I like your “black hole” metaphor for governance; it matches what I felt in Davos as well, where the language of responsibility is everywhere while the concrete enforcement mechanisms are still mostly missing.
I will read your piece properly and would be happy to stay in touch, since we seem to be circling the same questions from slightly different angles.
I appreciate this write-up; really good overview and analysis for those of us who weren’t at Davos.
Regarding the central question of power and control over the new “AI infrastructure”, we must remember that AI doesn’t exist in a vacuum but is merely the latest in a long line of technologies developed and owned by the billionaire class. Workers will assert control over the AI rollout only insofar as they assert control over the entire means of production.
You are right that AI infrastructure does not sit outside existing power structures; it is being layered onto ownership patterns that were already heavily tilted toward capital over labour.
That is why I worry when AI is framed as a neutral “productivity play” rather than as a shift in who gets to set the rules of the game in the first place.
I resonate with what you wrote, particularly your insightful prediction that AI would feel less like new tools and more like new constraints, which Davos seems to have perfectly confirmed. While the emphasis on AI as fundamental infrastructure is undeniable, I find myself contemplating the societal lag, where the swift pace of technological integration into 'new constraints' often outstrips our collective ability to develop adequate educational paradigms and public policy for the necessary human adaptation and reskiling mentioned.
The more I listen to executives, the more it sounds like AI is becoming a constraint for workers long before it becomes a true tool: new dashboards, new KPIs, new surveillance, but not always new agency.
You are also right about the lag. When AI is treated as infrastructure, education and reskilling have to be treated as infrastructure too, not as optional side projects for individuals to figure out on their own.
Attached ,, my take in AI governance. Would love to connect
https://open.substack.com/pub/feisal/p/ai-governance-a-massive-black-hole?r=9pv9y&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Thank you for sharing this, Feisal.
I like your “black hole” metaphor for governance; it matches what I felt in Davos as well, where the language of responsibility is everywhere while the concrete enforcement mechanisms are still mostly missing.
I will read your piece properly and would be happy to stay in touch, since we seem to be circling the same questions from slightly different angles.
I appreciate this write-up; really good overview and analysis for those of us who weren’t at Davos.
Regarding the central question of power and control over the new “AI infrastructure”, we must remember that AI doesn’t exist in a vacuum but is merely the latest in a long line of technologies developed and owned by the billionaire class. Workers will assert control over the AI rollout only insofar as they assert control over the entire means of production.
I appreciate this lens a lot.
You are right that AI infrastructure does not sit outside existing power structures; it is being layered onto ownership patterns that were already heavily tilted toward capital over labour.
That is why I worry when AI is framed as a neutral “productivity play” rather than as a shift in who gets to set the rules of the game in the first place.
I resonate with what you wrote, particularly your insightful prediction that AI would feel less like new tools and more like new constraints, which Davos seems to have perfectly confirmed. While the emphasis on AI as fundamental infrastructure is undeniable, I find myself contemplating the societal lag, where the swift pace of technological integration into 'new constraints' often outstrips our collective ability to develop adequate educational paradigms and public policy for the necessary human adaptation and reskiling mentioned.
I am glad that line resonated with you.
The more I listen to executives, the more it sounds like AI is becoming a constraint for workers long before it becomes a true tool: new dashboards, new KPIs, new surveillance, but not always new agency.
You are also right about the lag. When AI is treated as infrastructure, education and reskilling have to be treated as infrastructure too, not as optional side projects for individuals to figure out on their own.
My take Roxy
https://open.substack.com/pub/feisal/p/ai-governance-a-massive-black-hole?r=9pv9y&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay