[Loic]

I love to model and simulate. As the dead economy theory[0] (discussion [1]) was submitted here, I decided to simulate it. It was really hard to figure out a path "good for the humanity", in the sense of a balanced system, not a winner take all situation, etc.

I think this is the reason why you have the tendency to propose some freeze-all policies, full control or similar. If you want to find the equilibrium, you need to accept that it will be a controlled equilibrium, most likely on a saddle point, with underlying process changing all the time, requiring fast changes in regulations. Our democratic systems, laws, etc. are not built to do that, they are built on the idea of intrinsic stability of our world where incremental improvements do not need cutting through what was decided before.

[0]: https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324712

[jvanderbot]

One counterpoint is that the "labor as TAM" argument is far larger than it needs to be. Only a fraction of it needs to be captured to justify all the capex and make 5 new companies displace FAANG, and this does not have to translate to unemployment to succeed.

https://jodavaho.io/posts/ai-jobpocolypse.html

The difference in the unemployment vs efficient employment model is mostly user driven adoption vs company mandated adoption, or centaurs vs reverse centaurs.

https://pluralistic.net/2026/07/02/canonization/#operate-ite...

[mattwiese]

Thanks for the links, I had missed those. Also:

> Our democratic systems, laws, etc. are not built to do that, they are built on the idea of intrinsic stability of our world where incremental improvements do not need cutting through what was decided before.

Without totally derailing the thread, this is also obviously why climate and biosphere collapse is not (and likely will continue not) to be addressed, e.g. Timothy Morton's Hyperobjects

[aarondong]

Saddle point is a nice way to put it.