Select Page

News and Tools

Quotes

 

A daily selection of quotes from around the world.

Quote: Reid Hoffman – LinkedIn co-founder

Quote: Reid Hoffman – LinkedIn co-founder

“The fastest way to change yourself is to hang out with people who are already the way you want to be.” – Reid Hoffman – LinkedIn co-founder

Reid Hoffman, best known as the co-founder of LinkedIn, has spent his career at the intersection of technology, networks and human potential. His work is grounded in a deceptively simple observation: who you spend time with fundamentally shapes who you become. This quote, popularised through his book The Startup of You: Adapt to the Future, Invest in Yourself, and Transform Your Career, distils a central theme in his thinking – that careers and identities are not fixed paths, but evolving ventures built in relationship with others.2

Reid Hoffman: from philosopher to founder

Born in 1967 in California, Reid Hoffman studied at Stanford University, focusing on symbolic systems, a multidisciplinary programme that combines computer science, linguistics, philosophy and cognitive psychology. He later pursued a masters degree in philosophy at Oxford, with a particular interest in how individuals and societies create meaning and institutions. That philosophical grounding is visible in the way he talks about networks, trust and social systems, and in his tendency to move quickly from product features to questions of ethics and social impact.

Hoffman initially imagined becoming an academic, but he concluded that entrepreneurship offered a more direct way to shape the world. After early roles at Apple and Fujitsu, he founded his first company, SocialNet, in the late 1990s. It was an ambitious attempt at an online social platform before the wider market was ready. The experience taught him, by his own account, about timing, product-market fit and the brutal realities of execution. Those lessons would later inform his investment philosophy and his advice to founders.

He joined PayPal in its early days, becoming one of the core members of what later came to be known as the “PayPal Mafia”. As executive vice president responsible for business development, he helped navigate the company through growth, regulatory challenges and its eventual acquisition by eBay. This period sharpened his understanding of scaling networks, managing hypergrowth and building resilient organisational cultures. It also cemented his personal network with future founders of Tesla, SpaceX, Yelp, YouTube and Palantir, among others – a living demonstration of his own quote about proximity to people who embody the future you want to be part of.

In 2002, Hoffman co-founded LinkedIn, a professional networking platform that would come to dominate global online professional identity. The idea was radical at the time: that CVs could become living, networked artefacts; that careers could be navigated not just through internal company ladders but through visible webs of relationships; and that trust in business could be mediated through reputation signals and endorsements. LinkedIn grew steadily rather than explosively, reflecting Hoffmans view that durable networks are built on cumulative trust, not just viral growth. The platform embodies the logic of his quote: it is structurally designed to make it easier to find and connect with people whose careers, skills and values you aspire to emulate.2

After LinkedIn scaled and eventually sold to Microsoft, Hoffman became a partner at Greylock Partners, one of Silicon Valleys most established venture capital firms. There he focused on early-stage technology companies, particularly those with strong network effects. He also launched the podcast Masters of Scale, where he interviews founders and leaders about how they built their organisations. The show reinforces the same message: personal and organisational change rarely happens in isolation; it occurs in communities, teams and ecosystems that stretch what people believe is possible.

Context of the quote: The Startup of You and career as a startup

The quote appears in the context of Hoffmans book The Startup of You, co-authored with Ben Casnocha. In the book he argues that every individual, not just entrepreneurs, should think of themselves as the CEO of their own career, applying the mindset and tools of a startup to their working life. That means:

  • Adapting continuously to change rather than relying on a single, static career plan.
  • Investing in relationships as core professional assets, not peripheral extras.
  • Running small experiments to test new directions, skills and opportunities.
  • Building a “networked intelligence” – using the perspectives of others to navigate uncertainty.2

Within that framework, the quote about hanging out with people who are already the way you want to be is not a throwaway line. It is a strategy. Hoffman argues that exposing yourself to people who embody the skills, attitudes and standards you aspire to accelerates learning in several ways:

  • It normalises behaviours that previously felt aspirational or out of reach.
  • It provides a live reference model for decision-making, not just abstract advice.
  • It reinforces identity shifts – you start to see yourself as part of a community where certain behaviours are standard.
  • It opens doors to opportunities that flow along relationship lines.

In other words, the fastest way to change yourself is not merely to decide differently, but to embed yourself in different networks. This reflects Hoffmans broader belief that networks are not just social graphs; they are engines for personal transformation.

The idea behind the quote: why people shape who we become

The deeper logic behind Hoffmans quote sits at the convergence of several strands of research and theory about how human beings change:

  • We internalise norms and expectations from our groups and reference communities.
  • Identity is co-created in interaction with others, not just chosen privately.
  • Behaviours spread through networks via imitation, modelling and subtle social cues.
  • Access to information, opportunities and challenges is heavily mediated by relationships.

Hoffmans framing is distinctly practical. Rather than focusing on abstract self-improvement, he suggests a leverage point: choose your environment and your companions with intent. If you want to become more entrepreneurial, spend time with founders. If you want to become more disciplined, work alongside people who treat discipline as a norm. If you want a more global perspective, immerse yourself in networks that think and operate globally.

This is not, in his usage, about social climbing or mimicry. It is about recognising that the most powerful behavioural technologies we have are other people, and aligning ourselves with those whose example pulls us towards our better, more ambitious selves.

Related thinkers: how theory supports Hoffmans insight

Though Hoffmans quote arises from his own experience in technology and entrepreneurship, the underlying idea is echoed across psychology, sociology, economics and network science. A number of leading theorists and researchers provide a rich backstory to the principle that the people around us are key drivers of personal change.

1. Social learning and modelling – Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura, one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, developed social learning theory and the concept of self-efficacy. He showed that people learn new behaviours by observing others, especially when those others are perceived as competent, similar or high-status. In his famous Bobo doll experiments, children who saw adults behaving aggressively towards a doll were more likely to imitate that behaviour.

Bandura argued that much of human learning is vicarious. We watch, internalise and then reproduce behaviours without needing to experience all the consequences ourselves. In that light, Hoffmans advice to spend time with people who are already the way you want to be is essentially a prescription to leverage social modelling in your favour: choose role models and peer groups whose behaviour you want to absorb, because you will absorb it, consciously or not.

Banduras notion of self-efficacy – the belief in ones capability to achieve goals – is also relevant. Seeing people like you succeed in domains you care about, or live in ways you aspire to, is one of the strongest sources of increased self-efficacy. It tells you, implicitly: this is possible, and it may be possible for you.

2. Social comparison and reference groups – Leon Festinger

Leon Festinger, a social psychologist, introduced social comparison theory in the 1950s. He proposed that individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves with others, particularly when objective standards are absent or ambiguous. Reference groups – the people we implicitly choose as benchmarks – shape our sense of what counts as success, effort or normality.

Hoffmans quote can be read as deliberate reference-group engineering. If you choose a reference group made up of people who are already living or behaving in ways you admire, then your internal comparisons will continually pull you in that direction. Your standard of “normal” shifts upward. Over time, subtle adjustments in expectations, goals and self-assessment accumulate into substantive change.

3. Social networks and contagion – Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler

In their work on social contagion, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler used large-scale longitudinal data to show that behaviours and states – from obesity to smoking, happiness and loneliness – can spread through social networks across multiple degrees of separation. If a friend of your friend becomes obese, for instance, your own likelihood of weight gain measurably changes, even if you never meet that intermediary person.

Their research suggests that networks do not merely reflect individual traits; they actively participate in shaping them. Norms, emotions and behaviours travel across the ties between people. In that sense, Hoffmans counsel is aligned with a network-science perspective: by embedding yourself in networks populated by people with the traits you seek, you are positioning yourself in the path of favourable social contagion.

4. Social capital and weak ties – Mark Granovetter and Robert Putnam

Mark Granovetters seminal work on “The Strength of Weak Ties” showed that weak connections – acquaintances rather than close friends – are disproportionately important for accessing new information, opportunities and perspectives. They bridge different clusters within a network and act as conduits between otherwise separated groups.

Robert Putnam, in his work on social capital, differentiated between bonding capital (strong ties within a close group) and bridging capital (ties that connect us across different groups). Bridging capital is particularly valuable for innovation and change, because it exposes individuals to unfamiliar norms, skills and possibilities.

Hoffmans own career illustrates these principles. His decision to join and later invest in networks of founders, technologists and global business leaders gave him an unusually rich set of weak and strong ties. When he advises people to spend time with those who already are how they want to be, he is, in effect, recommending the intentional cultivation of high-quality social capital in domains that matter for your growth.

5. Identity and habit change – James Clear, Charles Duhigg and behavioural science

Contemporary writers on habits and behaviour, such as James Clear and Charles Duhigg, synthesise research from psychology and behavioural economics to explain why environment and identity are so crucial in change. They emphasise that:

  • Habits are heavily shaped by context and cues.
  • We tend to adopt the habits of the groups we belong to.
  • Sustained change often follows a shift in identity – a new answer to the question “Who am I?”

Clear, for example, argues that “the people you surround yourself with are a reflection of who you are, or who you want to be” – an idea strongly resonant with Hoffmans quote. Belonging to a group where a desired behaviour is normal lowers the friction of doing that behaviour yourself. You become the kind of person who does these things, because that is what “people like us” do.

Hoffman extends this line of thought into the professional realm: if you want to be the sort of person who takes intelligent risks, builds companies or adapts well to technological change, put yourself in communities where those behaviours are routine, admired and expected.

6. Deliberate practice and expert communities – K. Anders Ericsson

K. Anders Ericsson, known for his work on expert performance and deliberate practice, showed that world-class performance is rarely a product of raw talent alone. It depends on structured, effortful practice over time, typically supported by coaches, mentors and high-level peer groups. Elite performers tend to train in environments where excellence is normalised and where feedback is rapid, precise and demanding.

Viewed through this lens, Hoffmans quote points to the importance of expert communities for accelerating growth. Being around people who are already operating at the level you aspire to does more than inspire; it enables a more rigorous, feedback-rich form of practice. It shrinks the gap between aspiration and reality by surrounding you with tangible exemplars and high expectations.

7. Entrepreneurial ecosystems – AnnaLee Saxenian and cluster theory

Research on regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial ecosystems, such as AnnaLee Saxenians work on Silicon Valley, illuminates how geographic and social concentration of talent drives innovation. Silicon Valley became uniquely productive not just because of capital or universities, but because it created dense networks of engineers, founders, investors and service providers who interacted constantly, shared norms and recycled experience across companies.

Hoffmans career is intertwined with this ecosystem logic. His own network, forged through PayPal, LinkedIn and Greylock, reflects the power of clusters where people who already embody entrepreneurial behaviours interact daily. When he advises others to “hang out” with people who are already how they want to be, he is, in effect, recommending that individuals build their own personal micro-ecosystems of aspiration, whether or not they live in Silicon Valley.

The personal strategy embedded in the quote

Hoffmans quote can serve as a practical checklist for personal and professional growth:

  • Clarify the change you want – skills, mindset, values, level of responsibility or kind of impact.
  • Identify living examples – people who already embody that change, ideally at different stages and in different contexts.
  • Shift your time allocation – invest more time in conversations, projects and communities with those people and less in environments that reinforce your old patterns.
  • Contribute, not just consume – add value to those relationships; become useful to the people you want to learn from.
  • Allow your identity to update – notice when you start to see yourself as part of a new tribe and let that guide your choices.

For Hoffman, the network is not a backdrop to personal change; it is the primary medium through which change happens. His own journey – from philosopher to entrepreneur, from founder to investor and public intellectual – unfolded through successive communities of people who were already operating in the ways he wanted to learn. The quote captures that lived experience in a single, portable principle: to change yourself at speed, change who you are with.

References

1. https://quotefancy.com/quote/1241059/Reid-Hoffman-The-fastest-way-to-change-yourself-is-to-hang-out-with-people-who-are

2. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11473244-the-fastest-way-to-change-yourself-is-to-hang-out

3. https://www.azquotes.com/quote/520979

“The fastest way to change yourself is to hang out with people who are already the way you want to be.” - Quote: Reid Hoffman

read more
Quote: Satya Nadella – CEO, Microsoft

Quote: Satya Nadella – CEO, Microsoft

“Just imagine if your firm is not able to embed the tacit knowledge of the firm in a set of weights in a model that you control… you’re leaking enterprise value to some model company somewhere.” – Satya Nadella – CEO, Microsoft

Satya Nadella’s assertion about enterprise sovereignty represents a fundamental reorientation in how organisations must think about artificial intelligence strategy. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, the Microsoft CEO articulated a principle that challenges conventional wisdom about data protection and corporate control in the AI age. His argument centres on a deceptively simple but profound distinction: the location of data centres matters far less than the ability of a firm to encode its unique organisational knowledge into AI models it owns and controls.

The Context of Nadella’s Intervention

Nadella’s remarks emerged during a high-profile conversation with Laurence Fink, CEO of BlackRock, at the 56th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum. The discussion occurred against a backdrop of mounting concern about whether the artificial intelligence boom represents genuine technological transformation or speculative excess. Nadella framed the stakes explicitly: “For this not to be a bubble, by definition, it requires that the benefits of this are much more evenly spread.” The conversation with Fink, one of the world’s most influential voices on capital allocation and corporate governance, provided a platform for Nadella to articulate what he termed “the topic that’s least talked about, but I feel will be most talked about in this calendar year”-the question of firm sovereignty in an AI-driven economy.

The timing of this intervention proved significant. By early 2026, the initial euphoria surrounding large language models and generative AI had begun to encounter practical constraints. Organisations worldwide were grappling with the challenge of translating AI capabilities into measurable business outcomes. Nadella’s contribution shifted the conversation from infrastructure and model capability to something more fundamental: the strategic imperative of organisational control over AI systems that encode proprietary knowledge.

Understanding Tacit Knowledge and Enterprise Value

Central to Nadella’s argument is the concept of tacit knowledge-the accumulated, often uncodified understanding that emerges from how people work together within an organisation. This includes the informal processes, institutional memory, decision-making heuristics, and domain expertise that distinguish one firm from another. Nadella explained this concept by reference to what firms fundamentally do: “it’s all about the tacit knowledge we have by working as people in various departments and moving paper and information.”

The critical insight is that this tacit knowledge represents genuine competitive advantage. When a firm fails to embed this knowledge into AI models it controls, that advantage leaks away. Instead of strengthening the organisation’s position, the firm becomes dependent on external model providers-what Nadella termed “leaking enterprise value to some model company somewhere.” This dependency creates a structural vulnerability: the organisation’s competitive differentiation becomes hostage to the capabilities and pricing decisions of third-party AI vendors.

Nadella’s framing inverts the conventional hierarchy of concerns about AI governance. Policymakers and corporate security teams have traditionally prioritised data sovereignty-ensuring that sensitive information remains within national or corporate boundaries. Nadella argues this focus misses the more consequential question. The physical location of data centres, he stated bluntly, is “the least important thing.” What matters is whether the firm possesses the capability to translate its distinctive knowledge into proprietary AI models.

The Structural Transformation of Information Flow

Nadella’s argument gains force when situated within his broader analysis of how AI fundamentally restructures organisations. He described AI as creating “a complete inversion of how information is flowing in the organisation.” Traditional corporate hierarchies operate through vertical information flows: data and insights move upward through departments and specialisations, where senior leaders synthesise information and make decisions that cascade downward.

AI disrupts this architecture. When knowledge workers gain access to what Nadella calls “infinite minds”-the ability to tap into vast computational reasoning power-information flows become horizontal and distributed. This flattening of hierarchies creates both opportunity and risk. The opportunity lies in accelerated decision-making and the democratisation of analytical capability. The risk emerges when organisations fail to adapt their structures and processes to this new reality. More critically, if firms cannot embed their distinctive knowledge into models they control, they lose the ability to shape how this new information flow operates within their own context.

