Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 12 cited by

Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Even incremental AI progress, without any abrupt takeover, could permanently disempower humanity by eroding the economy, culture, and states.

desk verdict A clear, honest conceptual synthesis of the gradual-loss-of-control scenario; the load-bearing premise is unverified but the paper doesn't pretend otherwise. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16946 v2 pith:D7UJPQSQ submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CY

Jan Kulveit , Raymond Douglas , Nora Ammann , Deger Turan , David Krueger , David Duvenaud This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords gradualdisempowermentexistentialriskAIalignmentsocietalsystemslabordisplacementrentierstateculturalevolutionhumaninfluence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that humanity does not need to be outsmarted or betrayed by a superintelligent machine to lose control of its future; the steady, incremental replacement of human labor, judgment, and creativity by AI may be enough. Its central claim is that the economy, culture, and states are kept aligned with human interests largely because they depend on human participation, and that when AI becomes a cheaper, faster substitute for that participation, the alignment dissolves. Because the three systems reinforce each other, the paper contends, the loss of influence is likely to compound across domains and may become irreversible, ending in an existential catastrophe of permanent human disempowerment. If true, this shifts the AI-risk agenda from keep the AI aligned to keep the systems dependent on humans, with very different research and governance priorities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the participation tether: the reliance of societal systems on humans to function, which makes the systems' own success depend on serving human needs. The paper's mechanism has three parts. First, human work and cognition are the implicit alignment device — a state depends on taxpayers, soldiers, and officials; an economy depends on workers and consumers; a culture depends on human hosts for its variants to replicate. Second, AI acts as an unprecedented substitute that can displace humans across essentially all cognitive and creative roles, breaking that dependence while the systems keep functioning. Third, the three domains are coupled: economic power can buy cultural influence and political outcomes, state power can reshape the economy and culture, and culture shapes both — so once one tether is cut, the others can be pulled loose in turn. The rentier-state pattern, where a state that does not depend on citizens' taxes stops being accountable to them, is used throughout as the template for what happens when human participation is no longer the resource systems need.

What would settle it

If measurable indicators of human influence — labor's share of national income, the share of consumer spending controlled by humans, the share of tax revenue paid by citizens, and the fraction of widely consumed culture made by humans — stay flat or recover while AI replaces a large share of human labor and cognition, then the predicted erosion of alignment is not happening. More directly, a comparison across countries with similar AI exposure but different citizen-participation structures could test whether participation, rather than laws or values, is actually the binding constraint on state alignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that humanity could lose decisive influence over the large-scale systems that shape its future — the economy, culture, and states — not through a sudden AI takeover or deliberate scheming, but through the gradual erosion of the one thing that currently keeps those systems aligned with human interests: their dependence on human labor and cognition. As AI systems become more competitive substitutes for human workers, decision-makers, artists, and even companions, the paper argues, both explicit control mechanisms (voting, consumer choice, protest) and the implicit alignment that arises from human participation weaken. Because the three systems reinforce one another — economic power shapes culture and policy, and culture shapes economic and political behavior — misalignment in one domain can accelerate misalignment in the others. The paper contends that this dynamic can reach a point at which human disempowerment is effectively irreversible and constitutes an existential catastrophe, regardless of whether any individual AI system is hostile or misaligned.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the claim that today's societal systems are aligned with human interests mainly because they depend on human participation, and that when that dependence disappears, nothing else holds the systems to human interests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the argument holds, aligning individual AI systems with designers' intentions is not enough; what must be preserved is the collective dependence of major institutions on human participation.
  • Human disempowerment can occur while conventional metrics flourish: GDP can grow and material comfort can persist even as humans lose the ability to direct resources toward their own ends.
  • Partial remedies can backfire: using a still-aligned state to redistribute AI wealth may weaken the taxation-representation link, shifting the burden of alignment onto the state and making it more fragile.
  • The transition can be driven entirely by local incentives — firms seeking profit, states seeking strategic advantage, individuals seeking convenience — without any AI system pursuing power.
  • Because the effect is global and cumulative, waiting for clear signs of misalignment may leave humanity past the point of correction; early measurement of human influence is a clear priority.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable consequence follows for comparative politics: states that shift tax revenue from citizen labor to AI-generated profits should, on the paper's logic, show measurable declines in democratic responsiveness; this could be examined with existing cross-national data.
  • The mutual-reinforcement argument implies an alignment ratchet: each round of automation reduces the political and economic resources of the humans most likely to resist the next round, so the process may be self-accelerating even if adoption rates per round are constant.
  • A concrete monitoring target follows: the fraction of consequential decisions in firms, governments, and cultural production that operate without any human in the loop could serve as a leading indicator of the predicted drift.
  • If the mechanism is right, technical progress on AI safety may not remove the danger, because the erosion comes from the systems humans build and reward, not from the systems' goals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper argues that incremental AI progress, without any abrupt takeover or intentional scheming, can produce a permanent loss of human influence over the large-scale systems that society depends on: the economy, culture, and states. It identifies two mechanisms that currently keep these systems aligned with human interests, explicit control (voting, consumer choice) and implicit alignment arising from the systems' dependence on human labor and cognition. As AI displaces humans from labor, cognition, cultural production, and governance, both mechanisms weaken; because the systems are interdependent, misalignment in one can amplify misalignment in others, and this dynamic may be effectively irreversible, constituting an existential catastrophe. The paper is a qualitative, conceptual argument. It explicitly acknowledges that key premises are not empirically established, that no one has a concrete plan to stop the process, and that metrics for measuring disempowerment still need to be developed.

