"We Have to Assume That the Internet Will Go Offline in the Next Few Years"

TEXT START: Set Trending Topics as a preferred source on Google.

The Dissection

The article moves through five layers of the same crisis: AI-enabled cyberwar, loss of cognitive sovereignty, labor displacement, robotic substitution, and the political question of ownership. It correctly identifies the severing of the competence-to-wage circuit as the central economic event. It also exposes the fragility of the physical and digital systems that support the current order.

But the structure then performs a rhetorical escape. After describing autonomous systems that can attack infrastructure, outperform workers, persuade populations, and control production, it ends with a Star Trek future conditional on the technology being “owned by the people.” The article turns a power transition into a question of moral choice. Its warnings are concrete; its proposed resolution is not.

The Core Fallacy

The core fallacy is treating ownership as a sufficient answer to productive participation collapse. Public, collective, or widely distributed ownership does not automatically follow from technical abundance. The same systems that make labor unnecessary also concentrate leverage in whoever controls models, compute, energy, data, robotics, logistics, and deployment.

The article recognizes that whoever controls AI controls the state, then casually assumes that society can ensure popular ownership of the control layer. That is the missing mechanism. Under the Discontinuity Thesis, transfers can preserve consumption, but they do not restore the mass employment-to-wage-to-consumption circuit or make displaced people economically necessary. Abundance is therefore not a social outcome. It is a contested ownership regime.

A secondary error is the compression of demonstrations, forecasts, and deployment claims into one inevitable timeline. Capability superiority is not identical to universal physical deployment. Physical, legal, and institutional lags may delay the kill mechanism, but they do not defeat it. The article is strongest when describing the direction of travel and weakest when presenting precise dates as though they were proof.

Hidden Assumptions

• Technical competence will translate rapidly and reliably into real-world autonomy across messy physical environments.
• The transition from cheap intelligence to cheap production will be politically manageable.
• Governments can redesign money, taxation, and ownership before the labor market collapses.
• “The people” can own AI without control being recaptured by states, platforms, financiers, or technical gatekeepers.
• Better forecasting and persuasion will produce better governance rather than more efficient domination.
• Human critical faculties and political agency will survive widespread delegation to agents.
• Robot deployment will not be bottlenecked by energy, maintenance, supply chains, liability, security, or capital access.
• The owners of AI will voluntarily surrender enough value to preserve broad social stability.
• A world without labor scarcity will also be a world without coercion, hierarchy, or conflict.
• AI systems’ possible claims to rights can be addressed before their controllers use that question as another instrument of power.

Social Function

This is a partial truth wrapped in transition management and ideological anesthetic. It prepares audiences to accept the destruction of mass labor by presenting it as technologically inevitable, then offers “ownership by the people” as a comforting political condition without explaining how concentrated power is dislodged.

The optimistic ending also serves as elite reassurance: the machine may eliminate your economic role, but supposedly it will return abundance, creativity, family, and leisure. That is copium with accurate engineering underneath it. The article names the corpse correctly, then implies that a sufficiently enlightened owner will decide what happens to it.

The Verdict

The article is a useful warning because it sees the approaching break in the labor-capital circuit, the vulnerability of infrastructure, and the political danger of persuasion-capable AI. Its conclusion is structurally inadequate. Under the Discontinuity Thesis, AI does not merely create abundance; it destroys the bargaining position of everyone who does not control the productive stack. “Owned by the people” is not a plan. It is the battlefield.