This structural transformation explains why Nadella emphasises what he calls “context engineering.” The intelligence layer of any AI system, he argues, “is only as good as the context you give it.” Organisations must learn to feed their proprietary knowledge, decision frameworks, and domain expertise into AI systems in ways that amplify rather than replace human judgment. This requires not merely deploying off-the-shelf models but developing the organisational capability to customise and control AI systems around their specific knowledge base.

The Sovereignty Framework: Beyond Geography

Nadella’s reconceptualisation of sovereignty represents a significant departure from how policymakers and corporate leaders have traditionally understood the term. Geopolitical sovereignty concerns have dominated discussions of AI governance-questions about where data is stored, which country’s regulations apply, and whether foreign entities can access sensitive information. These concerns remain legitimate, but Nadella argues they address a secondary question.

True sovereignty in the AI era, by his analysis, means the ability of a firm to encode its competitive knowledge into models it owns and controls. This requires three elements: first, the technical capability to train and fine-tune AI models on proprietary data; second, the organisational infrastructure to continuously update these models as the firm’s knowledge evolves; and third, the strategic discipline to resist the temptation to outsource these capabilities to external vendors.

The stakes of this sovereignty question extend beyond individual firms. Nadella frames it as a matter of enterprise value creation and preservation. When firms leak their tacit knowledge to external model providers, they simultaneously transfer the economic value that knowledge generates. Over time, this creates a structural advantage for the model companies and a corresponding disadvantage for the organisations that depend on them. The firm becomes a consumer of AI capability rather than a creator of competitive advantage through AI.

The Legitimacy Challenge and Social Permission

Nadella’s argument about enterprise sovereignty connects to a broader concern he articulated about AI’s long-term viability. He warned that “if we are not talking about health outcomes, education outcomes, public sector efficiency, private sector competitiveness, we will quickly lose the social permission to use scarce energy to generate tokens.” This framing introduces a crucial constraint: AI’s continued development and deployment depends on demonstrable benefits that extend beyond technology companies and their shareholders.

The question of firm sovereignty becomes relevant to this legitimacy challenge. If AI benefits concentrate among a small number of model providers whilst other organisations become dependent consumers, the technology risks losing public and political support. Conversely, if firms across the economy develop the capability to embed their knowledge into AI systems they control, the benefits of AI diffuse more broadly. This diffusion becomes the mechanism through which AI maintains its social licence to operate.

Nadella identified “skilling” as the limiting factor in this diffusion process. How broadly people across organisations develop capability in AI determines how quickly benefits spread. This connects directly to the sovereignty question: organisations that develop internal capability to control and customise AI systems create more opportunities for their workforce to develop AI skills. Those that outsource AI to external providers create fewer such opportunities.

Leading Theorists and Intellectual Foundations

Nadella’s argument draws on and extends several streams of organisational and economic theory. The concept of tacit knowledge itself originates in the work of Michael Polanyi, the Hungarian-British polymath who argued in his 1966 work The Tacit Dimension that “we know more than we can tell.” Polanyi distinguished between explicit knowledge-information that can be codified and transmitted-and tacit knowledge, which resides in practice, experience, and embodied understanding. This distinction proved foundational for subsequent research on organisational learning and competitive advantage.

Building on Polanyi’s framework, scholars including David Teece and Ikujiro Nonaka developed theories of how organisations create and leverage knowledge. Teece’s concept of “dynamic capabilities”-the ability of firms to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies-directly parallels Nadella’s argument about embedding tacit knowledge into AI models. Nonaka’s research on knowledge creation in Japanese firms emphasised the importance of converting tacit knowledge into explicit forms that can be shared and leveraged across organisations. Nadella’s argument suggests that AI models represent a new mechanism for this conversion: translating tacit organisational knowledge into explicit algorithmic form.

The concept of “firm-specific assets” in strategic management theory also underpins Nadella’s reasoning. Scholars including Edith Penrose and later resource-based theorists argued that competitive advantage derives from assets and capabilities that are difficult to imitate and specific to particular organisations. Nadella extends this logic to the AI era: the ability to embed firm-specific knowledge into proprietary AI models becomes itself a firm-specific asset that generates competitive advantage.

More recently, scholars studying digital transformation and platform economics have grappled with questions of control and dependency. Researchers including Shoshana Zuboff have examined how digital platforms concentrate power and value by controlling the infrastructure through which information flows. Nadella’s argument about enterprise sovereignty can be read as a response to these concerns: organisations must develop the capability to control their own AI infrastructure rather than becoming dependent on platform providers.

The concept of “information asymmetry” from economics also illuminates Nadella’s argument. When firms outsource AI to external providers, they create information asymmetries: the model provider possesses detailed knowledge of how the firm’s data and knowledge are being processed, whilst the firm itself may lack transparency into the model’s decision-making processes. This asymmetry creates both security risks and strategic vulnerability.

Practical Implications and Organisational Change

Nadella’s argument carries significant implications for how organisations should approach AI strategy. Rather than viewing AI primarily as a technology to be purchased from external vendors, firms should conceptualise it as a capability to be developed internally. This requires investment in three areas: technical infrastructure for training and deploying models; talent acquisition and development in machine learning and data science; and organisational redesign to align workflows with how AI systems operate.

The last point proves particularly important. Nadella emphasised that “the mindset we as leaders should have is, we need to think about changing the work-the workflow-with the technology.” This represents a significant departure from how many organisations have approached technology adoption. Rather than fitting new technology into existing workflows, organisations must redesign workflows around how AI operates. This includes flattening information hierarchies, enabling distributed decision-making, and creating feedback loops through which AI systems continuously learn from organisational experience.

Nadella also introduced the concept of a “barbell adoption” strategy. Startups, he noted, adapt easily to AI because they lack legacy systems and established workflows. Large enterprises possess valuable assets and accumulated knowledge but face significant change management challenges. The barbell approach suggests that organisations should pursue both paths simultaneously: experimenting with new AI-native processes whilst carefully managing the transition of legacy systems.

The Measurement Challenge: Tokens per Dollar per Watt

Nadella introduced a novel metric for evaluating AI’s economic impact: “tokens per dollar per watt.” This metric captures the efficiency with which organisations can generate computational reasoning power relative to energy consumption and cost. The metric reflects Nadella’s argument that AI’s economic value depends not on the sophistication of models but on how efficiently organisations can deploy and utilise them.

This metric also connects to the sovereignty question. Organisations that control their own AI infrastructure can optimise this metric for their specific needs. Those dependent on external providers must accept the efficiency parameters those providers establish. Over time, this difference in optimisation capability compounds into significant competitive advantage.

The Broader Economic Transformation

Nadella situated his argument about enterprise sovereignty within a broader analysis of how AI transforms economic structure. He drew parallels to previous technological revolutions, particularly the personal computing era. Steve Jobs famously described the personal computer as a “bicycle for the mind”-a tool that amplified human capability. Bill Gates spoke of “information at your fingertips.” Nadella argues that AI represents these concepts “10x, 100x” more powerful.

However, this amplification of capability only benefits organisations that can control how it operates within their context. When firms outsource AI to external providers, they forfeit the ability to shape how this amplification occurs. They become consumers of capability rather than creators of competitive advantage.

Nadella’s vision of AI diffusion requires what he terms “ubiquitous grids of energy and tokens”-infrastructure that makes AI capability as universally available as electricity. However, this infrastructure alone proves insufficient. Organisations must also develop the internal capability to embed their knowledge into AI systems. Without this capability, even ubiquitous infrastructure benefits only those firms that control the models running on it.

Conclusion: Knowledge as the New Frontier

Nadella’s argument represents a significant reorientation in how organisations should think about AI strategy and competitive advantage. Rather than focusing on data location or infrastructure ownership, firms should prioritise their ability to embed proprietary knowledge into AI models they control. This shift reflects a deeper truth about how AI creates value: not through raw computational power or data volume, but through the ability to translate organisational knowledge into algorithmic form that amplifies human decision-making.

The sovereignty question Nadella articulated-whether firms can embed their tacit knowledge into models they control-will likely prove central to AI strategy for years to come. Organisations that develop this capability will preserve and enhance their competitive advantage. Those that outsource this capability to external providers risk gradually transferring their distinctive knowledge and the value it generates to those providers. In an era when AI increasingly mediates how organisations operate, the ability to control the models that encode organisational knowledge becomes itself a fundamental source of competitive advantage and strategic sovereignty.

References

1. https://www.teamday.ai/ai/satya-nadella-davos-ai-diffusion-larry-fink

2. https://dig.watch/event/world-economic-forum-2026-at-davos/conversation-with-satya-nadella-ceo-of-microsoft

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNWbPBkq6E

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1co3zt3-r7I

5. https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/nadella_ai_sovereignty_wef/

6. https://fortune.com/2026/01/20/is-ai-a-bubble-satya-nadella-microsoft-ceo-new-knowledge-worker-davos-fink/

read more
Quote: Aesop – Greek fabulist

Quote: Aesop – Greek fabulist

“No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.” – Aesop – Greek fabulist

The line is commonly attributed to Aesop, the semi-legendary Greek teller of fables whose brief animal stories have shaped moral thinking for over two millennia.1 The quotation crystallises a theme that runs through his work: that modest gestures, offered without calculation, can alter destinies – and that significance is rarely proportional to size.

The phrase is most often linked to one of his best-known fables, The Lion and the Mouse. In the story, a mighty lion captures a frightened mouse who has unwittingly disturbed his sleep. Amused by the tiny creature’s pleas for mercy, the lion chooses to spare her rather than eat her. Later, the lion himself is caught in a hunter’s net. Hearing his roars, the mouse remembers the earlier kindness, gnaws through the ropes, and frees him. The moral traditionally drawn has several layers: power should not despise weakness; help may come from unexpected quarters; and, above all, what looks like an insignificant kindness can return at a moment when everything depends upon it.1,3

Like many lines associated with Aesop, the wording we use today is a smooth, modern paraphrase rather than a verbatim translation from ancient Greek. The fables were transmitted orally and then written down, edited and re-edited over centuries, so exact phrasing shifts with language and era. What endures is the moral insight: that kindness carries a durable value of its own. Even when it is not repaid by the original recipient, it may ripple outward, change someone else’s course, or simply refine the character of the giver.

Aesop: life, legend and the making of a moralist

Almost everything about Aesop is enveloped in a mixture of scattered references, later biographies and literary tradition. Ancient sources generally agree on a few core points. He is said to have lived in the 6th century BC, during the Archaic period of Greek history, and to have been a slave who became famous for his storytelling.3 Accounts place his origins variously in Phrygia, Thrace, Samos or Lydia. The poet Herodotus mentions an Aesop in passing, and later authors, especially the semi-fictional Life of Aesop, embroider his biography with colourful episodes: his wit in outmanoeuvring masters, his travels to the courts of rulers, and his sharp, satirical use of fables to criticise hypocrisy and injustice.

The precise historical Aesop is hard to reconstruct; scholars widely believe that many of the fables now grouped under his name are the work of multiple anonymous fabulists, collected and attributed to him over time. Yet the persona of Aesop – a socially marginal figure whose insight cuts through pretension – is part of the power of the tradition. The idea that a man of low status, possibly foreign and enslaved, could offer enduring ethical guidance suited stories in which small animals correct great beasts and apparent weakness turns into moral authority.

Aesop’s fables are typically brief, often no more than a paragraph, and end with a concise moral: “slow and steady wins the race”, “look before you leap”, “better safe than sorry”. The dramatis personae are usually animals with human traits: proud lions, cunning foxes, diligent ants, foolish crows. The form allows hard truths about pride, greed, cruelty and folly to be voiced at a safe distance. A king may not welcome a direct rebuke, but he can chuckle at the misfortunes of a boastful crow and still absorb the point.

Within this tradition, the kindness of the lion in sparing the mouse is striking because it seems gratuitous. There is no expectation of return; indeed the lion laughs at the idea that such a puny creature could ever repay him. The reversal, when the mouse becomes the saviour, underlines a countercultural message in hierarchic societies: do not dismiss the small. Value may lie where power does not.

Kindness in the Aesopic imagination

The fable behind the quote is not unique in celebrating generosity, mercy and reciprocity. Across the Aesopic corpus, we find recurring patterns:

  • The reversal of expectations: small animals outwit or rescue large ones; the poor prove more hospitable than the rich; the apparently foolish reveal deeper wisdom. This elevates kindness from a sentimental theme to a quiet subversion of conventional rankings.
  • Pragmatic ethics: kindness is rarely abstract. It appears in concrete actions – sharing food, offering protection, warning of danger, forgiving offences – often framed as both morally right and, in the long run, prudent.
  • Moral memory: characters remember both kindnesses and wrongs. The mouse’s recollection of the lion’s mercy is central to the story’s impact. The fables assume that moral actions plant seeds in the social world, germinating later in unpredictable ways.

In this light, “No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted” becomes less a comforting phrase and more a concise reading of how a moral economy operates. Some acts of generosity will be repaid directly, others indirectly; some may shape the character of the giver rather than the fate of the receiver. But none is meaningless. Each contributes to a network of obligations, examples and stories that make cooperation and trust more thinkable.

From oral tale to ethical tradition

Aesop’s fables spread widely in the classical world, used by philosophers, rhetoricians and educators. By the time of the Roman Empire, authors such as Phaedrus and later Babrius were adapting and versifying the tales into Latin and Greek. In late antiquity and the Middle Ages, Christian writers folded them into sermons and exempla, appreciating their ability to cloak serious moral lessons in accessible narratives.

With the advent of print in Europe, Aesopic material was gathered into influential collections. Erasmus of Rotterdam recommended the fables for schooling, seeing in them a resource for both grammar and virtue. In the 17th century, the French poet Jean de La Fontaine reworked many Aesopic plots into elegant French verse, overlaying classical structures with the social observation and courtly wit of Louis XIV’s France. La Fontaine’s Fables became a key text in French culture, and their portrayals of vanity, power and injustice often retain the Aesopic device of seemingly small characters revealing truths ignored by the mighty.

In England, translators and moralists produced their own Aesop editions, frequently aimed at children. Here, the line between folklore and formal moral education blurred: nursery reading, religious instruction and civic virtues converged around stock morals like the one encapsulated in this quote on kindness. Over time, specific phrases, once simple glosses of a story’s lesson, took on an independent life as freestanding aphorisms.

Kindness, reciprocity and moral psychology

Aesop wrote long before the emergence of modern philosophy, social science or psychology, yet his intuition that small kind acts are not wasted finds echoes in later theoretical work on reciprocity, altruism and moral development. Several strands are particularly relevant.

Hobbes, Hume and the sentiment of benevolence

In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes portrayed human beings as driven largely by self-interest and fear, needing strong authority to keep mutual aggression in check. On this view, kindness risks looking naive unless grounded in prudent calculation. However, even Hobbes conceded that humans seek reputation and that cooperative behaviour can be instrumentally rational; there is room here for the idea that acts of generosity, even small ones, help build the trust on which stable society depends.

By contrast, 18th-century moral sentimentalists, especially David Hume and Adam Smith, argued that we are naturally equipped with feelings of sympathy or fellow-feeling. Hume emphasised that we take pleasure in the happiness of others and discomfort in their suffering, while Smith’s notion of the “impartial spectator” highlights our capacity to imagine how our conduct appears to an objective observer. In such frameworks, a small kindness is far from wasted: it responds to and reinforces dispositions at the heart of our moral life. It also trains our own sensibilities, making us more attuned to the needs and perspectives of others.

Kant and the duty of beneficence

Immanuel Kant, writing in the late 18th century, approached morality through duty rather than sentiment. For him, there is a categorical imperative to treat others never merely as means but always also as ends. From this flows a duty of beneficence: to further the ends of others where one can. In Kantian terms, a small act of kindness honours the rational agency and dignity of the other person. Its worth does not depend on its consequences; the moral law is fulfilled even if the act appears to yield no tangible return. Here, too, “no act of kindness is wasted” because its ethical value lies in the alignment of the agent’s will with duty, not in the size of the outcome.