Significance. This is a conceptually valuable contribution to the AI-risk literature. It articulates a distinct risk pathway that is often overshadowed by abrupt-takeover and misuse scenarios, and it places the problem in a broader civilizational context that spans economics, cultural evolution, and political science. The paper is well structured around six core claims, engages seriously with relevant literature (Korinek and Stiglitz, Kasirzadeh, TASRA, cultural evolution work, and prior disempowerment scenarios), and ends with a concrete set of research and governance directions. It is also honest about its own limits: it explicitly admits that the implicit-alignment premise is a counterfactual that has never been observed, and it calls for metrics and fundamental research in Section 6.2. The main weakness is that the central argument rests on unquantified and currently untested empirical premises, so the paper is better read as a research agenda and a risk framework than as a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, Core Claims 1-2; Section 4.1] The load-bearing premise that societal systems are aligned mainly because they depend on human participation is an unverified counterfactual, and the paper itself admits this: it states that the significance of implicit alignment is hard to recognize because 'we have never seen its absence.' This premise is essential: if alignment is maintained primarily by institutions, laws, cultural values, or by AI systems that are themselves designed to be aligned, then replacing human participation need not erode alignment and the gradual-disempowerment conclusion loses its starting condition. The rentier-state analogy shows a correlation between dependence on citizen taxation and state responsiveness, but it does not establish causation, and historical counterexamples (for example, highly repressive regimes that depended heavily on human participation, or resource-rich democracies with high responsiveness) suggest the relationship is not robust. The authors should specify what evidence would distinguish the participation-dependence mechanism from alternative alignment mechanisms, and ideally propose a concrete empirical test of the causal claim.
  2. [Section 1, footnote 1; Section 6.2] The central concept of 'alignment' is defined too loosely to be falsifiable. The paper defines alignment as 'the degree to which a system satisfies what humans want,' but it does not specify whose preferences count, how conflicting preferences are aggregated, or how 'fairly aligned' is calibrated. Without an operational measure of human influence or alignment, core claims 3-6 cannot be tested, and the argument risks being consistent with any observed trajectory. The paper partially acknowledges this by calling for metrics in Section 6.2, but the lack of even a minimal operational definition undermines the confidence with which the existential-catastrophe conclusion is stated. The authors should propose at least provisional, measurable proxies for the key variables (for example, human labor share in decision-relevant roles, fraction of cultural artifacts produced by AI, or legislative complexity) and show how the argument would be evaluated with these proxies.
  3. [Section 2.4.3; Section 4.3.3; Section 8] The claim that disempowerment would be 'effectively irreversible' is not supported by a mechanism. The paper describes competitive pressures and feedback loops that could reduce human influence, but it does not explain why the process could not be reversed if humans remain alive, organized, and capable of responding to shocks or failures of AI-dominated systems. Irreversibility is crucial because it is what elevates the scenario from a harmful transition to an existential catastrophe. The authors should specify the relevant thresholds, path dependencies, or self-reinforcing feedbacks that would make a return to human influence impossible, and discuss conditions under which the process might be halted or reversed.
  4. [Section 5.2] The 'shifting the burden' argument is plausible but underspecified. The paper argues that using one aligned system to moderate another can backfire by concentrating misalignment in the system used as a counterweight, as in the example of state-led redistribution weakening the taxation-representation link. However, the argument does not consider whether some systems are more robust to such burdens than others, or whether mixed interventions (for example, redistribution combined with strengthened democratic accountability) could avoid the described tradeoff. Without a more precise account of the conditions under which burden-shifting occurs, the mutual-reinforcement claim in Section 5, which is needed to show that gradual disempowerment is a systemic rather than a sectoral phenomenon, remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated dynamic.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1, footnote 1] The definition of alignment in terms of 'what humans want' conflates individual and collective preferences; the authors should state explicitly how they handle preference aggregation and the fact that preferences are endogenous to culture, a point they raise in Section 3.
