle down to citizens, while Norway uses its petroleum wealth to invest in robust social services—two sides of the same coin.
Translating this to AI, a government might see less reason to invest in healthcare or education if the bulk of revenue comes from a handful of large AI labs. It’s as if these labs become “AI oil wells,” pumping out valuable cognitive output without requiring a broad labor force. If intelligence can be procured from machines, the old social contract—where states help citizens thrive in exchange for their productivity—could unravel.
The Real Question: Who Is The New Boss?
Yet there’s a deeper power realignment happening. In The Sovereign Individual, states lose power because individuals become globally mobile and tax competition heats up. Meanwhile, in The Intelligence Curse, states lose interest in those same individuals and start serving AI Labs so that they can use them as a better revenue source.
But what if we skip the phase where both individuals AND state hold any lasting power and jump straight to a new dynamic, where AI labs or mega-corporations eclipse traditional governments.
This emerging scenario leads to the real problem: what if states, already outpaced in technical prowess, simply cede control to these AI-driven actors? Governments might scramble to attract or regulate AI labs, but if the labs can generate their own “cognitive wealth” without human labor or broad public investment, that competition might be short-lived. We risk entering an era where official power still carries the label “government,” yet substantial decision-making authority rests in corporate or AI-led infrastructures.
That is the tension both TSI and TIC hint at from different angles. And the sharper it becomes, the less we can rely on the old social contract—one built around states nurturing and taxing human intelligence. Now, the question is not whether states care about their people, but whether states themselves retain power in the face of AI’s rise.
But there’s a twist: even if AI labs overshadow states, they still operate in an economic system that ultimately needs someone to buy their outputs or invest in their services. Traditional governments could fade into mere shells that collect corporate taxes, but if human prosperity collapses entirely, who remains to purchase what AI creates?
The Demand-Side Puzzle—Who Buys Anything If Humans Don’t Earn?
A fully automated system runs into a big snag: economies still require consumers. If human jobs vanish without universal basic income or similar measures, spending power collapses. Corporations might consider a “post-human” market, but that concept quickly unravels. Multiple AI systems have little reason to trade or compete if there are no humans setting objectives or driving demand. The entire idea of “market transactions” can dissolve, offering no tangible benefit and raising existential questions about what an economy even is without people.
Beyond Consumption: Human Purpose and Freedom
Of course, we aren’t just consumers. People crave autonomy, social belonging, and meaningful work. If all that’s left for humans is a minimal stipend, dissatisfaction can spiral into unrest. Historically, excluded populations—whether displaced by the Industrial Revolution or other upheavals—have pushed back against the institutions that neglected them. In an AI-driven future, such pushback might target data centers, power grids, or entire supply chains.
Alternatively, humanity might drift into apathy, with declining birth rates and minimal engagement. AI alone could keep operating, but it would be stranded without the cultural, intellectual, and moral frameworks people bring. Neither outcome—mass rebellion nor mass ennui—seems appealing for a stable society. As we saw with earlier technological disruptions, you need buy-in from both labor and capital to maintain order and creativity. Balance is key if we want to move forward without tearing ourselves apart.
Why Paying Attention Matters: The Fragile Market Equilibrium
So we may end up in a delicate standoff: corporations and states could provide just enough for people to keep society running, while humans accept an AI-centric economy as long as they’re not completely shut out. But this balance can be precarious. If governments or companies ignore emerging social tensions, or if people lose trust in their future, the system could face deep conflict or collapse.
Some advocate strong regulations or far-reaching policies, but there’s reason to doubt whether our current governments can stay ahead of this rapidly evolving landscape. At the same time, letting market forces run wild risks exploitation. We need a thoughtful middle path, guided by creativity, collaboration, and ethical considerations. The question for all of us—tech leaders, policymakers, everyday citizens—is whether we can shape AI to genuinely empower humans, rather than hoping the invisible hand will magically save us.
Public-Good AI: A Vision to Unite Technology and Society?
What if we treated AI as a public good—a shared resource, akin to electricity or clean water, governed by transparent protocols rather than locked behind corporate firewalls?
In such a system, advanced models would be run and maintained by a DAO with global oversight, ensuring that AI’s productivity gains serve humanity at large. Governance could rely on cryptographic voting, automated audits, and legally binding smart contracts that prevent any single actor, including an autonomous AGI, from dominating.
