I mean a structured system in which different tiers of economic actors are positioned - by design, not by accident - to either extract value or have value extracted from them. And what I found in the AI economy is not a bug. It's not an unintended consequence. It's the product itself.
Since Richard Nixon was forced to resign, powerful people in both political parties have worked assiduously to ensure that their leaders would escape the consequences of their actions. Trump has evaded punishment for crimes both low (campaign-finance violations, for which he was convicted, though he will serve no time thanks to his 2024 victory) and high (his attempted overthrow of the federal government in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss, for which he was spared by the Supreme Court's decision to grant him a kingly immunity).
Your org chart is probably going to start condensing into becoming more flat horizontally. Advances in AI can equip a single person with the capacity to manage more human teams because basic job functions like reporting and data can be automated. I think that breaks the middle management hierarchy.
RST: Good morning, my dear hard-boiled egg. Did you have a good trip to Austin, upholding the patriarchy and extolling the manly virtues of the Western canon? EGG: You are so irritating. Old white men need to have a little space in the lexicon of human endeavors. I stand for all of them. So there!! RST: 🤮 There's been a theme in the responses I'm hearing from people about this column, and it has to do with bodily functions and fluids.
As it turns out, neuroscience might be able to explain why. In a new study whose findings will surprise absolutely no one who's endured a fiery holiday dinner debate, researchers discovered that conservative and liberal brains don't just arrive at fundamentally different conclusions, but take strikingly different paths to get there. It's a fascinating piece of research which just might explain something about the yawning political divides currently tearing society apart.
I've interviewed over 200 people for articles, from startup founders to burned-out middle managers, and I've discovered something fascinating: intellectual depth isn't about fancy degrees or knowing obscure facts. It shows up in how we communicate. When certain habits dominate someone's style, it reveals a concerning lack of curiosity and critical thinking that goes beyond just being annoying-it fundamentally limits their ability to engage with the world meaningfully.
After years of computer saying no, and giving us all migraines and premature grey hair, I'm starting to worry that computer or rather AI large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini are taking too much of a fancy to playing nice and saying yes. I confess to using both of these programs, but I've noticed that, well, it's as if they're trying to please, with statements like You're absolutely right, Jeff, and That's pretty much right.
When I was a product marketing leader for a corporate regional bank, I found myself getting annoyed during an all-day strategy meeting. My frustration came from hearing the same voices, sharing the same old ideas. I wondered why other people, especially the women in the room, weren't speaking up. I remember thinking, "Well, you could be the one to speak up."
You know that person in the meeting who barely says anything, yet somehow everyone turns to them when decisions need to be made? I've been fascinated by this phenomenon ever since I started interviewing people for my articles. After talking to over 200 folks ranging from startup founders to middle managers, I noticed something striking: the ones who commanded the most respect weren't always the loudest voices in the room.