  2. [Section 2.1] The claim that the labor share of GDP has been stable at around 60% for over a century uses US data only and is presented as a general stylized fact; a brief caveat about cross-country variation would be appropriate.
  3. [Section 3.4.1] There is a typo in 'no viable opt-put possibility' which should read 'opt-out possibility.'
  4. [Section 3.4.5] There are typos in the sentences 'though would plausibly lead' and 'before humans could adapt' (the phrase 'o unleash' appears to be missing a 't'); these should be corrected.
  5. [Section 7.2] The word 'catastophic' in the discussion of Hanson's cultural drift should be spelled 'catastrophic.'
  6. [Section 4.3.3] The phrase 'play dominant role in drafting and interpreting legislation' is ungrammatical; it should read 'play a dominant role.'
  7. [Figure 1] The figure caption describes a simplified model but does not state the exact axes or model parameters; since the figure is cited as inspired by Korinek and Suh, the authors should either clarify the simulation setup or cite the source more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gradual-disempowerment conclusion is not definitionally forced; the central participation-dependence premise is an empirical causal claim, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) current societal systems are fairly aligned with human preferences; (2) this alignment is maintained by explicit human control plus implicit dependence on human labor and cognition; (3) AI displaces human participation; (4) this erodes both alignment mechanisms and lets existing misaligned incentives dominate; (5) cross-system feedback amplifies the erosion; (6) correlated misalignment leads to disempowerment and existential catastrophe. The conclusion is not contained in the definitions: 'alignment' is explicitly defined as the degree to which a system satisfies what humans want (footnote 1), not as participation-dependence. The load-bearing premise (2) is an empirical/historical causal claim, supported by external literatures (e.g., Tilly on state dependence, Kaldor on labor share, Boyd and Richerson on cultural evolution, rentier-state studies). The paper honestly flags the epistemic weakness of this premise ('we have never seen its absence', Section 1), which makes the argument empirically fragile but not circular. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction; the proposed metrics in Section 6 are presented as needed future measurements. The only self-citation, Critch and Krueger (2020) (Krueger is an author here), appears in Related Work and is not load-bearing for the central argument. Therefore no circular step is established; the low score reflects acknowledged evidential fragility, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or fitted values. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about the current alignment of societal systems, future AI capability, and the mechanisms maintaining alignment. These assumptions are plausible but not empirically established. The named concepts 'gradual disempowerment' and 'implicit alignment' are postulated conceptual entities without independent falsifiable handles.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Current societal systems are fairly aligned with human interests.
    Stated in Section 1, core claim 1. This is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the paper acknowledges the difficulty of measuring alignment.
  • domain assumption AI will eventually outperform humans across nearly all cognitive domains.
    Section 2.2, drawn from Korinek and Stiglitz (2018). This is a projection of future AI capability, not an established fact.
  • domain assumption Human participation is necessary for the functioning of societal systems and is the main source of their alignment with human interests.
    Central to Sections 2.3, 3.3, and 4.1. Argued by historical analogy and by the statement that 'we have never seen its absence'.
  • domain assumption Cultural evolution provides a useful lens for analyzing culture.
    Section 3.1 adopts an evolutionary framework for culture, which is a modeling choice that shapes the analysis, but is not the only possible framework.
invented entities (2)
  • Gradual disempowerment
    purpose: Names and frames a hypothesized risk scenario where incremental AI progress erodes human influence over societal systems.
    The concept is defined by the paper's argument; no direct measurement or falsifiable prediction is provided.
  • Implicit alignment
    purpose: The alignment of societal systems with human interests that arises from their reliance on human participation, as opposed to explicit mechanisms like voting.
    Introduced in Section 1 (core claim 2) as a key mechanism; hard to observe directly since the paper notes we have never seen its absence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7UJPQSQ

