This Time is Different?

---

I keep having this thought that I honestly wish I could shake off.

We keep talking about AI as if it is just another industrial revolution.

Like steam engines. Like electricity. Like computers. Like the internet. Every time, some jobs disappeared, new jobs came, and somehow society moved on.

That has been the comforting story.

But I am no longer sure that story works this time.

Because this time, I don’t think we are just building better tools.

With the rapid advancement and integration of AI and Robotics, we are building human, and some say, at its fullest form.

In the next 10years or so, as many would argue, we would create something that can read, write, speak, see, reason, plan, code, design, sell, teach, manage, and eventually move through the physical world. For many companies, that starts to look like a worker.

The biggest danger may not even be the technology itself. The real danger may be who owns it.

If a small number of companies own the most powerful AI models, the robotics platforms, the data, the compute, and the distribution channels, they could produce goods and services at a scale and cost no human workforce can compete with.

But then what happens to everyone else?

If most people do not have jobs, they do not have income.

If they do not have income, consumption and societal demand falls apart. And before the economy fully breaks, I suspect society breaks first.

People can tolerate inequality when they still believe they have a chance.

But if people feel that the whole game is closed, that the doors are locked, and that their children are no longer needed by the economy, then anger will come.

This is the part I don’t think governments are ready for.

Most governments are still treating AI as a productivity tool, a competitiveness issue, or a national strategy topic.

Very few are treating it as a possible breaking point for the current social contract.

At that point, the solution cannot be small policy adjustments.

It may require a complete redesign of how society shares wealth.

Maybe that means heavy taxes on the few companies that control AI and robotics.

Maybe that means universal basic income, not as a nice social experiment, but as the only way to keep demand, dignity, and social peace alive.

I know this sounds extreme.

But the situation may become exactly that.

And this is also where I have a very uncomfortable view.

Authoritarian governments may be better positioned to deal with this than democracies.

I am not saying I like that or argue one regime is morally better that others. I am saying that if society needs a very strong hand to restructure wealth, tax powerful companies, control social disorder, and push through painful changes, then governments with stronger central control may move faster.

China may become the giant experiment the world watches closely.

It is pushing hard on AI. It is pushing hard on robotics. It has the state capacity to force adoption, direct capital, control companies, and intervene in society in ways many other countries cannot.

Singapore may also cope better than many countries, not because it is immune, but because there is still relatively strong trust in government. When painful changes come, trust matters. A lot.

The US and Europe may struggle more, not because they lack talent or technology, but because their politics are already so polarized. If people cannot even agree on basic facts today, how will they agree on a totally new social contract when millions of jobs are at stake?