The typical AI economic discussion always focuses on job loss, but that's only half the story. We won't just have corporations firing everyone while AI does all the work - who would buy their products then?
The disruption goes both ways. When AI slashes production costs by 10-100x, what's the value proposition of traditional capital? If you don't need to organize large teams or manage complex operations, the advantage of "being a capitalist" diminishes rapidly.
I'm betting on the rise of independents and small teams. The idea that your local doctor or carpenter needs VC funding or an IPO was always ridiculous. Large corps primarily exist to organize labor and reduce transaction costs.
The interesting question: when both executives and frontline workers have access to the same AI tools, who wins? The manager with an MBA or the person with practical skills and domain expertise? My money's on the latter.
Capital is crucial when tools and infrastructure are expensive. Consider publishing: pre-internet, starting a newspaper required massive investment in printing presses, materials, staff, and distribution networks. The web reduced these costs dramatically, allowing established media to cut expenses and focus on content creation. However, this also opened the door for bloggers and digital news startups to compete effectively without the traditional capital requirements. Many legacy media companies are losing this battle.
Unless AI systems remain prohibitively expensive (which seems unlikely given current trends), large corporations will face a similar disruption. When the tools of production become accessible to individuals and small teams, the traditional advantage of having deep pockets diminishes significantly.