Utilitarianism and the calculus of small benefits

19th-century utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill evaluated actions in terms of their contributions to overall happiness. From a utilitarian angle, small acts of kindness matter precisely because happiness and suffering are often composed of many minor experiences. A kind word, a small favour or a moment of consideration can marginally improve someone’s well-being; aggregated across societies and over time, such increments are far from trivial.

Later utilitarians have explored how “low-cost, high-benefit” acts – such as sharing information, making introductions, or providing minor assistance – form the micro-foundations of cooperative systems. What looks, from the actor’s perspective, like an almost costless kindness can, in the right context, unlock disproportionately large positive effects.

Game theory, reciprocity and indirect returns

In the 20th century, game theory and the study of cooperation added formal structure to Aesop’s intuition. Work by theorists such as Robert Axelrod on repeated prisoner’s dilemma games showed that strategies embodying conditional cooperation – being kind or cooperative initially, and reciprocating others’ behaviour thereafter – can be highly effective in sustaining stable, mutually beneficial relationships.

Experiments and models of indirect reciprocity suggest that helping someone can improve one’s reputation with third parties, who may in turn be more inclined to help the original benefactor. In this sense, an apparently “wasted” act – say, assisting a stranger one will never meet again – can still generate returns via social perception and norms. The mouse’s rescue of the lion is a vivid narrative analogue of these abstract dynamics.

Evolutionary perspectives on altruism

Biologists and evolutionary theorists, including figures such as William Hamilton and later Robert Trivers, explored how cooperation and altruistic behaviour could evolve. Concepts like kin selection, reciprocal altruism and group selection provide mechanisms by which helping behaviour can be favoured by natural selection, especially when benefits to recipients (discounted by relatedness or likelihood of reciprocation) exceed costs to givers.

In this framework, small acts of kindness can be seen as low-cost signals of cooperative intent, fostering trust and potentially triggering reciprocal help. The lion and the mouse, of course, are anthropomorphic characters rather than biological models, but the story dramatises a pattern: generosity can create allies out of potential nonentities.

Moral development and the education of kindness

In the 20th century, psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg studied how children’s moral reasoning matures, while later researchers in developmental psychology examined the roots of empathy and prosocial behaviour. Experiments with very young children show early forms of spontaneous helping and sharing; socialisation then shapes how these impulses are expressed and regulated.

Narratives like Aesop’s fables play an important role here. They provide simplified contexts in which consequences of actions are clear and moral stakes are stark. A child hearing the tale of the lion and the mouse is invited to see mercy not as weakness but as a risk that pays off, and to understand that size and status do not determine worth. The tag-line about no kindness being wasted condenses that lesson into a maxim that can be carried into everyday encounters.

Kindness in modern ethics and social thought

Recent moral philosophy has, in some strands, given renewed attention to the character of the moral agent rather than just rules or consequences. Virtue ethics, drawing on Aristotle and revived by thinkers such as Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot, considers traits like generosity, compassion and kindness as central excellences of personhood. On this view, individual kind acts are not isolated events but expressions of a stable disposition, cultivated through habit.

At the same time, care ethics, developed notably by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings, highlights the moral centrality of attending to particular others in their vulnerability and dependence. The spotlight falls on the often invisible labour of caring, listening and supporting – many of the very small acts that Aesop’s maxim invites us to see as meaningful.

Social theorists and economists examining social capital also pick up related themes. Trust, norms of reciprocity and informal networks of help underpin effective institutions and resilient communities. A culture in which people habitually extend small kindnesses – returning lost items, offering directions, making allowances for others’ mistakes – tends to enjoy higher levels of trust and lower transaction costs. From this macro perspective, each micro kindness again appears far from wasted; it marginally strengthens the fabric on which shared life depends.

A timeless lens on everyday conduct

Placed in its full context, Aesop’s line is more than a gentle encouragement. It is the distilled wisdom of a tradition that has observed, with unsentimental clarity, how societies actually work. Power fluctuates; fortunes reverse; the weak become strong and the strong, weak. Status blinds; pride isolates. In such a world, the small, uncalculated kindness – offered to those who cannot compel it and may never repay it – turns out to be a surprisingly robust investment.

The lion did not spare the mouse because a cost-benefit analysis predicted future rescue. He did so as an expression of what it means to be magnanimous. The mouse did not free the lion because she had signed a contract; she responded out of gratitude and loyalty. The story implies that such acts are never wasted because they participate in a deeper moral order, one in which character, memory and relationship weigh more than immediate gain.

Aesop’s genius lay in noticing that these truths can be taught most effectively not through abstract argument but through stories that lodge in the imagination. The aphorism “No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted” is a modern summation of that lesson – a reminder that, in a world often preoccupied with scale and spectacle, the quiet decision to be kind retains a significance that far exceeds its size.

References

1. https://philosiblog.com/2014/02/28/no-act-of-kindness-no-matter-how-small-is-ever-wasted/

2. https://www.passiton.com/inspirational-quotes/6666-no-act-of-kindness-no-matter-how-small-is

3. https://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24014.html

4. https://www.randomactsofkindness.org/kindness-quotes/127-no-act-of-kindness-no

5. https://friendsofwords.com/2021/07/19/no-act-of-kindness-no-matter-how-small-is-ever-wasted-aesop-meaning/

read more
Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

“What is being eliminated [by AI] are often tasks done by new entries into the labor force – young people. Conversely, people with higher skills get better pay, spend more locally, and that ironically increases demand for low-skill jobs. This is bad news for recent … graduates.” – Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), delivered this stark observation during a World Economic Forum Town Hall in Davos on 23 January 2026, amid discussions on ‘Dilemmas around Growth’. Speaking as AI’s rapid adoption accelerates, she highlighted a dual dynamic: the elimination of routine entry-level tasks traditionally filled by young graduates, coupled with productivity gains for higher-skilled workers that paradoxically boost demand for low-skill service roles.1,2,5

Context of the Quote

Georgieva’s remarks form part of the IMF’s latest research, which estimates that AI will impact 40% of global jobs and 60% in advanced economies through enhancement, elimination, or transformation.1,3 She described AI as a ‘tsunami hitting the labour market’, emphasising its immediate effects: one in ten jobs in advanced economies already demands new skills, often IT-related, creating wage pressures on the middle class while entry-level positions vanish.1,2,5 This ‘accordion of opportunities’ sees high-skill workers earning more, spending locally, and sustaining low-skill jobs like hospitality, but leaves recent graduates struggling to enter the workforce.5

Backstory on Kristalina Georgieva

Born in 1953 in Sofia, Bulgaria, Kristalina Georgieva rose from communist-era academia to global economic leadership. She earned a PhD in economic modelling and worked as an economist before Bulgaria’s democratic transition. Joining the World Bank in 1993, she climbed to roles including Chief Economist for Europe and Central Asia, then Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid, and Crisis Response at the European Commission (2010-2014). Appointed IMF Managing Director in 2019, she navigated the COVID-19 crisis, steering over USD 1 trillion in lending and advocating fiscal resilience. Georgieva’s tenure has focused on inequality, climate finance, and digital transformation, making her a authoritative voice on AI’s socioeconomic implications.3,5

Leading Theorists on AI and Labour Markets

The theoretical foundations of Georgieva’s analysis trace to pioneering economists dissecting technology’s job impacts.

  • David Autor: MIT economist whose ‘task-based framework’ (with Frank Levy) posits jobs as bundles of tasks, some automatable. Autor’s research shows AI targets routine cognitive tasks, polarising labour markets by hollowing out middle-skill roles while boosting high- and low-skill demand-a ‘polarisation’ mirroring Georgieva’s entry-level concerns.3
  • Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee: MIT scholars and authors of The Second Machine Age, they argue AI enables ‘recombinant innovation’, automating cognitive work unlike prior mechanisation. Their work warns of ‘winner-takes-all’ dynamics exacerbating inequality without policy interventions like reskilling, aligning with IMF calls for adaptability training.3
  • Daron Acemoglu: MIT Nobel laureate (2024) who, with Pascual Restrepo, models automation’s ‘displacement vs productivity effects’. Their framework predicts AI displaces routine tasks but creates complementary roles; however, without incentives for human-AI collaboration, net job losses loom for low-skill youth.5

These theorists underpin IMF models, stressing that AI’s net employment effect hinges on policy: Northern Europe’s success in ‘learning how to learn’ exemplifies adaptive education over rigid skills training.5

Broader Implications

Georgieva urges proactive measures-reskilling youth, bolstering social safety nets, and regulating AI for inclusivity-to avert deepened inequality. Emerging markets face steeper skills gaps, risking divergence from advanced economies.1,3,5 Her personal embrace of tools like Microsoft Copilot underscores individual agency, yet systemic reform remains essential for equitable growth.

References

1. https://www.businesstoday.in/wef-2026/story/wef-summit-davos-2026-ai-jobs-workers-middle-class-labour-market-imf-kristalina-georgieva-512774-2026-01-24

2. https://fortune.com/2026/01/23/imf-chief-warns-ai-tsunami-entry-level-jobs-gen-z-middle-class/

3. https://globaladvisors.biz/2026/01/23/quote-kristalina-georgieva-managing-director-imf/

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ANV7yuaTuA

5. https://www.weforum.org/podcasts/meet-the-leader/episodes/ai-skills-global-economy-imf-kristalina-georgieva/

read more
Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

“Is the labour market ready [for AI] ? The honest answer is no. Our study shows that already in advanced economies, one in ten jobs require new skills.” – Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), delivered this stark assessment during a World Economic Forum town hall in Davos in January 2026, amid discussions on growth dilemmas in an AI-driven era1,3,4. Her words underscore the IMF’s latest research revealing that artificial intelligence is already reshaping labour markets, with immediate implications for employment and skills development worldwide5.

Who is Kristalina Georgieva?

Born in 1953 in Bulgaria, Kristalina Georgieva rose through the ranks of international finance with a career marked by economic expertise and crisis leadership. Holding a PhD in economic modelling from Sofia University, she began at the World Bank in 1993, eventually becoming Chief Executive Officer of its Science and Technology division. She served as European Commission Vice-President for Budget and Human Resources from 2014 to 2016, and as CEO of the World Bank Group from 2017. Appointed IMF Managing Director in 2019, she navigated the institution through the COVID-19 pandemic, the global inflation surge, and geopolitical shocks, advocating for fiscal resilience and inclusive growth3,5. Georgieva’s tenure has emphasised data-driven policy, particularly on technology’s societal impacts, making her a pivotal voice on AI’s economic ramifications1.

The Context of the Quote

Spoken at the WEF 2026 Town Hall on ‘Dilemmas around Growth’, the quote reflects IMF analysis showing AI affecting 40% of global jobs-enhanced, eliminated, or transformed-with 60% in advanced economies3,4. Georgieva highlighted that in advanced economies, one in ten jobs already requires new skills, often IT-related, creating supply shortages5. She likened AI’s impact on entry-level roles to a ‘tsunami’, warning of heightened risks for young workers and graduates as routine tasks vanish1,2. Despite productivity gains-potentially boosting global growth by 0.1% to 0.8%-uneven distribution exacerbates inequality, with low-income countries facing only 20-26% exposure yet lacking adaptation infrastructure4.

Leading Theorists on AI and Labour Markets

The IMF’s task-based framework draws from foundational work by economists like David Autor, who pioneered the ‘task approach’ in labour economics. Autor’s research, with co-authors like Frank Levy, posits that jobs consist of discrete tasks, some automatable (routine cognitive or manual) and others not (non-routine creative or interpersonal). AI, unlike prior automation targeting physical routines, encroaches on cognitive tasks, polarising labour markets by hollowing out middle-skill roles3.

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, MIT scholars and authors of Race Against the Machine (2011) and The Second Machine Age (2014), argue AI heralds a ‘qualitative shift’, automating high-skill analytical work previously safe from machines. Their studies predict widened inequality without intervention, as gains accrue to capital owners and superstars while displacing median workers. Recent IMF-aligned research echoes this, noting AI’s dual potential for productivity surges and job reshaping3,5.

Other influencers include Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne, whose 2013 Oxford study estimated 47% of US jobs at high automation risk, catalysing global discourse. Their work influenced IMF models, emphasising reskilling urgency3. Georgieva advocates policies inspired by these theorists: massive investment in adaptable skills-‘learning how to learn’-as seen in Nordic models like Finland and Sweden, where flexibility buffers disruption5. Data shows a 1% rise in new skills correlates with 1.3% overall employment growth, countering fears of net job loss5.

Broader Implications

Georgieva’s warning arrives amid economic fragmentation-trade tensions, US-China rivalry, and sluggish productivity (global growth at 3.3% versus pre-pandemic 3.8%)5. AI could reverse this if harnessed equitably, but demands proactive measures: reskilling for vulnerable youth, social protections, and regulatory frameworks to distribute gains. Advanced economies must lead, while supporting emerging markets to avoid an ‘accordion of opportunities’-expanding in the rich world, contracting elsewhere4. Her call to action is clear: policymakers and businesses must use IMF insights to prepare, not react.

References

1. https://fortune.com/2026/01/23/imf-chief-warns-ai-tsunami-entry-level-jobs-gen-z-middle-class/

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/careers/news/ai-is-hitting-entry-level-jobs-like-a-tsunami-imf-chief-kristalina-georgieva-urges-students-to-prepare-for-change/articleshow/127381917.cms

3. https://globaladvisors.biz/2026/01/23/quote-kristalina-georgieva-managing-director-imf/

4. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/live-from-davos-2026-what-to-know-on-day-2/

5. https://www.weforum.org/podcasts/meet-the-leader/episodes/ai-skills-global-economy-imf-kristalina-georgieva/

read more
Quote: Gen-Z disillusion – Fortune Magazine

Quote: Gen-Z disillusion – Fortune Magazine

“One-third of Gen Z says they believe they’ll never be able to pay off their debt, and more than half believe they’ll never own a home.” – Fortune Magazine – January 2026

The observation that “one-third of Gen Z says they believe they’ll never be able to pay off their debt, and more than half believe they’ll never own a home” captures a profound shift in how an entire generation understands risk, reward and the social contract. It is not only a comment on personal pessimism; it is a snapshot of structural change in advanced economies, where the pathways that once linked effort to security appear increasingly broken for those now entering adulthood.

Generation Z – typically defined as those born from the late 1990s to the early 2010s – came of age in the long shadow of the global financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic and a decade of asset inflation that dramatically enriched existing owners while raising the drawbridge on those outside. Many of them watched parents endure job losses, foreclosures or long periods of stagnant pay. They arrived in the labour market as housing costs, tuition, healthcare and everyday essentials outpaced wages, and as credit – rather than income growth – became the central tool for keeping households afloat.