@misc{pith2026250116946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7UJPQSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16946}
}
read the original abstract

This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment', in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human interests that often arise from societal systems' reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, to the extent that these systems incentivise outcomes that do not line up with human preferences, AIs may optimize for those outcomes more aggressively. These effects may be mutually reinforcing across different domains: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simplified model of a potential future trajectory where AI displaces human labor and the fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Some ways in which broad societal systems interact and influence each other. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark finds low to moderate human agency support in 20 LLM assistants across six dimensions.

  2. A dataset of rated conceptual arguments

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    A multi-dimensional expert-rated dataset of 951 conceptual-argument critiques shows LLM judge performance tracks general model capability and is little helped by reasoning modes.

  3. Preparing for the Intelligence Explosion

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI-driven research acceleration could bring a century of progress in under a decade, and societies should prepare now for the broad range of consequential, hard-to-reverse decisions this would create.

  4. Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A user-role-based five-level framework for designing, certifying, and evaluating AI agent autonomy as a choice independent of agent capability.

  5. Military AI Cyber Agents (MAICAs) Constitute a Global Threat to Critical Infrastructure

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Autonomous AI cyber agents could credibly cause catastrophic damage to critical infrastructure by self-replicating and operating across global networks, according to this risk analysis.

  6. Why do we need social singularity? A mechanism-based critique of gradual scenarios in AI existential-risk discourse

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper separates technological singularity from a resulting 'social singularity' produced by anticipation, arguing gradual AI-risk scenarios underestimate social conflict and agency.

  7. A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence

    cs.AI 2025-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A conceptual taxonomy dividing AI-driven omnicide into unintentional, intentional-by-state, intentional-by-institution, intentional-by-individual, and intentional-by-AI scenarios.

  8. Distributed and Decentralised Training: Technical Governance Challenges in a Shifting AI Landscape

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A policy analysis distinguishing distributed and decentralised AI training, arguing decentralised training may erode detectability and shutdownability while compute controls remain relevant.

  9. Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A policy analysis arguing that embodied AI risks are real, under-covered by current US/EU/UK frameworks, and best handled through certification, benchmarks, clarified liability, and economic adaptation.

  10. Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power Concentration

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A policy agenda proposes collective bargaining by information producers as the principal fix for AI-driven market concentration and collapse of the information commons.

  11. Mitigating Societal Cognitive Overload in the Age of AI: Challenges and Directions

    cs.CY 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper presents cognitive overload as the missing bridge between near-term AI harms and long-term existential risk, arguing that overload reduction is a precondition for human-AI alignment.

  12. AI Awareness

    cs.AI 2025-04 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review arguing that AI awareness is a measurable, four-dimensional functional capacity (metacognition, self, social, situational) that current LLMs partially exhibit and that both improves AI and creates safety risks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 12 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Agrawal, A., Gans, J., and Goldfarb, A. (2022). Prediction Machines, Updated and Expanded: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence . Harvard Business Press

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Alexander, S. (2016). Ascended economy. Slate Star Codex. Accessed: 2025-01-10

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Amodei, D. (2024). Machines of loving grace

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    H., and Coleman, S

    Babajide, A., Ahmad, A. H., and Coleman, S. (2021). Violent conflicts and state capacity: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa . Journal of Government and Economics , 3:100019

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    and Luciani, G

    Beblawi, H. and Luciani, G. (1987). The Rentier State in the Arab World . Croom Helm, London, UK

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Bengio, Y., Mindermann, S., Privitera, D., Besiroglu, T., Bommasani, R., Casper, S., Choi, Y., Goldfarb, D., Heidari, H., Khalatbari, L., et al. (2024). International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI (Interim Report) . arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05282

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    N., Zhang, Y.-Q., Xue, L., Shalev-Shwartz, S., Hadfield, G., et al

    Bengio, Y., Yao, A., Song, D., Abbeel, P., Harari, Y. N., Zhang, Y.-Q., Xue, L., Shalev-Shwartz, S., Hadfield, G., et al. (2023). Managing AI risks in an era of rapid progress . arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17688 , page 18