Yes, it’s ambitious, much like AGI itself, remote work or TSI’s prediction of individuals escaping rigid state control. Yet that ambition might spark the exact kind of innovation we need. This approach wouldn’t solve every problem overnight—there would be complex challenges in trust, scaling, privacy, and equitable participation. But it offers a glimpse of a different path: one where AI becomes a catalyst for broad human flourishing, not a tool that centralizes power. As we stand on the threshold of a new era, perhaps our best move is to imagine big, take bold steps, and ensure tomorrow’s intelligence truly belongs to us all.
My Early Belief in Digital Empowerment
I long believed that remote work, decentralized finance, and digital tools would free us from the grip of any single nation-state. The Sovereign Individual (TSI) depicts a future where people can earn a living from anywhere, pressuring governments to offer better tax rates and personal freedoms. If one state got too costly or authoritarian, we’d just move to another.
That vision felt real when I started working for a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO), I didn't need more than a laptop and was paid in cryptocurrency; it’s the perfect example of how the digital economy can erode state power. But TSI overlooks some major forces. For example, that people aren’t purely rational; even if I could pack my laptop and switch to a better jurisdiction, I chose to remain near family and friends. Second, that subsequent technological leaps—most notably in AI—may outpace TSI’s century-long timeline, transforming our relationship to states and labor far more quickly and in different unexpected ways.
AI: New realities, faster timelines
Suddenly, the AI boom shifted our horizons. With generative models like ChatGPT (and more recently models like o1 or o3), tasks once reserved for skilled professionals—coding, writing, analyzing data—became partially or even fully automated.
We’re not at “true AGI” yet, but progress has shattered the old assumption of “maybe in 20–30 years.” Now, many observers suggest it could be under a decade—possibly even just 2–3 years away, assuming breakthroughs continue at this pace.
Some argue we might plateau for some time if we run out of data or fail to develop more efficient techniques, extending timelines until we reach AGI. Still, every leap makes AGI feel less distant. We’re no longer dealing with a far-off fantasy. TSI’s long timeline of states competing for skilled workers over a century looks increasingly compressed. Perhaps the real race is about controlling AI, raising the question: will humans remain central if machines can out-think us across many domains?
Competing Sources of Intelligence: Humans vs. AI
At the core of this upheaval is intelligence: the most precious resource of modern economies. Traditionally, humans had a monopoly on intelligence and states “farmed” it by investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure to create productive, taxpaying citizens.
Now, AI promises an alternative source to intelligence, analogous to discovering new oil fields. Pour in capital—electricity, high-end hardware, and research budgets—and you can extract the cognitive power you need.
Crucially, AI might eventually remove humans from significant segments of the economy altogether. Like the Industrial Revolution, which replaced many manual processes with machines, advanced AI could replace entire layers of knowledge-based work. From software development to legal analysis, whole professions could shrink or transform. If states historically relied on taxing human labor, they may soon look to taxing AI-driven profits instead. That realignment begs the question: What happens to the millions (or billions) of people whose labor is no longer vital?
Why Would Governments Still Care About Humans?
As discussed in detail in "The Intelligence Curse" (TIC), if AI is more reliable and scalable than human labor, some governments might feel no need for a robust middle class. They could cater to AI-based corporations, ensuring these firms remain profitable and pay taxes. This mirrors a rentier state scenario, where nations rich in natural resources often neglect their populations because a single commodity (oil, diamonds, or minerals) funds their budget. Equatorial Guinea is infamous for oil revenues that barely trickle down to citizens, while Norway uses its petroleum wealth to invest in robust social services—two sides of the same coin.
Translating this to AI, a government might see less reason to invest in healthcare or education if the bulk of revenue comes from a handful of large AI labs. It’s as if these labs become “AI oil wells,” pumping out valuable cognitive output without requiring a broad labor force. If intelligence can be procured from machines, the old social contract—where states help citizens thrive in exchange for their productivity—could unravel.
The Real Question: Who Is The New Boss?
Yet there’s a deeper power realignment happening. In The Sovereign Individual, states lose power because individuals become globally mobile and tax competition heats up. Meanwhile, in The Intelligence Curse, states lose interest in those same individuals and start serving AI Labs so that they can use them as a better revenue source.
