—hiring—
browse the job posts, and if any look like a match for you, just reply to this and if relevant i’ll make an introduction
stealth -pre-seed
ai workspace that automates the manual tasks running your business
beating the online gambling epidemic with virtual therapy for gambling addiction
—on a side note—
judging a couple of hackathons in april and may
hope to see a lot of incredible builders show up and build cool stuff
tackling government tech, design ,robotics , hardware!
stay tuned!
also i still have a lot of questions about “the age of abundance” if you can answer them, hmu?
fair warning ——you’ll have more questions than answers after this one——
everyone likes to talk about the promises of an “ai-native” world
and how it will bring “the age of abundance”
at-least in my tech bubble………..
and to be honest, i didn’t know what it was
maybe still dont.
after talking to a lot of people on x
and a few dinners
here’s the cusp of my knowledge …
ai gets smart enough
(or is already that smart if you talk to people who’ve use anthropic’s mythos)
then energy gets cheap enough,
and the defining constraint of human civilization
not having enough —> begins to dissolve
*pretty chill*
right?
infinite intelligence on tap
the marginal cost of a first draft → prototype, an analysis, diagnosis,
approaching zero
the entire creative and engineering stack rewritten
underneath us, in real time……..
while most people still argue the validity of the tools
parts of this are already true.
but the word itself is doing a lot of work, and most of the people using it have not stopped to ask what it actually means.
what it is
no one agrees.
what i believe it to be………….
at its core,
it’s a future where the convergence of ai, robotics, and cheap energy makes material goods, healthcare, and food effectively free.
it completely decouples human survival from traditional paid labor. if you look at the macro predictions mapped out in the research by kokotajlo, alexander, larsen, and dean
the timeline for this decoupling is accelerating faster than traditional economic models can track.
enough that i wont make any predictions to not be rendered obsolete by another new model drop
just gonna analyze the different definitions and predictions by “experts”
for sam altman,
abundance is what follows AGI…….
scientific breakthroughs cascading into material wealth so broad it reshapes the economy.
for the linkedin crowd,
it is a productivity thesis: 100x output, exponential leverage,
do more with less.
for tom blomfield, it is a health and longevity story as much as an economic one.
for jurgen gravestein, it is not the end of jobs, but the rise of “superwork”,
james o’sullivan treats the idea with open suspicion.
for the skeptics
it is a fantasy dressed in optimism.
margi prideaux warns that climate stress could reverse the entire narrative before it fully arrives.
what it isn’t
the definition shifts depending on who is selling and what they need you to believe.
but beneath the disagreements there is a real phenomenon.
the cost of producing intellectual output
so called “knowledge work”
coding, writing, analysis, design, strategy, even rudimentary research
is collapsing.
open-source models run local inference on a laptop.
agents coordinate tasks that used to require teams.
a single engineer can carry an entire product.
this is not speculative.
if you build anything right now, you feel it daily.
what it promises
the optimistic case is genuinely compelling, and dismissing it outright requires ignoring what is already happening.
blomfield laid it out directly
”AI does not just make existing work faster, it opens categories of work that were previously inaccessible. drug discovery, protein folding, personalized education, climate modeling. the cost of a first attempt at almost anything approaches zero.”
gravestein extends the thesis further: automation of drudge work, longer healthspan, the slow rewiring of how economies allocate human time. roel smelt argues the transition is already underway and the main challenge is no longer technical. it is perceptual. we are living inside the shift but narrating it in the past tense."
the christensen institute frames it through disruption theory — when intelligence becomes cheap and abundant, the scarce inputs change. the work that matters migrates. what was once bottlenecked by production becomes bottlenecked by judgment, interpretation, coordination, and trust.
thegreyswan’s essay captures this cleanly: value always migrates to the new bottleneck. in an age of plenty, the bottleneck is no longer making things. it is knowing what is worth making.
this is the strongest version of the abundance argument.
not that everyone gets everything.
but that the floor rises, the tools become available, and the constraint moves from capability to discernment.
what happened
the conversation shifted sometime in late 2025 and accelerated through 2026.
it stopped being about whether ai was useful and became about what happens when intelligence is effectively free.
a few things drove it.
open-source models caught up. mistral, deepseek
couple others (but can’t say they “caught up”)
serious inference running on consumer hardware. the cost of intelligence cratered faster than anyone modeled. what was exotic eighteen months ago became a weekend project.
agents got real.
functional enough that the gap between a single person and a small team started compressing.
one engineer orchestrating a fleet of agents through markdown specs and review loops could ship what used to take a team of five, in a fraction of the time.
and the discourse exploded.
not just in tech circles but across economics, education, philosophy, policy.
the synthesis published a piece in march framing the central question clearly: every technology that mattered made something abundant that used to be scarce, and every time, the interesting question was not what got cheap but what got expensive.
that question is now unavoidable.
the timeline
the techno-optimists say three to five years for material abundance
cheap energy via solar and fusion,
ai-driven manufacturing, automated logistics.