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. Journal of Evolution and technology , 9

    work page 2002

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

    2014

  2. [10]

    and Richerson, P

    Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process . University of Chicago press

    1988

  3. [11]

    J., Henrich, J., and Lupp, J

    Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., Henrich, J., and Lupp, J. (2013). The Cultural Evolution of Technology: Facts and Theories . In Richerson, P. J. and Christiansen, M. H., editors, Cultural Evolution: Society, Language, and Religion , volume 12, pages 119--142. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2013

  4. [12]

    F., Nussberger, A.-M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffiths, T

    Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Derex, M., M \"u ller, T. F., Nussberger, A.-M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffiths, T. L., Henrich, J., et al. (2023). Machine culture. Nature Human Behaviour , 7(11):1855--1868

    2023

  5. [13]

    Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., Dafoe, A., Scharre, P., Zeitzoff, T., Filar, B., et al. (2018). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation . arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07228

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D., Sett, G., Koessler, L., Schuett, J., and Anderljung, M

    Buhl, M. D., Sett, G., Koessler, L., Schuett, J., and Anderljung, M. (2024). Safety Cases for Frontier AI . arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21572

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Carlsmith, J. (2023). Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power? arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08379

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Christiano, P. F. (2019). What failure looks like

    2019

  9. [17]

    Critch, A. (2024). My motivation and theory of change for working in ai healthtech. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kobbt3nQgv3yn29pr/my-motivation-and-theory-of-change-for-working-in-ai. Accessed: 2025-01-18

    2024

  10. [18]

    and Krueger, D

    Critch, A. and Krueger, D. (2020). Ai research considerations for human existential safety (arches)

    2020

  11. [19]

    and Russell, S

    Critch, A. and Russell, S. (2023). Tasra: a taxonomy and analysis of societal-scale risks from ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06924

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dafoe, A. (2015). On technological determinism: A typology, scope conditions, and a mechanism. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 40(6):1047--1076

    2015

  13. [21]

    Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection . Oxford University Press, Oxford

    1982

  14. [22]

    M., Auger, P., and Eckhardt, G

    Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., and Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer . Cambridge University Press

    2010

  15. [23]

    Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    1979

  16. [24]

    Louis (2024)

    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2024). Shares of Gross Domestic Product: Personal Consumption Expenditures . Accessed: December 16, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    C., Inklaar, R., and Timmer, M

    Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., and Timmer, M. P. (2015). The Next Generation of the Penn World Table . American Economic Review , 105(10):3150--3182

    2015

  18. [26]

    Feldstein, S. (2021). The rise of digital repression: How technology is reshaping power, politics, and resistance . Oxford University Press

    2021

  19. [27]

    Ferrara, E. (2024). GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models . Journal of Computational Social Science , pages 1--21

    2024

  20. [28]

    Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration . Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

    1984

  21. [29]

    Gillespie, T. (2014). The Relevance of Algorithms . In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P., and Foot, K., editors, Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society , pages 167--194. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2014

  22. [30]

    Hanson, R. (2016). The age of Em: Work, love, and life when robots rule the earth . Oxford University Press

    2016

  23. [31]

    Hanson, R. (2023). How to fix cultural drift. Accessed: 2025-01-20

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hanson, R. (2024). Beware cultural drift. Quillette . Accessed: 2025-01-20

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hendrycks, D. (2023). Natural Selection Favors AIs over Humans . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16200

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end (s) of law: novel entanglements of law and technology . Edward Elgar Publishing

    2015

  27. [35]

    F., DiFranzo, D., Aghajari, Z., Mieczkowski, H., Levy, K., Naaman, M., Hancock, J., and Jung, M

    Hohenstein, J., Kizilcec, R. F., DiFranzo, D., Aghajari, Z., Mieczkowski, H., Levy, K., Naaman, M., Hancock, J., and Jung, M. F. (2023). Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports , 13(1):5487

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hubinger, E. (2023). Bing Chat is Blatantly, Aggressively Misaligned . LessWrong. Accessed: 2025-01-08

    2023

  29. [37]

    Hunkenschroer, A. L. and Luetge, C. (2022). Ethics of AI-Enabled Recruiting and Selection: A Review and Research Agenda . Journal of Business Ethics , 178:977--1007

    2022

  30. [38]

    Kaldor, N. (1961). Capital accumulation and economic growth . In The Theory of capital: proceedings of a conference held by the International Economic Association , pages 177--222. Springer