But what if we skip the phase where both individuals AND state hold any lasting power and jump straight to a new dynamic, where AI labs or mega-corporations eclipse traditional governments.
This emerging scenario leads to the real problem: what if states, already outpaced in technical prowess, simply cede control to these AI-driven actors? Governments might scramble to attract or regulate AI labs, but if the labs can generate their own “cognitive wealth” without human labor or broad public investment, that competition might be short-lived. We risk entering an era where official power still carries the label “government,” yet substantial decision-making authority rests in corporate or AI-led infrastructures.
That is the tension both TSI and TIC hint at from different angles. And the sharper it becomes, the less we can rely on the old social contract—one built around states nurturing and taxing human intelligence. Now, the question is not whether states care about their people, but whether states themselves retain power in the face of AI’s rise.
But there’s a twist: even if AI labs overshadow states, they still operate in an economic system that ultimately needs someone to buy their outputs or invest in their services. Traditional governments could fade into mere shells that collect corporate taxes, but if human prosperity collapses entirely, who remains to purchase what AI creates?
The Demand-Side Puzzle—Who Buys Anything If Humans Don’t Earn?
A fully automated system runs into a big snag: economies still require consumers. If human jobs vanish without universal basic income or similar measures, spending power collapses. Corporations might consider a “post-human” market, but that concept quickly unravels. Multiple AI systems have little reason to trade or compete if there are no humans setting objectives or driving demand. The entire idea of “market transactions” can dissolve, offering no tangible benefit and raising existential questions about what an economy even is without people.
Beyond Consumption: Human Purpose and Freedom
Of course, we aren’t just consumers. People crave autonomy, social belonging, and meaningful work. If all that’s left for humans is a minimal stipend, dissatisfaction can spiral into unrest. Historically, excluded populations—whether displaced by the Industrial Revolution or other upheavals—have pushed back against the institutions that neglected them. In an AI-driven future, such pushback might target data centers, power grids, or entire supply chains.
Alternatively, humanity might drift into apathy, with declining birth rates and minimal engagement. AI alone could keep operating, but it would be stranded without the cultural, intellectual, and moral frameworks people bring. Neither outcome—mass rebellion nor mass ennui—seems appealing for a stable society. As we saw with earlier technological disruptions, you need buy-in from both labor and capital to maintain order and creativity. Balance is key if we want to move forward without tearing ourselves apart.
Why Paying Attention Matters: The Fragile Market Equilibrium
So we may end up in a delicate standoff: corporations and states could provide just enough for people to keep society running, while humans accept an AI-centric economy as long as they’re not completely shut out. But this balance can be precarious. If governments or companies ignore emerging social tensions, or if people lose trust in their future, the system could face deep conflict or collapse.
Some advocate strong regulations or far-reaching policies, but there’s reason to doubt whether our current governments can stay ahead of this rapidly evolving landscape. At the same time, letting market forces run wild risks exploitation. We need a thoughtful middle path, guided by creativity, collaboration, and ethical considerations. The question for all of us—tech leaders, policymakers, everyday citizens—is whether we can shape AI to genuinely empower humans, rather than hoping the invisible hand will magically save us.
Public-Good AI: A Vision to Unite Technology and Society?
What if we treated AI as a public good—a shared resource, akin to electricity or clean water, governed by transparent protocols rather than locked behind corporate firewalls?
In such a system, advanced models would be run and maintained by a DAO with global oversight, ensuring that AI’s productivity gains serve humanity at large. Governance could rely on cryptographic voting, automated audits, and legally binding smart contracts that prevent any single actor, including an autonomous AGI, from dominating.
Yes, it’s ambitious, much like AGI itself, remote work or TSI’s prediction of individuals escaping rigid state control. Yet that ambition might spark the exact kind of innovation we need. This approach wouldn’t solve every problem overnight—there would be complex challenges in trust, scaling, privacy, and equitable participation. But it offers a glimpse of a different path: one where AI becomes a catalyst for broad human flourishing, not a tool that centralizes power. As we stand on the threshold of a new era, perhaps our best move is to imagine big, take bold steps, and ensure tomorrow’s intelligence truly belongs to us all.