That background matters because Gen Z’s sense that debt is unpayable and homeownership unreachable is not an abstract mood; it is grounded in observable economic patterns. Surveys in the mid-2020s repeatedly show that young adults are more indebted relative to their earnings than earlier cohorts at the same age, more reliant on high-interest credit and less likely to hold the one form of debt – a mortgage – that traditionally builds long-term wealth. Analyses of US data, for instance, note that Gen Z consumers are far more likely to hold revolving credit card balances and personal loans while having low rates of homeownership, reflecting the way credit is being used to manage short-term survival rather than long-term investment.1,2

Homeownership sits at the centre of this story. In the post-war era, policy, tax systems and urban planning in many advanced economies were implicitly designed around the assumption that each generation would become homeowners earlier and at higher rates than the last. Property was framed as both a consumption good and the primary asset for retirement security. For Gen Z, that script has inverted. Young adults face a combination of historically high house-price-to-income ratios, elevated mortgage rates and large required deposits in many cities. Surveys in the mid-2020s suggest that a majority of Gen Z respondents doubt they will ever own a home, even though most say they would like to.3,5

The result is a psychological stance some commentators have dubbed “disillusionomics”: a way of thinking about money shaped by the belief that traditional milestones – owning a house, clearing debts, building a pension – are not realistically attainable on normal wages within a normal working life. Instead, Gen Z is often reported to be experimenting with alternative strategies: multiple income streams, gig work, high-risk investing, side hustles and very short planning horizons. They are also more willing to challenge inherited financial norms, questioning whether homeownership is still a rational goal or whether the effort required is simply disproportionate to the reward in a world of fragile employment and volatile asset prices.3

Debt sits at the heart of this generational fracture. Earlier generations embraced borrowing as a bridge to a better future: a mortgage bought a home that would appreciate; student loans were justified as an investment in higher lifetime earnings; consumer credit smoothed consumption as incomes rose. In contrast, many Gen Z borrowers experience debt as a trap rather than a lever. Credit is often used to cover basic living costs, not discretionary luxuries, and is serviced at interest rates that erode the possibility of saving a deposit or building a cushion. Surveys show worrying levels of delinquency among younger borrowers, as well as a growing share who say they carry more in debt than they hold in savings or liquid assets.1,3,5

This collision of rising costs, precarious work and expensive credit shapes their expectations. If monthly obligations already absorb most of their paycheque, it is rational for a young adult to conclude that a future mortgage deposit – perhaps requiring many tens of thousands in savings – is beyond reach. If they also doubt that their real wages will grow significantly over time, the idea that they can ever fully clear their debts appears equally implausible. The quote, therefore, is less about personal fatalism and more about a generation doing the arithmetic and finding that the numbers do not add up.

The changing idea of the “American Dream” and homeownership

The anxiety around homeownership for Gen Z must be understood within the longer history of the so-called American Dream and its equivalents in other advanced economies. After the Second World War, policy makers in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere promoted mass homeownership as the cornerstone of middle-class life. Subsidised mortgages, tax advantages and large-scale suburban building programmes all worked to make ownership more accessible to industrial-era workers. Over time, however, the financialisation of housing turned property itself into a speculative asset class.

From the 1980s onward, deregulated credit markets, falling interest rates and global capital flows drove house prices up faster than incomes in many urban centres. Those who already owned property enjoyed capital gains; those who did not saw the ladder pulled further away. This dynamic was magnified after the global financial crisis, when ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing again raised asset prices, particularly in housing, while wage growth remained weak. By the time Gen Z reached adulthood, the entry cost into the housing market in many cities had become historically high relative to average earnings.

Young people, facing this landscape, must decide whether to accept decades of austerity to chase a property purchase that may still be vulnerable to shocks, or to reorient their aspirations away from ownership entirely. Some surveys highlight that younger homeowners place a stronger emphasis on achieving “debt freedom” than on expanding into larger or more prestigious homes, reflecting a reframing of success away from accumulation and towards autonomy from lenders.8

Why this generation feels different: work, wages and volatility

Beyond housing, Gen Z’s relationship with work and income is shaped by instability. Many entered the labour market during or just after the pandemic, facing hiring freezes, remote onboarding and an unstable demand for entry-level roles. The rise of gig platforms and freelance contracting has created new opportunities but also shifted more risk onto individuals, who often lack benefits, sick pay or predictable hours.

At the same time, inflation spikes in the early 2020s eroded real wages just as rents and mortgage costs jumped. Younger workers, who tend to have lower starting salaries and fewer buffers, were hit hardest. Statistical analyses show that workers under 35 often earn substantially less than older cohorts, yet face similar or higher living costs, leaving less margin to repay debts or accumulate savings.4

Cultural responses to this squeeze have been widely reported. Concepts such as “doom spending” – the choice to spend now because the future feels too uncertain to save for – and “quiet quitting” reflect broader scepticism about delayed gratification in a system perceived as unbalanced. When asset ownership feels unattainable, the moral weight once attached to thrift and long-term planning is diminished. The logic becomes: if the system will not reward sacrifice with security, why sacrifice at all?

Intellectual backstory: debt, generations and the social contract

The sentiment encapsulated in the quote sits at the intersection of several major strands of thought: the political economy of debt, the sociology of generations and the analysis of asset-based inequality. Over the past half-century, a number of theorists and researchers have helped explain why a generation could come to view debt as permanent and ownership as implausible.

Debt as power and promise: from Graeber to financialisation theorists

The late anthropologist David Graeber drew attention to the deep moral and political dimensions of debt. In his influential work on the history of obligations, he argued that debt has long functioned as a tool of social control as much as an economic instrument. Modern consumer and student debt, in this view, discipline individuals to accept certain forms of work and life choices in order to stay current on their obligations. For Gen Z, whose entry to adulthood is defined by outstanding balances rather than accruing assets, this disciplinary function is acute: the need to service debt can constrain job mobility, entrepreneurship and even decisions about family formation.

Financialisation scholars have added a structural dimension to this story. Writers on the shift from an industrial to a financialised economy emphasise how profits have increasingly flowed from financial activities – including household lending – rather than from wages and production. Households, especially younger ones, are encouraged to become both borrowers and investors, taking on leverage to access housing and education while being exposed to financial market volatility. For those who arrive late to this system, such as Gen Z, the upside of asset inflation is limited, while the downside of inflated entry prices and heavy leverage is very real.

Intergenerational inequality: Piketty, asset owners and the young

Economist Thomas Piketty and colleagues have reshaped contemporary debate about inequality by documenting the long-run tendency for returns to capital to exceed the growth rate of the economy. When this happens, those who already own capital – including housing – see their wealth grow faster than overall output, while those reliant on labour income fall behind. For a generation born after asset prices had already been inflated by decades of such dynamics, the chances of catching up through work alone are slim.

Subsequent research has shown that wealth gaps between younger and older cohorts have widened significantly. The median young adult today typically holds far less net wealth than their counterparts did several decades ago at the same age, after adjusting for inflation. Much of this gap reflects property ownership. Older cohorts often bought homes when price-to-income ratios were lower and subsequently enjoyed price appreciation; younger ones confront elevated prices and must borrow more heavily relative to their incomes or exit the market altogether.

Life-courses under strain: sociologists of youth and precarity

Sociologists of youth and work have long studied how the transition from education to stable employment has become more fractured. Concepts such as “precarity” capture the rise of insecure work, fragmented careers and uncertain futures. Instead of a linear progression from school to a permanent job, to homeownership and family, many young adults experience looping paths, temporary contracts, and frequent sector changes.

This has consequences for how they view long-term commitments like mortgages. If you cannot be confident about your income five years from now, committing to a 25- or 30-year debt contract looks very different than it did to earlier generations with stronger expectations of continuous employment. The growing sense that careers are unpredictable weakens the appeal of the traditional wealth-building strategy of buying and paying down a fixed home loan.

Behavioural economists and the psychology of “no way out”

Behavioural economics adds another layer by explaining how people respond to overwhelming burdens. Research on present bias and scarcity suggests that when individuals feel permanently behind, they focus on immediate needs and relief rather than distant goals. In the context of Gen Z, heavy debt loads and high living costs leave little mental or financial bandwidth for retirement saving or long-term home purchase planning.

Studies on financial behaviour among younger consumers highlight a mix of caution and risk-taking: caution in the form of distrust of institutions, and risk-taking in high-volatility investments or speculative trades seen as the only routes to rapid advancement. The belief that conventional paths will not deliver – reflected in the quote – encourages some to either disengage from traditional financial planning altogether or to seek extraordinary upside via risky strategies. Both responses reinforce volatility in outcomes.

Housing economists and the end of automatic homeownership

Housing economists have been documenting for years how structural shifts have eroded the assumption that each cohort will own at higher rates than the previous one. They note the interaction of land-use restrictions, sluggish building in high-demand areas, demographic pressures, foreign capital inflows and speculative investment in property as an asset class. These factors collectively push up prices relative to local wages, particularly in attractive urban centres where many skilled jobs for Gen Z are located.

Work in this field has also shown how credit interacts with housing supply. Easier access to mortgage credit does not simply make housing more affordable; when supply is constrained, it can bid up prices instead. Over several decades, expanded mortgage availability without commensurate increases in housing stock contributed to higher entry prices. Younger buyers respond by either taking on higher loan-to-income mortgages – increasing their vulnerability to shocks – or by staying renters indefinitely.

Debt, education and the reshaping of risk

Education finance forms another crucial piece of the backstory. For many Gen Z students, higher education came with substantial tuition fees funded by loans, premised on the belief that a degree would reliably yield higher earnings. However, the combination of crowded graduate labour markets, credential inflation and regional mismatches in job opportunities has undermined this assumption for some. Where graduate salaries do not rise enough to offset accumulated student loans and elevated living costs, the debt-to-income ratio for young workers remains stubbornly high.

At the same time, financial literacy and debt management skills have often lagged behind the proliferation of credit products. Commentators on personal finance education emphasise that many young borrowers are entering adulthood with a complex mix of obligations – student loans, credit cards, personal loans, occasionally buy-now-pay-later schemes – without systematic guidance on prioritising repayments, negotiating with creditors or avoiding high-fee products. As a result, even manageable debts can feel unmanageable, particularly when combined with opaque interest structures and penalty regimes.6

The perception that one-third of a generation expects never to clear their debts is therefore not only about absolute amounts; it is also about opacity and a lack of confidence in the rules of the game. If you cannot easily see a route from your current obligations to a debt-free future, and if you suspect that the system is stacked to prolong your indebtedness, the rational inference is that the debt may be permanent.

Cultural narratives: from aspirational to sceptical

Popular culture both reflects and reinforces these economic realities. Earlier eras were filled with images of young couples buying their first home, steadily trading up and arriving at retirement with a paid-off property and supplementary savings. In contrast, much of Gen Z’s media diet is saturated with stories of financial burnout, housing insecurity, and the impossibility of catching up. Social media amplifies both extremes: displays of ostentatious success, often driven by non-traditional careers, alongside viral testimonies of people unable to afford basic milestones despite working full-time.

This creates a powerful comparative lens. Seeing peers accumulate substantial wealth through entrepreneurship, speculation or influencer careers, while conventional earners struggle to pay rent, can further erode belief in the legitimacy of traditional employment-based advancement. The sense of being “duped” – urged to follow rules that no longer yield the promised results – feeds into the disillusioned stance that the quote expresses.

Rethinking security in a leveraged world

Ultimately, the belief among many Gen Z individuals that they will never pay off their debts or own a home is not merely a reflection of generational temperament; it is a rational assessment of the constraints imposed by an economic model heavily reliant on household leverage and inflated asset values. It highlights fault lines in the implicit bargain that underpinned late 20th-century prosperity: study hard, work hard, borrow prudently, and the system will deliver stability and ownership.

As that bargain has frayed, a generation has been forced to reassess what financial security looks like when ownership is delayed, partial or permanently out of reach. Whether the response takes the form of quiet resignation, radical experimentation with new income models, political mobilisation, or a reimagining of what constitutes a good life without property, the starting point remains the stark insight captured in the quote: when debt feels endless and homeownership implausible, the entire architecture of aspiration must be rebuilt from the ground up.

References

1. https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/gen-z-homebuying-credit-card-debt/

2. https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/average-american-debt-by-age/

3. https://fortune.com/2025/12/12/gen-z-giving-up-on-owning-home-spending-more-saving-less-working-less-risky-investments/

4. https://carry.com/learn/average-debt-by-age

5. https://www.scotsmanguide.com/news/two-thirds-of-gen-z-think-they-will-never-own-a-home/

6. https://enrich.org/debt-isnt-the-problem-lack-of-debt-management-education-is/

7. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/the-debt-crisis-among-younger-americans-how-it-is-shaping-homeownership-and-what-lenders-can-do/

8. https://www.kin.com/blog/american-dream-and-homeownership-survey-2025/

9. https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/financial-hurdles-dominate-millennial-homebuying-plans

10. https://www.mpamag.com/us/mortgage-industry/industry-trends/millennial-buyers-weigh-desperate-bids-against-deep-financial-strain-in-2026/561152

read more
Quote: George Orwell

Quote: George Orwell

“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it.” – George Orwell – English author

George Orwell’s characteristically sharp way of exposing a timeless human bias: our near-universal tendency to overestimate our own era’s insight while underestimating both our predecessors and our successors.3,4

The quote in context

The full sentence, usually cited in this form, belongs to Orwell’s rich body of essays where he dissected political illusions, intellectual fashions, and the stories societies tell themselves.3,5 Though it circulates today as a stand-alone aphorism, it is consistent with three recurring concerns in his work:

  • Generational arrogance: the belief that now we finally see clearly what others could not.
  • Historical amnesia: the tendency to forget how often earlier generations believed the same thing.
  • Complacency about progress: the assumption that because technology and knowledge advance, judgment and wisdom automatically advance too.

Orwell is not merely mocking youth or nostalgia. The sting of the line lies in its symmetry: each generation thinks it is smarter than the past and wiser than the future.1,3 That double illusion produces two strategic errors:

  • We discount the hard-won lessons of those who came before.
  • We resist the correctives and new perspectives that will come after us.

The quote is thus a compact warning against intellectual hubris—especially valuable in any field that believes itself to be on the cutting edge.

George Orwell: the life behind the line

George Orwell was the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair, born in 1903 in Motihari, then part of British-ruled India, and educated in England.1 He died in 1950, having lived through the First World War, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and Stalinism, the Spanish Civil War, and the Second World War—decades in which entire societies claimed historic new wisdom, often with catastrophic results.1

Key elements of his life that shaped this insight:

  • Imperial childhood and class observation
    Orwell’s early life on the fringes of the British Empire and his schooling in elite English institutions exposed him to the moral blind spots of an establishment that regarded itself as naturally superior and historically destined to rule. This cultivated his lifelong suspicion of any group convinced of its own enlightened status.
  • Service in the Indian Imperial Police (Burma)
    As a young officer in Burma, he saw from inside how a “civilizing” empire justified coercion and inequality—an institutionalized version of believing one’s own era and culture to be wiser than others. This disillusionment led him to resign and later to dismantle the moral pretenses of empire in his writing.
  • Immersion in poverty and the working class
    In works like Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell lived among the poor to understand their reality firsthand. This experience convinced him that many fashionable “advanced” ideas about society were detached from lived experience, and that progress rhetoric often concealed a lack of actual understanding.
  • The Spanish Civil War and totalitarian ideologies
    Fighting with the POUM militia in Spain, Orwell watched competing factions on the same side distort reality to suit their ideological narratives. Each believed it stood at a new pinnacle of political insight. His wounding in Spain and subsequent escape from Communist persecution cemented his belief that self-congratulating generations can be blind to their own capacity for cruelty and error.
  • Totalitarianism, propaganda, and the uses of history
    In Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell showed how regimes rewrite the past and shape perceptions of the future. The famous line “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past” captures the same concern as the generation quote: that controlling narratives about earlier and later times is a potent form of power.2

When Orwell says each generation imagines itself more intelligent and wiser, he is speaking as someone who had watched multiple grand historical projects—imperial, fascist, communist, technocratic—each claiming a new and superior understanding, each repeating old mistakes in new language.

What the quote says about us

For modern leaders, investors, policymakers, and thinkers, this line is less a cynical shrug than a practical diagnostic:

  • Cognitive bias: It points directly at overconfidence bias and presentism (judging the past by today’s standards while assuming today’s standards are final).
  • Strategic risk: Generations that believe their own superiority are prone to underpricing tail risks, ignoring history’s warnings, and overreacting to new technologies or trends as if they break completely with the past.
  • Institutional learning: Sustainable institutions are the ones that systematically harvest lessons from previous cycles while retaining humility that their own solutions will be revised by future actors.