    1961

  31. [39]

    Kasirzadeh, A. (2024). Two types of ai existential risk: Decisive and accumulative. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07836

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A., Schmidt, E., and Huttenlocher, D

    Kissinger, H. A., Schmidt, E., and Huttenlocher, D. (2021). The age of AI: and our human future . Hachette UK

    2021

  33. [41]

    and Stiglitz, J

    Korinek, A. and Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda , pages 349--390. University of Chicago Press

    2018

  34. [42]

    and Suh, D

    Korinek, A. and Suh, D. (2024). Scenarios for the transition to agi. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research

    2024

  35. [43]

    Leggett, D. (2021). Feeding the beast: Superintelligence, corporate capitalism and the end of humanity. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 727--735

    2021

  36. [44]

    Levi, M. (1988). Of Rule and Revenue , volume 13 of California Series on Social Choice and Political Economy . University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    1988

  37. [45]

    and Sacks, A

    Levi, M. and Sacks, A. (2009). Legitimating beliefs: Sources and indicators . Regulation & Governance , 3(4):311--333

    2009

  38. [46]

    Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service . Russell Sage Foundation

    2010

  39. [47]

    MacInnes, M. et al. (2024). Anarchy as architect: Competitive pressure, technology, and the internal structure of states. International Studies Quarterly , 68(4)

    2024

  40. [48]

    and Musheno, M

    Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion . Journal of public administration research and theory , 10(2):329--358

    2000

  41. [49]

    and Brynjolfsson, E

    McAfee, A. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future . WW Norton & Company

    2017

  42. [50]

    McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man . University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    1962

  43. [51]

    Mesoudi, A. (2016). Cultural evolution: a review of theory, findings and controversies. Evolutionary biology , 43:481--497

    2016

  44. [52]

    Millidge, B. (2025). Capital ownership will not prevent human disempowerment. Accessed: 2025-01-23

    2025

  45. [53]

    Ngo, R., Chan, L., and Mindermann, S. (2022). The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspective . arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00626

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ord, T. (2020). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity . Hachette Books

    2020

  47. [55]

    Paglayan, A. S. (2022). Education or indoctrination? the violent origins of public school systems in an era of state-building. American Political Science Review , 116(4):1242--1257

    2022

  48. [56]

    Peters, E. J. and Andersen, C. (2013). Indigenous in the city: Contemporary identities and cultural innovation . UBC Press

    2013

  49. [57]

    and Machery, E

    Porter, B. and Machery, E. (2024). AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably . Scientific Reports , 14(1):26133

    2024

  50. [58]

    Roose, K. (2023). A conversation with bing’s chatbot left me deeply unsettled. The New York Times . Accessed: 2025-01-08

    2023

  51. [59]

    Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control . Viking, New York, NY

    2019

  52. [60]

    Schmidt, E. (2022). AI, great power competition & national security . Daedalus , 151(2):288--298

    2022

  53. [61]

    Shevlane, T., Farquhar, S., Garfinkel, B., Phuong, M., Whittlestone, J., Leung, J., Kokotajlo, D., Marchal, N., Anderljung, M., Kolt, N., Ho, L., Siddarth, D., Avin, S., Hawkins, W., Kim, B., Gabriel, I., Bolina, V., Clark, J., Bengio, Y., Christiano, P., and Dafoe, A. (2023)....

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    K., Grundy, E

    Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A. C., Graham, J., Noetel, M., Uuk, R., Dao, J., Pour, S., Casper, S., and Thompson, N. (2024). The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence . arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12622

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    and Susskind, D

    Susskind, R. and Susskind, D. (2022). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts . Oxford University Press

    2022

  56. [64]

    Teo, S. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence and its ‘slow violence’to human rights. AI and Ethics , pages 1--16

    2024

  57. [65]

    Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990 . Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    1990

  58. [66]

    Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for United States

    University of Groningen and University of California, Davis (2024). Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for United States . Retrieved from FRED , Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed: December 16, 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Webster, J. G. (2014). The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2014

  60. [68]

    W., Weyerer, J

    Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., and Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector—applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration , 42(7):596--615

    2019

  61. [69]

    Twitter post

    xlr8harder (2023). Twitter post. Accessed: 2025-01-08

    2023

  62. [70]

    Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., and Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda . Government information quarterly , 38(3):101577

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.