Reflections on How AI is Reshaping Human Society

Recently, I’ve seen many articles comparing the AI revolution to the Industrial Revolution in human history. However, after careful consideration, I believe that the AI revolution is fundamentally different from the Industrial Revolution and will have a more profound impact on the structure of human society.

Those comparisons to the Industrial Revolution liken AI to the steam engine, electricity, and assembly lines of the past, suggesting that it will greatly increase societal productivity, just like the Industrial Revolution. While this statement is not entirely incorrect, I feel that it fails to grasp the essence of AI.

In my opinion, the Industrial Revolution was more like a machine that uniformly enhanced everyone’s abilities. For example, in the past, a person could only make one item per day by hand, but with the advent of machines and assembly lines, they could produce 100 items per day. While there were still differences in individual abilities, the overall improvement brought about by machines was more like a “universal bonus.” Your original personal abilities were important, but not crucial.

However, AI is different.

AI is more like an ability amplifier, rather than a uniform mechanical system.

For instance, suppose a person’s original ability is 1, and with AI, it becomes 10. Another person’s original ability is 100, and with AI, it becomes 1000. On the surface, it seems that both people have improved by a factor of 10, which appears fair. However, in reality, the gap between them has widened from 99 to 990.

Another example is that of ancient swordsmen. The Industrial Revolution was like giving everyone guns, making it difficult for skilled swordsmen to defeat enemies armed with guns. Even if a swordsman had exquisite skills, they might not be able to use guns effectively. However, a weak soldier might become a skilled gunman. This is the kind of social redivision of labor brought about by the Industrial Revolution, where swordsmen became obsolete, and everyone was forced to become a gunman.

In contrast, the AI era is like giving each swordsman an AI-enchanted sword that amplifies their personal attributes by a different factor of 1000. In this scenario, the originally strong swordsman becomes invincible, while the weak swordsman, although stronger, becomes even weaker relative to the strong swordsman.

This is the key difference I see between the AI era and the Industrial Revolution: it’s not simply raising everyone’s abilities together, but rather amplifying the existing differences between individuals.

Moreover, the more capable a person is, the more likely they are to truly utilize AI. AI is not something that automatically generates value when turned on; it requires you to know what you want to do, to ask questions, to judge, to filter, and to integrate. It also requires resources, time, and space for trial and error. A strong person using AI is not just “saving some effort” but is instead entering a state of explosive growth. On the other hand, a person with a weaker foundation, even if they can use AI, often only reaches the level of “being able to use it” rather than “using it extremely well.”

Therefore, I increasingly feel that the AI era may make society even more unfair.

Especially when I consider this issue in the context of reality, it becomes even more apparent.

The rich, the strong, and large companies already possess more resources. They not only can use AI but also have access to more advanced AI (like the mysterious Mythos): better models, longer context, higher call quotas, more private data, and more automated processes. They can even build complete working systems around AI. For them, AI is not just a single tool but a comprehensive amplifier.

On the other hand, ordinary people and the poor may only have access to free AI or AI of average quality. Due to limitations in time, devices, education, and background, they may not be able to truly integrate AI into their work and lives. As a result, the gap between them is not slowly widening but is instead being rapidly amplified.

I think that if we want to find a suitable analogy for the impact of AI on society, we should compare it to the biological competition model in nature, rather than the Industrial Revolution.

For example, I’ve been thinking about a straightforward example: suppose we have an area with trees and grass, and we fertilize them to increase their production by 10 times. What would be the result?

Many people might instinctively think that everyone would grow better. However, the actual situation is not necessarily so.

Because trees are originally taller, they get the sunlight first; their roots are deeper, making it easier for them to absorb water and nutrients; their larger size allows them to expand more quickly when resources increase. The result is not that trees and grass thrive simultaneously, but rather that trees grow faster and taller, their canopies becoming denser and shading out the grass. Eventually, the area will be dominated by tall plants, making it harder for smaller plants to survive.

I believe that AI’s effect on human society is somewhat like this “fertilization.”

Resources are not unchanged, and productivity has not decreased. The problem lies in the fact that new resources and abilities are not being distributed evenly to everyone, but are instead being absorbed more efficiently by individuals and organizations that already have an advantage.

In this way, the future social structure may not be one where everyone becomes stronger together, but rather where a few originally strong individuals and organizations use AI to form a huge “canopy advantage.” They gain more information, wealth, decision-making power, and organizational capabilities, while many ordinary people, although also accessing AI, only receive marginal improvements and may even be further squeezed out due to the explosive growth of the strong.

Of course, I don’t think things will be as simple as “the strong taking everything.” AI will indeed lower many thresholds, allowing people without professional capabilities to do things they couldn’t do before. Some old skill barriers will be broken, and new people may even have opportunities to leap forward through AI.

However, overall, I still believe that the core characteristic of the AI era is not averaging, but amplification; not eliminating differences, but multiplying them.

Therefore, if we want to truly understand how AI will change society, we should not just focus on “how much productivity has increased” but rather look at: who is absorbing these improvements? Who can turn AI into a long-term advantage? Who can only stay at the surface level of using AI?

From this perspective, the most worrying aspect of the AI era is not “machines replacing humans” but rather: will the originally strong people become so strong with AI that ordinary people cannot catch up? Will those who already have money become even stronger with AI, amplifying their abilities by a hundred times? And will those without resources, access, or organizational support be left even further behind in this process?

This is what I think is truly frightening and worth serious consideration about AI.

The future world described in cyberpunk novels has really arrived.