Orwell’s sentence invites a kind of three-directional humility:

  1. Backward humility: the recognition that predecessors often solved hard problems under constraints we no longer see.
  2. Present humility: awareness that our own “obvious truths” may be judged harshly later.
  3. Forward humility: openness to future generations correcting our blind spots, just as we correct the past.

Intellectual backstory: the thinkers behind the theme

Orwell’s aphorism sits within a long tradition of theorists grappling with generations, progress, and historical judgment. Several major strands of thought intersect here.

1. Social theory of generations

Karl Mannheim (1893–1947)
A key figure in the sociology of generations, Mannheim argued that generations are not just age cohorts but shared “locations” in historical time that shape consciousness. In his classic essay “The Problem of Generations,” he described how shared formative experiences (wars, crises, revolutions, technological shifts) produce characteristic patterns of thought and conflict between generations.

Relevance to Orwell’s quote:

  • Mannheim shows why each generation might feel uniquely insightful: its worldview is anchored in disruptive formative events that feel unprecedented.
  • He also shows why each generation misreads others: it projects its historically contingent perspective as universal.

José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955)
The Spanish philosopher saw history as a sequence of generational “waves,” each with its own mission and self-conception. In works like The Revolt of the Masses, he noted how new generations reject what they perceive as outdated norms, often exaggerating their own originality.

Relevance:

  • Ortega captures the rhythmic conflict and renewal between generations: the sense that “we” are more lucid than the naive past and more serious than the frivolous future—precisely the dynamic Orwell condenses into one line.

2. Theories of historical progress and skepticism

Auguste Comte (1798–1857) and G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831)
Comte’s “law of three stages” and Hegel’s philosophy of history both portray human development as progressing through stages toward higher forms of knowledge or freedom. Each stage is more advanced than the last.

From this perspective, it is tempting for any given generation to see itself as the most advanced so far—a structural encouragement to the sentiment Orwell critiques.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) and T. H. Huxley (1825–1895)
Both were progress-minded, yet wary of complacency. Mill stressed the value of dissent and the risk of assuming one’s age has finally arrived at truth. Huxley, wrestling with Darwin’s theories, warned that scientific progress does not automatically produce moral progress.

Relevance:

  • They reinforce Orwell’s implicit point: progress in tools and information does not guarantee progress in judgment.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
Nietzsche mocked the 19th century’s faith in linear progress, arguing that each era mythologizes itself and its values. He saw “modern” man as prone to thinking himself emancipated from the “superstitions” of the past while remaining captive to new dogmas.

This resonates with Orwell’s view that each generation’s self-congratulation masks new forms of unfreedom and self-deception.

3. Generational cycles and sociological patterning

Pitirim Sorokin (1889–1968)
Sorokin’s theory of cultural dynamics described oscillations between “ideational” (spirit-focused), “sensate” (material-focused), and “idealistic” cultures. Change, in his view, is cyclical rather than simply upward.

Applied to Orwell’s line, Sorokin suggests that each generation at the peak of one cycle may misinterpret its position as final progress rather than one phase in a recurring pattern—again reinforcing generational overconfidence.

William Strauss (1947–2007) & Neil Howe (b. 1951)
In Generations and The Fourth Turning, Strauss and Howe propose recurring generational archetypes (Prophet, Nomad, Hero, Artist) across Anglo-American history. Each generation, in their model, reacts to the failures and successes of the previous one, often with exaggerated self-belief.

While their work is more popular than strictly academic, it gives a narrative model for Orwell’s observation: each generational “turning” comes with a belief that this time the cohort has clearer insight into society’s needs.

4. Memory, amnesia, and the politics of history

Reinhart Koselleck (1923–2006)
Koselleck analyzed how modernity widened the gap between the “space of experience” and the “horizon of expectation.” As societies expect more rapid change, they become more inclined to see the past as obsolete and the future as radically different.

This shift makes Orwell’s pattern more pronounced: the more we believe we inhabit a uniquely transformative present, the easier it is to dismiss both past and future perspectives.

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)
Arendt, like Orwell, grappled with totalitarianism. She examined how regimes destroy traditional continuity and fabricate new narratives. The result is a populace encouraged to believe that history has been reset and that present ideology is uniquely enlightened.

Here, Orwell’s sentence reads as a warning about the political utility of generational vanity: if each generation believes it stands outside history, it becomes easier to manipulate.

5. Cognitive science and evolutionary social psychology

Though Orwell wrote before contemporary cognitive science, later theorists help explain why his statement holds so widely:

  • Status and identity psychology: Groups—including age-based cohorts—derive self-esteem from believing they are more capable or insightful than others.
  • Survivorship and hindsight biases: Current generations see themselves as the survivors of earlier errors, implicitly assuming their models are improved.
  • Availability bias: The failures of the past and the imagined follies of the future are vivid; the blind spots of the present are not.

These mechanisms make Orwell’s line less an aphorism and more a diagnostic of how human cognition interacts with time and status.

Why this matters now

In an era of rapid technological change, demographic shifts, and geopolitical realignments, Orwell’s sentence has specific strategic bite:

  • Technology and AI: There is a temptation to see current advances as a decisive break from all prior history, breeding overconfidence that prior lessons no longer apply.
  • Demographics and workforce change: Narratives about “Millennials,” “Gen Z,” and the generations that follow often smuggle in value judgments—older cohorts insisting on their hard-won wisdom, younger cohorts on their superior adaptability or moral clarity.
  • Policy and markets: Each cycle of boom and crisis comes with claims that “this time is different.” History suggests that such claims demand scrutiny rather than deference.

Orwell offers a counter-stance: treat every generation’s self-confidence—including our own—as a working hypothesis, not a fact.

The person behind the quote, the thinkers behind the theme

Summarizing the layers around this one line:

  • George Orwell speaks as a practitioner of political and moral clarity, forged in empire, poverty, war, and propaganda. His remark distills a lifetime observing how eras mistake their vantage point for final truth.1
  • Mannheim, Ortega, and later generational theorists explain how shared formative events produce distinct generational worldviews—and why conflict and mutual misjudgment between generations are structurally built into modern societies.
  • Philosophers of history and progress (from Comte and Hegel to Nietzsche and Arendt) show how narratives of advancement and rupture encourage each age to see itself as uniquely enlightened.
  • Contemporary psychology and sociology reveal the cognitive and social mechanisms that make each generation’s self-flattering stories feel self-evident from the inside.

Against this backdrop, Orwell’s quote serves as both mirror and caution. It invites readers not to abandon the ambition to improve on the past, but to pursue it with historical memory, cognitive humility, and an expectation that future generations will—and must—improve on us in turn.

 

References

1. https://www.buboquote.com/en/quote/10355-orwell-each-generation-imagines-itself-to-be-more-intelligent-than-the-one-that-went-before-it

2. https://www.whatshouldireadnext.com/quotes/george-orwell-every-generation-imagines-itself-to

3. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14793-every-generation-imagines-itself-to-be-more-intelligent-than-the

4. https://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30618.html

5. https://www.azquotes.com/author/11147-George_Orwell/tag/intelligence

read more
Quote: Matt Sheehan

Quote: Matt Sheehan

“The Chinese chip industry has done an amazing job of catching up. I think they’ve probably exceeded most people’s expectations in this.” – Matt Sheehan – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Matt Sheehan’s remark captures a central surprise of the last decade in geopolitics and technology: the speed and resilience of China’s semiconductor ascent under heavy external pressure.

At the heart of this story is China’s effort to close what used to look like an unbridgeable gap with the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe in advanced chips, tools, and know-how. National programs such as “Made in China 2025” explicitly targeted semiconductors as a strategic chokepoint, aiming to localize production and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers in logic chips, memory, and manufacturing equipment.2 This was initially greeted with skepticism in many Western capitals and boardrooms, where the prevailing assumption was that export controls, restrictions on advanced tools, and China’s own technological lag would keep it permanently behind the frontier.

Sheehan’s observation points to where expectations proved wrong. Despite sweeping export controls on leading-edge lithography tools and high-end AI chips, Chinese firms have made faster-than-anticipated progress across the stack:

  • In manufacturing equipment, domestic suppliers have rapidly increased their share in key process steps such as etching and thin-film deposition.1,4 By 2025, the share of domestically developed semiconductor equipment in China’s fabs had risen to about 35%, overshooting Beijing’s 30% target for that year.1 Local champions like Naura and AMEC have pushed into complex tools, delivering CVD, ALD, and other thin-film equipment for advanced memory and logic production lines used by major Chinese foundries such as SMIC and Huahong.1,4
  • In capital investment and ecosystem depth, mainland China has become the largest market in the world for semiconductor manufacturing equipment, with projected spending around $39 billion in 2026—more than Taiwan or South Korea.4 This spending fuels a dense local ecosystem of design houses, foundries, packaging firms, and toolmakers that did not exist at comparable scale a decade earlier.
  • In AI and accelerator chips, Chinese firms have developed increasingly capable domestic alternatives even as they still seek access to high-end Nvidia GPUs. China’s AI sector drew global attention in 2025 with breakthroughs by firms such as DeepSeek, whose large models forced global competitors to reassess Chinese capabilities.5 At the same time, Beijing has leveraged its regulatory power to steer large platforms such as Alibaba and ByteDance toward a mix of imported and home-grown accelerators, explicitly tying access to Nvidia chips (like the H200) to parallel purchases of Chinese solutions.3,5 This policy mix illustrates how industrial strategy and geopolitical bargaining are being fused to accelerate domestic chip progress while still tapping global technology where possible.3
  • In memory and specialty devices, companies like Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) have moved up the learning curve in 3D NAND and are investing heavily in further technology upgrades, DRAM development, and forward-looking R&D that demand increasingly sophisticated domestically supplied equipment.1,4 These investments both absorb and shape the capabilities of the Chinese toolmakers that Sheehan has in mind.1,4

Sheehan’s quote is also rooted in the broader geopolitical context he studies: the U.S.–China technology rivalry, where semiconductors are the most strategically sensitive terrain. Washington’s use of export controls on advanced lithography, EDA tools, and high-end AI chips was designed to “slow the pace” of Chinese military-relevant innovation. The expectation in many Western policy circles was that these controls would significantly impede Chinese progress. Instead, controls have:

  • Reshaped China’s development path—from importing at the frontier to building domestically at one or two nodes behind it.
  • Accelerated Beijing’s urgency to build local capability in areas once left to foreign suppliers, such as inspection and metrology tools, deposition, and etch.1,4
  • Incentivized enormous sunk investment and political attention to semiconductors in China’s five-year plans, where AI and chips now sit at the very center of national strategy.5

Although China still faces real bottlenecks—most notably in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, highly specialized tools, and some advanced process nodes—its system-level catch-up has been broader and quicker than many analysts predicted.2,5 That is the gap between expectation and reality that Sheehan is highlighting.

Matt Sheehan: The voice behind the quote

Matt Sheehan is a leading analyst of the intersection between China, technology, and global politics. At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he has focused on how AI, semiconductors, and data flows shape the strategic competition between the United States and China. His work sits at the frontier of what is often called “digital geopolitics”: the study of how code, chips, and compute influence power, security, and economic advantage.

Sheehan’s analysis is distinctive for three reasons:

  • He combines on-the-ground understanding of Chinese policy and industry with close attention to U.S. regulatory moves, giving him a bilateral vantage point.
  • He approaches policy not just through national security, but also through the innovation ecosystem—research labs, startups, open-source communities, and global supply chains.
  • He emphasizes unexpected feedback loops: how U.S. restrictions can accelerate Chinese localization; how Chinese AI advances can reshape debates in Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo; and how commercial competition and security fears reinforce each other.

This background makes his judgment on the pace of Chinese semiconductor catch-up particularly salient: he is not an industry booster, but a policy analyst who has watched the interplay of strategy, regulation, and technology on both sides.

The broader intellectual backdrop: leading theorists of technology, catch-up, and geopolitics

Behind a seemingly simple observation about China’s chip industry lies a rich body of theory about how countries catch up technologically, how innovation moves across borders, and how geopolitics shapes advanced industries. Several intellectual traditions are especially relevant.

1. Late industrialization and the “catch-up” state

Key figures: Alexander Gerschenkron, Alice Amsden, Ha-Joon Chang

  • Alexander Gerschenkron argued that “latecomer” countries industrialize differently from pioneers: they rely more heavily on state intervention, banks, and large industrial enterprises to compress decades of technological learning into a shorter period. China’s semiconductor push—state planning, giant national champions, directed finance, and targeted technology acquisition—is a textbook example of this latecomer pattern.
  • Alice Amsden studied how economies like South Korea used targeted industrial policy, performance standards, and learning-by-doing to build globally competitive heavy and high-tech industries. Her emphasis on reciprocal control mechanisms—state support in exchange for performance—echoes in China’s mix of subsidies and hard metrics for chip firms (e.g., equipment localization targets, process-node milestones).
  • Ha-Joon Chang brought this tradition into debates about globalization, arguing that today’s rich countries used aggressive industrial policies before later pushing “free-market” rules on latecomers. China’s semiconductor strategy—protecting and promoting domestic champions while acquiring foreign technology—is consistent with this “infant industry” logic, applied to the most complex manufacturing sector on earth.

These theorists provide the conceptual lens for understanding why China’s catch-up was plausible despite skepticism: latecomer states, given enough capital, policy focus, and market size, can leap across technological stages faster than many linear forecasts assume.

2. National innovation systems and technology policy

Key figures: Christopher Freeman, Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Richard Nelson, Mariana Mazzucato

  • Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall developed the idea of national innovation systems: webs of firms, universities, government agencies, and financial institutions that co-evolve to generate and diffuse innovation. China’s semiconductor rise reflects a deliberate effort to construct such a system around chips, combining universities, state labs, SOEs, private giants (like Alibaba and Huawei), and policy banks.
  • Richard Nelson emphasized how governments shape technological trajectories through defense spending, procurement, and research funding. U.S. policies around semiconductors and AI mirrors this; China’s own national funds and state procurement echo similar mechanisms, but at enormous scale.
  • Mariana Mazzucato introduced the idea of the “entrepreneurial state”, arguing that the public sector often takes the riskiest, most uncertain bets in breakthrough technologies. China’s massive and politically risky bets on semiconductor self-reliance—despite early policy failures and wasted capital—are a stark, real-time illustration of this concept.

These frameworks show why China’s chip gains are not just about firm-level success, but about system-level design: how policy, finance, and research infrastructure have been orchestrated to accelerate domestic capability.

3. Global value chains and “smile curves”

Key figures: Gary Gereffi, Timothy Sturgeon, Michael Porter

  • Gary Gereffi and Timothy Sturgeon analyzed how industries fragment into global value chains, with design, manufacturing, and services allocated across countries according to capabilities and policy regimes. Semiconductors are the archetype: U.S. firms dominate GPUs and EDA tools; Taiwanese and Korean firms dominate advanced wafer fabrication and memory; Dutch and Japanese firms produce critical tools; Chinese firms historically concentrated on assembly, packaging, and lower-end fabrication.
  • In this framework, export controls and industrial policies are attempts to reshape where in the chain China sits—from lower-value segments toward high-value design, advanced fabrication, and toolmaking.2
  • The “smile curve” metaphor (popularized by Acer’s Stan Shih and linked to strategy thinkers like Michael Porter) suggests that value accrues at the edges: upstream in R&D and design, and downstream in brands, platforms, and services. For years, China captured more value in downstream device assembly and domestic platforms; Sheehan’s quote highlights China’s effort to climb the upstream side of the smile curve into high-value chip design and equipment.

