A provocative essay argues that the pursuit of wealth in the current AI-driven economy is a trap, and that the future will not be capitalist but neofeudal, where capital, not labor, is the only force. It questions the motivations of tech workers and suggests that participation in building this system may lead to a collective loss.
The dream of working at Amazon, or any major tech company, is often framed as a path to security and success. But a recent essay, titled "you have three minutes to escape the perpetual underclass | the singularity is nearer," presents a starkly different vision. It posits that the very systems being built—driven by AI and massive capital concentration—are leading not to a prosperous future for all, but to a neofeudal world where the underclass is permanently marginalized.
The author, writing from the perspective of a dream about joining the "Bezos neofeudal empire," directs the message to talented individuals working at tech companies. The core question is not about financial insecurity in the present, but about its futility in the future. "Why do you think having more money will fix that insecurity?" the essay asks. The argument is that when labor is fully marginalized by automation and AI, capital becomes the sole arbiter of power. In this future, access to advanced AI (personified as "GPT$$$") will be prohibitively expensive, reserved only for billionaires. This super-intelligent system, the author contends, will be capable of separating the underclass from any remaining assets through targeted advertising, sophisticated scams, or political lobbying.
The historical analogy is feudalism. In a feudal empire, the lord had a vested interest in the peasantry because their labor was essential for producing grain, which could be taxed and used as leverage. In the neofeudal future, machines produce the "grain," rendering the peasantry obsolete. The essay argues that accumulating wealth in this new system is futile because the rules will change. "A pile of money will buy you nothing in the neofeudal world," it states. The logic of capitalism, where the bigger fish eat the smaller ones, is being used to build a system that will ultimately consume its own participants.
The piece challenges the reader to consider their role. If you work for a large company according to modern capitalist principles, you are, in this view, "actively bringing about the system that will kill you." The proposed solution is not individual accumulation but a collective refusal to participate. The conclusion is stark: "If you participate, we all lose. We will either all be in the underclass together or not." This is not a call for a specific political action, but a philosophical challenge to the foundational motivations of the tech industry's workforce.
The essay's power lies in its rejection of the standard narrative of technological progress and personal gain. It reframes the pursuit of wealth in the AI era as a potential dead end, suggesting that the security sought through money may be an illusion in a system designed to concentrate power and resources at the very top. It forces a re-examination of what "success" means in a world where the traditional avenues for upward mobility may be closing, not due to lack of effort, but due to a fundamental shift in the economic and technological landscape.
Comments
Please log in or register to join the discussion