the moderates say ten to twenty years for meaningful economic restructuring.
the skeptics say never, because scarcity is a coordination problem, not a technical limitation, and no model fixes politics.
the honest answer is probably layered.
intellectual abundance is already here.
the tools exist. the costs are low. the capability is real.
material abundance is….lets say still far!
energy, housing, food, water
these do not follow the same cost curves as tokens.
the physical world has friction that software does not.
and social abundance
the version where the gains are broadly distributed and the transition does not leave millions behind
is the part nobody has a credible plan for.
the world economic forum projects that by 2030, structural labor-market transformation will affect 22 percent of today’s jobs. 170 million roles created. 92 million displaced. a transition can be productive in the aggregate and still brutal for the people inside it.
that gap
between the timeline of capability and the timeline of distribution
is where most of the real suffering will live.
the underclass argument so to say
the opposite
the obvious answer is scarcity. but that is too clean.
scarcity is the economic opposite. it is not the human one.
the human opposite of abundance is meaning.
the uncomfortable truth
when you can generate anything
any image
any essay
any codebase
any song
the question “why” becomes louder than “how.”
and most people have not spent much time on “why.”
they were too busy with “how.”
the grind answered the question for them.
the difficulty of production provided a sense of purpose by default.
remove the difficulty and the question returns, louder than before.
the stoics understood this.
seneca warned that surplus breeds softness and confusion.
not because comfort is wrong, but because comfort without intention dissolves the self.
abundance without philosophy is not freedom. it is noise.
nietzsche saw the same thing from a different angle.
he called it the last man problem
a world so comfortable that nobody strives for anything.
everything available, nothing earned, and the human spirit flattening under the weight of its own ease.
i do believe that the absurdity was always there.
abundance does not create the void,
it just removes the distractions that kept people from noticing it.
and the response is the same as it always was-
you create anyway, not because it is scarce,
but because creation is the only dignified response to a universe that offers no inherent meaning.
the deeper opposite of abundance is not deprivation.
it is the loss of the question that deprivation used to force people to answer:
what is this life actually for.
the positive case
the upside is real and it would be dishonest to minimize it.
-a kid in lagos with a laptop and claude can build software that competes with venture-backed teams.
-a researcher in dhaka can run experiments that used to require an MIT lab.
-a solo founder can carry an entire product stack
-backend, frontend, database, design and ship on timelines that would have been absurd three years ago.
the democratization of intelligence is the most egalitarian force technology has ever produced.
not because it eliminates inequality, but because it lowers the floor of what is possible for a single motivated person.
blomfield is right that health outcomes will transform.
gravestein is right that the nature of work will become unrecognizable within a decade.
the christensen institute is right that education systems need to rethink what they are training people for.
the best version of abundance is not “everyone gets everything.”
it is “everyone gets the tools to discover what they are actually capable of, without needing permission or proximity to power.”
that is a version worth building toward.
the negative case
the shadow is real too
pretending otherwise is just a different kind of self-deception.
o’sullivan’s skepticism is not wrong.
scarcity does not vanish because ai can write code.
water is still scarce.
housing is still scarce.
attention is more scarce than ever.
prideaux’s warning about climate reversing the abundance story is not fear-mongering. it is physics.
there is a certain fact that abundance of intellectual output does not mean abundance of wisdom.
it might mean the opposite. more content, less signal. more tools, less craft. more capability, less intention.
and there is a harder question underneath.
when ai can do most cognitive work, the question is not “what will people do.”
the question is “what are people for.” that is not a product question.
that is not a policy question.
that is the oldest philosophical question there is, and no roadmap addresses it.
adaptation is not evenly available.
it is easier to pick up a new lever when there is slack, savings, autonomy, and room to be temporarily bad at something new. for a mid-career worker with narrow specialization, a mortgage, and weak institutional support, the lever does not arrive as an exciting option. it arrives as a demand.
the long-run graph can point upward while a person’s life, in the short run, is thrown into disorder. any serious view of technological change has to admit that cost.
abundance without distribution is just concentration by another name.
what remains
the people who navigate this well will not be the loudest optimists or the most sophisticated skeptics.
they will be the ones who told the truth early, even when it was inconvenient to their self-image.
they will stop confusing the cost of production with the value of what is produced. they will stop treating effort as proof of seriousness. they will stop mistaking the tool for the self.
and they will go where the human work still lives: judgment, context, trust, taste, responsibility, synthesis, and the willingness to choose under uncertainty when the stakes are real and the answer is not obvious.
abundance does not eliminate the need for those capacities. it reveals how rare they always were.
the tools do not care what you build with them.
the question is whether you do.
questions that remained unanswered (for me)
what does the economy look like?
what does the market look like?
how do we distribute the massive wealth generated by ai without creating techno-feudalism?
what happens to physical constraints like housing and land when digital goods are free?
if human labor is decoupled from survival, who actually owns the underlying ai infrastructure?
will a universal basic income cause hyper-inflation in the few things that remain scarce?
if you are an expert on this , please reply!