4. Technology, geopolitics, and “weaponized interdependence”

Key figures: Henry Farrell, Abraham Newman, Michael Beckley, Graham Allison

  • Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman advanced the concept of “weaponized interdependence”: states that control key hubs in global networks—financial, digital, or industrial—can use that position for coercive leverage. U.S. control over advanced lithography, chip design IP, and high-end AI hardware is one of the clearest real-world illustrations of this idea.
  • The use of export controls and entity lists against Chinese tech firms is an application of this theory; China’s accelerated semiconductor localization is, in turn, a strategy to escape vulnerability to that leverage.
  • Analysts such as Michael Beckley and Graham Allison focus on U.S.–China strategic competition, emphasizing how control of technologies like semiconductors shapes long-term power balances. For them, the pace of China’s chip catch-up is a central variable in the evolving balance of power.

Sheehan’s quote sits squarely in this intellectual conversation: it is an empirical judgment that bears directly on theories about whether technological chokepoints are sustainable and how quickly a targeted great power can adjust.

5. AI, compute, and the geopolitics of chips

Key figures: Jack Clark, Allan Dafoe, Daron Acemoglu, Ajay Agrawal

  • Researchers of AI governance and economics increasingly treat compute and semiconductors as the strategic bottleneck for AI progress. Analysts like Jack Clark have emphasized how access to advanced accelerators shapes which countries can realistically train frontier models.
  • Economists such as Daron Acemoglu and Ajay Agrawal highlight how AI and automation interact with productivity, inequality, and industrial structure. In China, AI and chips are now deeply intertwined: domestic AI labs both depend on and stimulate demand for advanced chips; chips, in turn, are justified politically as enablers of AI and digital sovereignty.2,5
  • The result is a feedback loop: AI breakthroughs (such as those highlighted by Xi Jinping in 2025) strengthen the case for aggressive semiconductor policy; semiconductor gains then enable more ambitious AI projects.5

This body of work provides the conceptual scaffolding for understanding why a statement about Chinese chip catch-up is not just about manufacturing, but about the future distribution of AI capability, economic power, and geopolitical influence.

Placed against this backdrop, Matt Sheehan’s line is more than a passing compliment to Chinese engineers. It crystallizes a broader reality: in one of the world’s most complex, capital-intensive, and tightly controlled industries, China has closed more of the gap, more quickly, under more adverse conditions than most experts anticipated. That surprise is now reshaping policy debates in Washington, Brussels, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei—and forcing a re-examination of many long-held assumptions about how fast latecomers can move at the technological frontier.

 

References

1. https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3339366/great-chip-leap-chinas-semiconductor-equipment-self-reliance-surges-past-targets

2. https://www.techinsights.com/chinese-semiconductor-developments

3. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/china-expected-to-approve-h200-imports-in-early-2026-report-claims-tech-giants-alibaba-and-bytedance-reportedly-ready-to-order-over-200-000-nvidia-chips-each-if-green-lit-by-beijing

4. https://eu.36kr.com/en/p/3634463429494016

5. https://dig.watch/updates/china-ai-breakthroughs-xi-jinping

6. https://expertnetworkcalls.com/93/semiconductor-market-outlook-key-trends-and-challenges-in-2026

7. https://sourceability.com/post/whats-ahead-in-2026-for-the-semiconductor-industry

8. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/technology/pwc-semiconductor-and-beyond-2026-full-report.pdf

 

read more
Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

“We assess that 40% of jobs globally are going to be impacted by AI over the next couple of years – either enhanced, eliminated, or transformed. In advanced economies, it’s 60%.” – Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Kristalina Georgieva’s assessment of AI’s labour market impact represents one of the most consequential economic forecasts of our time. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund articulated a sobering reality: artificial intelligence is not a distant threat but an immediate force already reshaping employment globally. Her invocation of a “tsunami”-a natural disaster of overwhelming force and scale-captures the simultaneity and inevitability of this transformation.

The Scale of Disruption

Georgieva’s figures warrant careful examination. The IMF calculates that 40 per cent of jobs globally will be touched by AI, with each affected role falling into one of three categories: enhancement (where AI augments human capability), elimination (where automation replaces human labour), or transformation (where roles are fundamentally altered without necessarily improving compensation). This is not speculative projection but empirical assessment grounded in IMF research across member economies.

The geographical disparity is striking and consequential. In advanced economies-the United States, Western Europe, Japan, and similar developed nations-the figure reaches 60 per cent. By contrast, in low-income countries, the impact ranges from 20 to 26 per cent. This divergence is not accidental; it reflects the concentration of AI infrastructure, capital investment, and digital integration in wealthy nations. The IMF’s concern, as Georgieva articulated, is what she termed an “accordion of opportunities”-a compression and expansion of economic possibility that varies dramatically by geography and development status.

Understanding the Context: AI as Economic Transformation

Georgieva’s warning must be situated within the broader economic moment of early 2026. The global economy faces simultaneous pressures: geopolitical fragmentation, demographic shifts, climate transition, and technological disruption occurring in parallel. AI is not the sole driver of economic uncertainty, but it is perhaps the most visible and immediate.

The IMF’s analysis distinguishes between AI’s productivity benefits and its labour market risks. Georgieva acknowledged that AI is generating genuine economic gains across sectors-agriculture, healthcare, education, and transport have all experienced productivity enhancements. Translation and interpretation services have been enhanced rather than eliminated; research analysts have found their work augmented by AI tools. Yet these gains are unevenly distributed, and the labour market adjustment required is unprecedented in speed and scale.

The productivity question is central to Georgieva’s economic outlook. Global growth has been underwhelming in recent years, with productivity growth stagnant except in the United States. AI represents the most potent force for reversing this trend, with potential to boost global growth between 0.1 and 0.8 per cent annually. A 0.8 per cent productivity gain would restore growth to pre-pandemic levels. Yet this upside scenario depends entirely on successful labour market adjustment and equitable distribution of AI’s benefits.

The Theoretical Foundations: Labour Economics and Technological Disruption

Georgieva’s analysis draws on decades of labour economics scholarship examining technological displacement. The intellectual lineage traces to economists such as David Autor, who has extensively studied how technological change reshapes labour markets. Autor’s research demonstrates that whilst technology eliminates routine tasks, it simultaneously creates demand for new skills and complementary labour. However, this adjustment is neither automatic nor painless; workers displaced from routine cognitive tasks often face years of unemployment or underemployment before transitioning to new roles.

The “task-based” framework of labour economics-developed by scholars including Autor and Frank Levy-provides the theoretical scaffolding for understanding AI’s impact. Rather than viewing jobs as monolithic units, this approach recognises that occupations comprise multiple tasks. AI may automate certain tasks within a role whilst leaving others intact, fundamentally altering job content and skill requirements. A radiologist’s role, for instance, may be transformed by AI’s superior pattern recognition in image analysis, but the radiologist’s diagnostic judgment, patient communication, and clinical decision-making remain valuable.

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, prominent technology economists, have argued that AI represents a qualitative shift from previous technological waves. Unlike earlier automation, which primarily affected routine manual labour, AI threatens cognitive work across income levels. Their research suggests that without deliberate policy intervention, AI could exacerbate inequality rather than reduce it, concentrating gains among capital owners and highly skilled workers whilst displacing middle-skill employment.

Daron Acemoglu, the MIT economist, has been particularly critical of “so-so automation”-technology that increases productivity marginally whilst displacing workers without creating sufficient new opportunities. His work emphasises that technological outcomes are not predetermined; they depend on institutional choices, investment priorities, and policy frameworks. This perspective is crucial for understanding Georgieva’s policy recommendations.

The Policy Imperative

Georgieva’s framing of the challenge as a policy problem rather than an inevitable outcome reflects this economic thinking. She has consistently advocated for three policy pillars: investment in skills development, meaningful regulation and ethical frameworks, and ensuring AI’s benefits penetrate across sectors and geographies rather than concentrating in advanced economies.

The IMF’s own research indicates that one in ten jobs in advanced economies already require substantially new skills-a figure that will accelerate. Yet educational and training systems globally remain poorly aligned with AI-era skill demands. Georgieva has urged governments to invest in reskilling programmes, particularly targeting workers in roles most vulnerable to displacement.

Her emphasis on regulation and ethics reflects growing recognition that AI’s trajectory is not technologically determined. The choice between AI as a tool for broad-based productivity enhancement versus a mechanism for labour displacement and inequality concentration remains open. This aligns with the work of scholars such as Shoshana Zuboff, who argues that technological systems embody political choices about power distribution and social organisation.

The Global Inequality Dimension

Perhaps most significant is Georgieva’s concern about the “accordion of opportunities.” The 60 per cent figure for advanced economies versus 20-26 per cent for low-income countries reflects not merely different levels of AI adoption but fundamentally different economic trajectories. Advanced economies possess the infrastructure, capital, and institutional capacity to invest in AI whilst simultaneously managing labour market transition. Low-income countries risk being left behind-neither benefiting from AI’s productivity gains nor receiving the investment in skills and social protection that might cushion displacement.

This concern echoes the work of development economists such as Dani Rodrik, who has documented how technological change can bypass developing economies entirely, leaving them trapped in low-productivity sectors. If AI concentrates in advanced economies and wealthy sectors, developing nations may face a new form of technological colonialism-dependent on imported AI solutions without developing indigenous capacity or capturing value creation.

The Measurement Challenge

Georgieva’s 40 per cent figure, whilst grounded in IMF research, represents a probabilistic assessment rather than a precise prediction. The IMF acknowledges a “fairly big range” of potential impacts on global growth (0.1 to 0.8 per cent), reflecting genuine uncertainty about AI’s trajectory. This uncertainty itself is significant; it suggests that outcomes remain contingent on policy choices, investment decisions, and institutional responses.

The distinction between jobs “touched” by AI and jobs eliminated is crucial. Enhancement and transformation may be preferable to elimination, but they still require worker adjustment, skill development, and potentially geographic mobility. A job that is transformed but offers no wage improvement-as Georgieva noted-may be economically worse for the worker even if technically retained.

The Broader Economic Context

Georgieva’s warning arrives amid broader economic fragmentation. Trade tensions, geopolitical competition, and the shift from a rules-based global economic order toward competing blocs create additional uncertainty. AI development is increasingly intertwined with strategic competition between major powers, particularly between the United States and China. This geopolitical dimension means that AI’s labour market impact cannot be separated from questions of technological sovereignty, supply chain resilience, and economic security.

The IMF chief has also emphasised that AI’s benefits are not automatic. She personally undertook training in AI productivity tools, including Microsoft Copilot, and urged IMF staff to embrace AI-based enhancements. Yet this individual adoption, multiplied across millions of workers and organisations, requires deliberate choice, investment in training, and organisational restructuring. The productivity gains Georgieva projects depend on this active embrace rather than passive exposure to AI technology.

Implications for Policy and Strategy

Georgieva’s analysis suggests several imperatives for policymakers. First, labour market adjustment cannot be left to market forces alone; deliberate investment in education, training, and social protection is essential. Second, the distribution of AI’s benefits matters as much as aggregate productivity gains; without attention to equity, AI could deepen inequality within and between nations. Third, regulation and ethical frameworks must be established proactively rather than reactively, shaping AI development toward socially beneficial outcomes.

Her invocation of a “tsunami” is not mere rhetoric but a precise characterisation of the challenge’s scale and urgency. Tsunamis cannot be prevented, but their impact can be mitigated through preparation, early warning systems, and coordinated response. Similarly, AI’s labour market impact is largely inevitable, but its consequences-whether broadly shared prosperity or concentrated disruption-remain subject to human choice and institutional design.

References

1. https://economictimes.com/news/india/ashwini-vaishnaw-at-davos-2026-5-key-takeaways-highlighting-indias-semiconductor-pitch-and-roadmap-to-ai-sovereignty-at-wef/slideshow/127145496.cms

2. https://time.com/collections/davos-2026/7339218/ai-trade-global-economy-kristalina-georgieva-imf/

3. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/a-tsunami-is-hitting-labour-market-international-monetary-fund-imf-chief-kristalina-georgieva-warns-of-ai-impact-10796739

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ANV7yuaTuA

5. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/live-from-davos-2026-what-to-know-on-day-2/

6. https://www.perplexity.ai/page/ai-impact-on-jobs-debated-as-l-_a7uZvVcQmWh3CsTzWfkbA

7. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2024/01/14/ai-will-transform-the-global-economy-lets-make-sure-it-benefits-humanity

read more
Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Quote: Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

“Productivity growth has been slow over the last two decades. AI holds a promise to significantly lift it. We calculated that the impact on global growth could be between 0,1% and 0,8%. That is very significant. However, it is happening incredibly quickly.” – Kristalina Georgieva – Managing Director, IMF

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, has emerged as one of the most influential voices in the global conversation about artificial intelligence’s economic impact. Her observation about productivity growth-and AI’s potential to reverse it-reflects a fundamental shift in how policymakers understand the relationship between technological innovation and economic resilience.

The Productivity Crisis That Defined Two Decades

To understand Georgieva’s urgency about AI, one must first grasp the economic malaise that has characterised the past twenty years. Since the 2008 financial crisis, advanced economies have experienced persistently weak productivity growth-the measure of how much output an economy generates per unit of input. This sluggish productivity has become the primary culprit behind anaemic economic growth across developed nations. Georgieva has repeatedly emphasised that approximately half of the slow growth experienced globally stems directly from this productivity deficit, a structural problem that conventional policy tools have struggled to address.

This two-decade productivity drought represents more than a statistical curiosity. It reflects an economy that, despite technological advancement, has failed to translate innovation into widespread efficiency gains. Workers produce less per hour worked. Businesses struggle to achieve meaningful cost reductions. Investment returns diminish. The result is an economy trapped in a low-growth equilibrium, unable to generate the dynamism required to address mounting fiscal challenges, rising inequality, and demographic pressures.

AI as Economic Catalyst: The Quantified Promise

Georgieva’s confidence in AI stems from rigorous analysis rather than technological evangelism. The IMF has calculated that artificial intelligence could boost global growth by between 0.1 and 0.8 percentage points-a range that, whilst appearing modest in isolation, becomes transformative when contextualised against current growth trajectories. For an advanced economy growing at 1-2 percent annually, an additional 0.8 percentage points represents a 40-80 percent acceleration. For developing economies, the multiplier effect could be even more pronounced.

This quantification matters because it grounds AI’s potential in measurable economic impact rather than speculative hype. The IMF’s methodology reflects analysis of AI’s capacity to enhance productivity across multiple sectors-from agriculture and healthcare to education and transportation. Unlike previous technological revolutions that took decades to diffuse through economies, AI applications are already penetrating operational workflows at unprecedented speed.

The Velocity Problem: Why Speed Reshapes the Equation

Georgieva’s most critical insight concerns not the magnitude of AI’s impact but its velocity. Technological transformations typically unfold gradually, allowing labour markets, educational systems, and social safety nets time to adapt. The Industrial Revolution took generations. The digital revolution unfolded over decades. AI, by contrast, is compressing transformation into years.

This acceleration creates what Georgieva describes as a “tsunami” effect on labour markets. The IMF’s assessment indicates that 40 percent of global jobs will be impacted by AI within the coming years-either enhanced through augmentation, fundamentally transformed, or eliminated entirely. In advanced economies, the figure rises to 60 percent. Simultaneously, preliminary data suggests that one in ten jobs in advanced economies already require new skills, a proportion that will accelerate dramatically.

The velocity problem generates a dual challenge: whilst AI promises to solve the productivity crisis that has constrained growth for two decades, it simultaneously threatens to outpace society’s capacity to manage labour market disruption. This is why Georgieva emphasises that the economic benefits of AI cannot be assumed to distribute evenly or automatically. The speed of technological change can easily outstrip the speed of policy adaptation, education reform, and social support systems.

Theoretical Foundations: Understanding Productivity and Growth

Georgieva’s analysis builds upon decades of economic theory regarding the relationship between productivity and growth. The Solow growth model, developed by Nobel laureate Robert Solow in the 1950s, established that long-term economic growth depends primarily on technological progress and productivity improvements rather than capital accumulation alone. This framework explains why economies with similar capital stocks can diverge dramatically based on their capacity to innovate and improve efficiency.

The productivity slowdown that has characterised recent decades puzzled economists, leading to what some termed the “productivity paradox”-the observation that despite massive investment in information technology, measured productivity growth remained disappointingly weak. Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, leading scholars of technology’s economic impact, have argued that this paradox reflects a measurement problem: much of technology’s benefit accrues as consumer surplus rather than measured output, and the transition period between technological eras involves disruption that temporarily suppresses measured productivity.

AI potentially resolves this paradox by offering productivity gains that are both measurable and broad-based. Unlike previous waves of automation that concentrated benefits in specific sectors, AI’s general-purpose nature means it can enhance productivity across virtually every economic activity. This aligns with the theoretical work of economists like Daron Acemoglu, who emphasises that sustained growth requires technologies that complement rather than simply replace human labour, creating new opportunities for value creation.

The IMF’s Institutional Perspective

As Managing Director of the IMF, Georgieva speaks from an institution uniquely positioned to assess global economic trends. The Fund monitors economic performance across 190 member countries, providing unparalleled visibility into comparative growth patterns, labour market dynamics, and policy effectiveness. Her warnings about AI’s labour market impact carry weight precisely because they emerge from this comprehensive global perspective rather than from any single national vantage point.

The IMF’s own experience with AI implementation reinforces Georgieva’s optimism about productivity gains. As a data-intensive institution, the Fund has deployed AI-powered tools to enhance analytical capacity, accelerate research, and improve forecasting accuracy. Georgieva has personally engaged with productivity-enhancing AI tools, including Microsoft Copilot and fund-specific AI assistants, and reports measurable gains in institutional output. This first-hand experience lends credibility to her broader claims about AI’s transformative potential.

The Policy Imperative: Managing Transformation

Georgieva’s framing of AI’s impact as both opportunity and risk reflects a sophisticated understanding of technological change. The productivity gains she describes will not materialise automatically; they require deliberate policy choices. For advanced economies, she counsels concentration on three areas: ensuring AI penetration across all economic sectors rather than concentrating benefits in technology-intensive industries; establishing meaningful regulatory frameworks that reduce risks of misuse and unintended consequences; and building ethical foundations that maintain public trust in AI systems.

Critically, Georgieva emphasises that the labour market challenge demands proactive intervention. The speed of AI adoption means that waiting for market forces to naturally realign skills and employment will result in unnecessary disruption and inequality. Instead, she advocates for policies that support reskilling, particularly targeting workers in roles most vulnerable to displacement. The IMF’s research suggests that higher-skilled workers benefit disproportionately from AI augmentation, creating a risk of widening inequality unless deliberate efforts ensure that lower-skilled workers also gain access to AI-enhanced productivity tools.

Global Context: Divergence and Opportunity

Georgieva’s analysis of AI’s growth potential must be understood within the broader context of global economic divergence. The United States, which has emerged as the global leader in large-language model development and AI commercialisation, stands to capture disproportionate benefits from AI-driven productivity gains. This concentration of AI capability in a single economy risks exacerbating existing inequalities between advanced and developing nations.

However, Georgieva’s emphasis on AI’s application layer-rather than merely its development-suggests opportunities for broader participation. Countries with strong capabilities in enterprise software, business process outsourcing, and operational integration, such as India, can leverage AI to enhance service delivery and create new value propositions. This perspective challenges the notion that AI benefits will concentrate exclusively in technology-leading nations, though it requires deliberate policy choices to realise this potential.

The Uncertainty Framework

Georgieva frequently describes the contemporary global environment as one where “uncertainty is the new normal.” This framing contextualises her AI analysis within a broader landscape of simultaneous transformations-geopolitical fragmentation, demographic shifts, climate change, and trade tensions all accelerating simultaneously. AI does not exist in isolation; it emerges as one force among many reshaping the global economy.

This multiplicity of transformations creates what Georgieva terms “more fog within which we operate.” Policymakers cannot assume that historical relationships between variables will hold. The interaction between AI-driven productivity gains, trade tensions, demographic decline in advanced economies, and climate-related resource constraints creates a genuinely novel economic environment. This is why Georgieva emphasises the need for international coordination, adaptive policy frameworks, and institutional flexibility.

Conclusion: The Productivity Imperative

Georgieva’s statement about AI and productivity growth reflects a conviction grounded in both rigorous analysis and institutional responsibility. The two-decade productivity drought has constrained growth, limited policy options, and contributed to the political instability and inequality that characterise contemporary democracies. AI offers a genuine opportunity to reverse this trajectory, but only if its benefits are deliberately distributed and its disruptions actively managed. The speed of AI’s development means that the window for shaping this outcome is narrow. Policymakers who treat AI as merely a technological phenomenon rather than as an economic and social challenge risk squandering the productivity gains Georgieva describes, converting opportunity into disruption.

References

1. https://time.com/collections/davos-2026/7339218/ai-trade-global-economy-kristalina-georgieva-imf/

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ANV7yuaTuA

3. https://economictimes.com/news/india/clash-at-davos-why-india-refuses-to-be-a-second-tier-ai-power/articleshow/127012696.cms

read more
Quote: Kazuo Ishiguro

Quote: Kazuo Ishiguro

“While it is all very well to talk of ‘turning points’, one can surely only recognize such moments in retrospect.” – Kazuo Ishiguro – The Remains of the Day

The Quote in Context

“While it is all very well to talk of ‘turning points’, one can surely only recognize such moments in retrospect.” This line, spoken by the protagonist Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, captures the novel’s central theme of hindsight and regret. Stevens reflects on his life of unwavering duty as a butler, questioning whether pivotal decisions—such as suppressing his emotions for Miss Kenton or blindly serving Lord Darlington—could have been foreseen as life-altering. The surrounding narrative expands: “But then, I suppose, when with the benefit of hindsight one begins to search one’s past for such ‘turning points’, one is apt to start seeing them everywhere,” and “But what is the sense in forever speculating what might have happened had such and such a moment turned out differently?”3,4,5 These thoughts arise as Stevens drives across England in 1956, revisiting his past amid a changing post-war world, realizing his pursuit of “dignity” through professionalism has left him emotionally barren.

Kazuo Ishiguro: Life and Legacy

Kazuo Ishiguro, born in 1954 in Nagasaki, Japan, moved to England at age five, where he was raised in Guildford, Surrey. His early life bridged cultures: Japanese heritage shaped his themes of memory, loss, and restraint, while British education immersed him in its class structures and imperial history. He studied English and philosophy at the University of Kent, then creative writing at the University of East Anglia under Malcolm Bradbury. Ishiguro’s debut novel A Pale View of Hills (1982) drew from his parents’ Hiroshima experiences; An Artist of the Floating World (1986) explored post-war Japanese guilt.

The Remains of the Day (1989), his third novel, marked his breakthrough. Narrated by Stevens, an impeccably dutiful butler at Darlington Hall in the 1930s, it chronicles his suppressed romance with housekeeper Miss Kenton and his service to Lord Darlington, a well-meaning aristocrat who unwittingly aids pro-Nazi appeasement. Stevens’s road trip decades later forces confrontation with missed opportunities. The Booker Prize-winning novel critiques English stoicism, loyalty’s cost, and hindsight’s clarity. It inspired the 1993 Merchant Ivory film starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson. Ishiguro won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Literature for “uncovering the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world.” His works, including Never Let Me Go (2005) and Klara and the Sun (2021), consistently probe unreliable memory and human fragility.

The Novel’s Backstory and Historical Context

Published amid Thatcher-era Britain, The Remains of the Day dissects interwar aristocracy’s decline. Stevens embodies “great butler” ideals from P.G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves or Saki’s Edwardian tales, yet Ishiguro subverts them: Stevens’s “dignity”—stoic suppression of self—mirrors Britain’s appeasement of Hitler, as Lord Darlington hosts pro-German conferences. Quotes like “Lord Darlington wasn’t a bad man… He chose a certain path in life, it proved to be a misguided one… As for myself, I cannot even claim that. You see, I trusted” underscore blind loyalty’s tragedy.1 The 1930s setting evokes real history: Darlington echoes figures like Lord Halifax, who favored Nazi conciliation. Stevens’s regret—”What a terrible mistake I’ve made with my life”—peaks in his reunion with Miss Kenton, affirming no turning back.1 Ishiguro drew from his father’s tales of English formality and researched butlers’ memoirs, blending personal exile with national introspection.

Leading Theorists on Hindsight, Regret, and Turning Points

Ishiguro’s meditation on retrospective recognition aligns with psychological and philosophical theories of hindsight bias—the tendency to view past events as predictably inevitable—and counterfactual thinking, imagining “what if” alternatives. Key figures include:

  • Baruch Fischhoff (Hindsight Bias Pioneer): In 1975, Fischhoff coined “hindsight bias” (“I-knew-it-all-along” effect), showing people overestimate past foreseeability. Experiments revealed subjects judge historical events like Pearl Harbor as more predictable post-facto, mirroring Stevens’s retrospective “turning points.”3,4 Fischhoff’s work, expanded in Hindsight ? Foresight (1982), explains why regret amplifies illusory clarity.

  • Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (Prospect Theory and Regret): Nobel-winning psychologists (2002 for Kahneman) developed prospect theory (1979), framing decisions around gains/losses. Their regret theory (1982) posits people ruminate on inaction regrets more than action ones—Stevens laments not pursuing Miss Kenton. Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) links this to System 1 intuition versus System 2 reflection, fueling Stevens’s late epiphany.5

  • Neal Roese (Counterfactual Thinking): Roese’s 1990s research defines upward counterfactuals (imagining better outcomes) as driving regret but also improvement. In If Only (2005), he analyzes how “turning points” emerge in hindsight, urging functional use over rumination—echoing Stevens’s futile speculation: “What can we ever gain in forever looking back?”1,2

  • Philosophical Roots: Søren Kierkegaard: The 19th-century existentialist in Repetition (1843) and The Sickness Unto Death (1849) explored despair from inauthentic life choices, akin to Stevens’s “dignity” facade. Kierkegaard argued authentic “leaps” are unrecognizable prospectively, only retrospectively meaningful.

  • Jean-Paul Sartre (Existential Regret): In Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre’s “bad faith” describes self-deception to evade freedom’s anguish. Stevens’s duty-as-vocation exemplifies this, regretting unchosen paths only in retrospect.

These theorists illuminate Ishiguro’s insight: turning points are myths of hindsight, breeding regret unless harnessed for forward momentum. Stevens’s story warns of dignity’s peril when it stifles agency.

References

1. https://www.siquanong.com/book-summaries/the-remains-of-the-day/

2. https://quotefancy.com/quote/1914384/Kazuo-Ishiguro-For-a-great-many-people-the-evening-is-the-most-enjoyable-part-of-the-day

3. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/431607-in-any-case-while-it-is-all-very-well-to

4. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/623975-but-then-i-suppose-when-with-the-benefit-of-hindsight

5. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/206103-but-what-is-the-sense-in-forever-speculating-what-might

6. https://www.whatshouldireadnext.com/quotes/kazuo-ishiguro-but-what-is-the-sense

7. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/the-remains-of-the-day/quotes

8. https://www.allgreatquotes.com/the_remains_of_the_day_quotes.shtml

read more
Quote: Ryan Dahl

Quote: Ryan Dahl

“This has been said a thousand times before, but allow me to add my own voice: the era of humans writing code is over. Disturbing for those of us who identify as SWEs, but no less true. That’s not to say SWEs don’t have work to do, but writing syntax directly is not it.” – Ryan Dahl – Nodejs creator

Ryan Dahl’s candid declaration captures a pivotal moment in software engineering, where artificial intelligence tools like Claude and Codex are reshaping the craft of coding. As the creator of Node.js and co-founder of Deno, Dahl speaks from the front lines of innovation, challenging software engineers (SWEs) to adapt to a future where manual syntax writing fades into obsolescence.

Who is Ryan Dahl?

Ryan Dahl is a pioneering figure in JavaScript runtime environments. In 2009, while a graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), he created Node.js, a revolutionary open-source, cross-platform runtime that brought JavaScript to server-side development. Node.js addressed key limitations of traditional server architectures by leveraging an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model, enabling scalable network applications. Its debut at the inaugural JSConf EU in 2009 sparked rapid adoption, powering giants like Netflix, Uber, and LinkedIn.1

By 2018, Dahl reflected critically on Node.js’s shortcomings for massive-scale servers, noting in interviews that alternatives like Go might suit such workloads better-a realisation that prompted his departure from heavy Node.js involvement.2 This introspection led to Deno’s launch in 2018, a modern runtime designed to fix Node.js pain points: it offers secure-by-default permissions, native TypeScript support, and bundled dependencies via URLs, eschewing Node’s npm-centric vulnerabilities. Today, as Deno’s CEO, Dahl continues advocating for JavaScript’s evolution, including efforts to challenge Oracle’s JavaScript trademark to free the term for generic use.1

Dahl’s career embodies pragmatic evolution. He views TypeScript-Microsoft’s typed superset of JavaScript-as the language’s future direction, predicting standards-level integration of types, though he respects Microsoft’s stewardship.1

Context of the Quote

Delivered via X (formerly Twitter), Dahl’s words respond to the explosive rise of AI coding assistants. Tools like Claude (Anthropic’s LLM) and Codex (OpenAI’s precursor to GPT models, powering GitHub Copilot) generate syntactically correct code from natural language prompts, rendering rote typing archaic. The quote acknowledges discomfort among SWEs-professionals who pride themselves on craftsmanship-yet insists the shift is inevitable. Dahl clarifies that engineering roles persist, evolving towards higher-level design, architecture, and oversight rather than syntax drudgery.

This aligns with Dahl’s history of bold pivots: from Node.js’s server-side breakthrough to Deno’s security-focused redesign, and now to AI’s paradigm shift. His voice carries weight amid 2020s AI hype, urging adaptation over denial.

Leading Theorists on AI and the Future of Coding

Dahl’s thesis echoes thinkers at the intersection of AI and software development:

  • Andrej Karpathy (ex-Tesla AI Director, OpenAI): In 2023, Karpathy declared ‘software 2.0’, where neural networks supplant traditional code, trained on data rather than hand-written logic. He predicts engineers will curate datasets and prompts, not lines of code.
  • Simon Willison (Datasette creator, LLM expert): Willison champions ‘vibe coding’-iterating via AI tools like Cursor or Aider-arguing syntax mastery becomes irrelevant as LLMs handle boilerplate flawlessly.
  • Swyx (Shawn Wang) (ex-Netflix, AI advocate): Popularised ‘Full-Stack AI Engineer’, a role blending prompting, evaluation, and integration skills over raw coding prowess.
  • Lex Fridman (MIT researcher, podcaster): Through dialogues with AI pioneers, Fridman explores how tools like Devin (Cognition Labs’ autonomous agent) could automate entire engineering workflows.

These voices build on earlier foundations: Alan Kay’s 1970s vision of personal computing democratised programming, now amplified by AI. Critics like Grady Booch warn of over-reliance, stressing human insight for complex systems, yet consensus grows that AI accelerates rote tasks, freeing creativity.

Implications for Software Engineering

Dahl’s provocation signals a renaissance: SWEs must master prompt engineering, AI evaluation, system design, and ethical oversight. Node.js’s legacy-empowering non-experts via JavaScript ubiquity-foreshadows AI’s democratisation. As Deno integrates AI-native features, Dahl positions himself at this frontier, inviting engineers to evolve or risk obsolescence.

 

References

1. https://redmonk.com/blog/2024/12/16/rmc-ryan-dahl-on-the-deno-v-oracle-petition/

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15767713

 

read more
Quote: Mark Carney

Quote: Mark Carney

“It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must.” – Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

Mark Carney’s invocation of Thucydides at the World Economic Forum represents far more than rhetorical flourish-it signals a fundamental recalibration of how middle powers must navigate an era of renewed great power competition. Delivered at Davos on 20 January 2026, the Canadian Prime Minister’s address articulates a doctrine of “value-based realism” that acknowledges the erosion of the post-Cold War international architecture whilst refusing to accept the fatalism such erosion might imply.

The Context: A World in Transition

Carney’s speech arrives at a pivotal moment in international affairs. The rules-based order that underpinned global stability since 1945-and particularly since the Cold War’s conclusion-faces unprecedented strain from great power rivalry, economic fragmentation, and the weaponisation of interdependence. The Canadian Prime Minister’s diagnosis is unflinching: the comfortable assumptions that geography and alliance membership automatically confer prosperity and security are no longer valid.1 This is not mere academic observation; it reflects lived experience across the Western alliance as traditional frameworks prove inadequate to contemporary challenges.

The quote itself draws directly from Thucydides’ account of the Melian Dialogue, wherein the Athenian envoys declare that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” By invoking this ancient formulation, Carney grounds contemporary geopolitical anxiety in historical precedent, suggesting that the current moment represents not an aberration but a return to a more primal logic of international relations-one temporarily obscured by the post-1989 liberal consensus.

The Intellectual Foundations: Realism and Its Evolution

Carney’s framework draws upon several strands of international relations theory, most notably classical realism and its contemporary variants. The concept of “value-based realism,” which Carney attributes to Alexander Stubb, President of Finland, represents an attempt to synthesise realist analysis of power distribution with liberal commitments to human rights, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.1 This is a deliberate intellectual move-rejecting both naive multilateralism and amoral power politics in favour of a pragmatic middle path.

Classical realism, articulated most influentially by Hans Morgenthau in the mid-twentieth century, posits that states are rational actors pursuing power within an anarchic international system. Morgenthau’s seminal work Politics Among Nations established that national interest, defined in terms of power, constitutes the objective of statecraft. Yet Morgenthau himself recognised that power encompasses more than military capacity-it includes economic strength, technological capability, and moral authority. Carney’s approach resurrects this more nuanced understanding, arguing that middle powers possess distinct forms of leverage beyond military might.

The realist tradition has evolved considerably since Morgenthau. Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism emphasised the anarchic nature of the international system and the security dilemma it generates, wherein defensive measures by one state appear threatening to others, creating spirals of mistrust. This framework helps explain contemporary great power competition: as American hegemony faces challenge from rising powers, each actor rationally pursues security through military buildups and alliance formation, inadvertently triggering the very insecurity it seeks to prevent. Carney’s diagnosis aligns with this logic-the “end of the rules-based order” reflects not malice but the structural pressures inherent in multipolarity.

More recent theorists have grappled with how middle powers navigate such environments. Scholars such as Andrew Pratt and Fen Osler Hampton have examined “middle power diplomacy,” arguing that states lacking superpower status can exercise disproportionate influence through coalition-building, norm entrepreneurship, and strategic positioning. This intellectual tradition directly informs Carney’s prescription: middle powers must act together, creating what he terms “a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture” upon which they can draw for future challenges.1

The Diagnosis: Structural Transformation

Carney’s analysis identifies three interconnected phenomena reshaping the international landscape. First, the erosion of the rules-based order reflects genuine shifts in material power distribution. The post-Cold War moment, characterised by American unipolarity and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, has given way to multipolarity and ideological contestation. Great powers-whether the United States, China, or Russia-increasingly view international institutions and agreements as constraints on their freedom of action rather than frameworks for mutual benefit.

Second, economic interdependence, once theorised as a force for peace, has become weaponised. Sanctions regimes, technology restrictions, and supply chain manipulation now constitute standard instruments of statecraft. This transformation reflects what scholars term the “securitisation” of economics-the process whereby economic relationships become framed through security logics. Carney explicitly warns against this: middle powers must resist the temptation to accept “economic intimidation” from one direction whilst remaining silent about it from another, lest they signal weakness and invite further coercion.1

Third, the traditional alliance structures that provided security guarantees to middle powers have become less reliable. NATO’s continued existence notwithstanding, the United States under various administrations has questioned its commitment to collective defence, whilst simultaneously pursuing unilateral policies (such as tariff regimes) that undermine allied interests. This creates what Carney identifies as a fundamental strategic problem: bilateral negotiation between a middle power and a hegemon occurs from a position of weakness, forcing accommodation and competitive deference.1

The Intellectual Lineage: From Thucydides to Contemporary Geopolitics

Carney’s invocation of Thucydides connects to a broader contemporary discourse on great power competition. Graham Allison’s “Thucydides Trap” thesis-the proposition that conflict between a rising power and a declining hegemon is structurally likely-has become influential in policy circles. Allison argues that of sixteen historical cases where a rising power challenged a ruling one, twelve ended in war. This framework, whilst contested by scholars who emphasise contingency and agency, captures genuine anxieties about Sino-American relations and broader multipolarity.

Yet Carney’s deployment of Thucydides differs subtly from Allison’s. Rather than accepting the Trap as inevitable, Carney uses the ancient formulation to establish a baseline-the world as it actually is, stripped of comforting illusions-from which alternative paths become possible. This reflects what might be termed “tragic realism”: an acknowledgment of structural constraints coupled with insistence on human agency and moral choice.

Contemporary theorists of middle power strategy have developed frameworks relevant to Carney’s prescription. Scholars such as Amitav Acharya have examined how middle powers can exercise “agency” within structural constraints through what he terms “norm localisation”-adapting global norms to regional contexts and thereby shaping international discourse. Similarly, theorists of “minilateral” cooperation-agreements among smaller groups of like-minded states-provide intellectual scaffolding for Carney’s vision of issue-specific coalitions rather than universal institutions.

The Prescription: Strategic Autonomy and Collective Action

Carney’s response to this diagnosis comprises several elements. First, building domestic strength: Canada is cutting taxes, removing interprovincial trade barriers, investing a trillion dollars in energy, artificial intelligence, and critical minerals, and doubling defence spending by decade’s end.1 This reflects a classical realist insight-that international influence ultimately rests upon domestic capacity. A state cannot punch above its weight indefinitely; sustainable influence requires genuine economic and military capability.

Second, strategic autonomy: rather than accepting subordination to any hegemon, middle powers must calibrate relationships so their depth reflects shared values.1 This requires what Carney terms “honesty about the world as it is”-recognising that some relationships will be transactional, others deeper, depending on alignment of interests and values. It also requires consistency: applying the same standards to allies and rivals, thereby avoiding the appearance of weakness or double standards that invites further coercion.

Third, coalition-building: Carney proposes plurilateral arrangements-bridging the Trans-Pacific Partnership and European Union to create a trading bloc of 1.5 billion people, forming buyers’ clubs for critical minerals anchored in the G7, cooperating with democracies on artificial intelligence governance.1 These initiatives reflect what might be termed “competitive multilateralism”-creating alternative institutional frameworks that function as described, rather than relying on existing institutions that have become gridlocked or captured by great powers.

This approach draws upon theoretical work on institutional design and coalition formation. Scholars such as Barbara Koremenos have examined how states choose institutional forms-examining when they prefer bilateral arrangements, multilateral institutions, or minilateral coalitions. Carney’s framework suggests that in an era of great power rivalry, minilateral coalitions organised around specific issues prove more effective than universal institutions, precisely because they exclude actors whose interests diverge fundamentally.

The Philosophical Underpinning: Beyond Nostalgia

Carney’s most provocative claim may be his insistence that “nostalgia is not a strategy.”1 This rejects a tempting response to the erosion of the post-Cold War order: attempting to restore it through diplomatic pressure or institutional reform. Instead, Carney argues, middle powers must accept that “the old order is not coming back” and focus on building “something bigger, better, stronger, more just” from the fracture.1

This reflects a philosophical stance sometimes termed “constructive realism”-accepting structural constraints whilst refusing to accept that they determine outcomes. It echoes the existentialist insight that humans are “condemned to be free,” forced to choose even within constraining circumstances. For middle powers, this means accepting that great power rivalry is real and structural, yet refusing to accept that this reality precludes agency, moral choice, or the possibility of building alternative arrangements.

The intellectual roots of this position extend to theorists of social construction in international relations, particularly Alexander Wendt’s argument that “anarchy is what states make of it.” Whilst the anarchic structure of the international system is given, the meaning states attribute to it-whether it necessitates conflict or permits cooperation-remains contestable. Carney’s vision assumes that middle powers, acting together, can construct a different meaning of multipolarity: not a return to Hobbesian warfare but a framework of genuine cooperation among states that share sufficient common ground.

Contemporary Relevance: The Middle Power Moment

Carney’s address arrives at a moment when middle power agency has become increasingly salient. The traditional Cold War binary-alignment with either superpower-has dissolved, creating space for states to pursue more autonomous strategies. Countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, and the European Union member states increasingly resist pressure to choose sides in great power competition, instead pursuing what scholars term “strategic autonomy” or “non-alignment 2.0.”

Yet Carney’s formulation differs from classical non-alignment. Rather than attempting to remain neutral between competing blocs, he proposes active coalition-building among states that share values-democracy, human rights, rule of law-whilst remaining pragmatic about interests. This reflects what might be termed “values-based coalition-building,” distinguishing it both from amoral realpolitik and from idealistic universalism.

The stakes Carney identifies are genuine. In a world of great power fortresses-blocs organised around competing powers with limited cross-bloc exchange-middle powers face subordination or marginalisation. Conversely, in a world of genuine cooperation among willing partners, middle powers can exercise disproportionate influence through coalition-building and norm entrepreneurship. Carney’s challenge to middle powers is thus existential: act together or accept subordination.

This framing resonates with contemporary scholarship on the future of international order. Scholars such as Hal Brands and Michael Beckley have examined whether the liberal international order can be reformed or whether it will fragment into competing blocs. Carney’s implicit answer is that the outcome remains undetermined-it depends on choices made by middle powers in the coming years. This is neither optimistic nor pessimistic but genuinely open-ended, contingent upon agency.

The Broader Implications

Carney’s Davos address represents more than Canadian foreign policy positioning. It articulates a vision of international order that acknowledges structural realities-great power rivalry, the erosion of universal institutions, the weaponisation of economic interdependence-whilst refusing to accept that these realities preclude alternatives to hegemonic subordination or great power conflict. For middle powers, this vision offers both diagnosis and prescription: the world has changed fundamentally, but middle powers retain agency if they act together with strategic clarity and moral consistency.

The intellectual traditions informing this vision-classical and structural realism, middle power diplomacy theory, constructivist international relations scholarship-converge on a common insight: international order is not simply imposed by the powerful but constructed through the choices and actions of all states. In an era of multipolarity and great power rivalry, this construction becomes more difficult but also more consequential. The question Carney poses to middle powers is whether they will accept the role assigned to them by great power competition or whether they will actively construct an alternative.

References

1. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miM4ur5WH3Y

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btqHDhO4h10

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjpjEoJkUes

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxXsXXT1Dto

read more
Quote: Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

Quote: Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

“It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down… You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.” – Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

In his special address at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos, delivered on 20 January 2026, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a stark warning about the collapse of the rules-based international order. The quote captures Carney’s pivot towards ‘value-based realism,’ urging nations to abandon naive assumptions of automatic prosperity through globalisation and instead prioritise strategic autonomy, domestic strength, and recalibrated alliances.3,5

Mark Carney: From Central Banker to Prime Minister

Mark Joseph Carney, born on 16 March 1965, is a Canadian economist and politician serving as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister since March 2025. Elected leader of the Liberal Party with over 85.9% of the vote on 9 March 2025, Carney was sworn in as Prime Minister on 14 March without prior elected office, a first in Canadian history. He represents Nepean in Parliament and led the Liberals to a minority government in the subsequent election.1,2

Carney’s career trajectory is marked by high-profile roles in global finance. He served as Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013 and then as Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020, becoming the first non-Briton in that position. Post-governorship, he advised Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on COVID-19 economic responses and chaired the Liberal Party’s Task Force on Economic Growth in 2024. Ideologically a centrist technocrat and ‘Blue Grit Liberal,’ Carney’s premiership has focused on economic resilience amid geopolitical tensions.2

Since taking office, Carney has enacted transformative policies: repealing the federal consumer carbon tax, passing the One Canadian Economy Act to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, fast-tracking a trillion dollars in investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, and infrastructure, and doubling defence spending by decade’s end. His government has recognised the State of Palestine, improved ties with China-including a January 2026 visit yielding tariff reductions on canola and electric vehicles-and sustained support for Ukraine.2,3,4

Context of the Quote: Davos 2026 and Canada’s Strategic Shift

Carney’s address came amid an escalating trade war with the United States and the erosion of post-Cold War globalisation. He declared the end of comfortable assumptions that geography and alliances guaranteed security and prosperity, advocating engagement ‘with open eyes’ and relationships calibrated to shared values. Canada, he noted, was among the first to heed this ‘wake-up call,’ shifting to build strength at home while inviting middle powers to join in ‘value-based realism’-a term borrowed from Finland’s President Alexander Stubb.3

The speech highlighted domestic actions like tax cuts on incomes, capital gains, and business investment, alongside broad engagement to maximise influence in a fluid world. Carney received a standing ovation, underscoring the resonance of his message on naming ‘reality’ and acting decisively.2,3

Leading Theorists on Globalisation, Integration, and Subordination

Carney’s critique echoes longstanding debates in international relations and economics on the limits of globalisation. Key theorists provide intellectual foundations for his views:

  • Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane (Regime Theory): In Power and Interdependence (1977), they argued that complex interdependence fosters mutual benefits through institutions, but power asymmetries can lead to subordination. Carney’s call to ‘take down signs’ of mutual benefit aligns with their recognition that regimes falter when great powers exploit them.2
  • Graham Allison (Thucydides Trap): Allison’s 2017 book warns of inevitable conflict when a rising power (e.g., China) threatens a ruling one (e.g., US), fracturing integration. Carney’s emphasis on strategic autonomy mirrors Allison’s advice for middle powers to hedge amid US-China rivalry.3
  • Dani Rodrik (Trilemma of Global Economy): Rodrik posits governments cannot simultaneously pursue hyper-globalisation, national sovereignty, and democracy. Carney’s policies-relaxing regulations, boosting defence, and diversifying trade-reflect choosing sovereignty over unchecked integration.2
  • John Mearsheimer (Offensive Realism): In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), Mearsheimer contends states maximise power in anarchy, rendering mutual benefit illusory when subordination looms. Carney’s ‘honesty about the world as it is’ evokes this realist turn from liberal optimism.3
  • Alexander Stubb (Value-Based Realism): As Finland’s President, Stubb popularised the term Carney invokes, blending realism with values like human rights. This framework guides Carney’s calibrated engagements, such as the China partnership focused on trade without ideological naivety.3

These thinkers collectively underscore Carney’s thesis: integration’s promise of mutual benefit dissolves when it enables dominance, necessitating realism over idealism in trade and alliances.

References

1. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/about

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney

3. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/

4. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/01/16/prime-minister-carney-forges-new-strategic-partnership-peoples

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miM4ur5WH3Y

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIUrFANCvU

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01QBT5fR-DY

read more
Quote: Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

Quote: Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

“We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it; nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, and more just.” – Mark Carney – Prime Minister of Canada

Mark Carney’s address at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January 2026 articulated a philosophical pivot that extends far beyond Canadian policy. His assertion that “the old order is not coming back” represents a candid acknowledgement of the structural transformation reshaping international relations-a transformation that demands not nostalgic resistance but strategic innovation. The quote encapsulates a broader intellectual movement among contemporary policymakers who recognise that the post-Cold War consensus, built on rules-based multilateralism and assumed Western dominance, has fundamentally fractured.

The Context of Carney’s Intervention

Carney delivered this address as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister, having assumed office in March 2025 following his election as Liberal Party leader with an unprecedented 85.9% of the vote on the first ballot. His ascension marked a significant departure in Canadian political history: he became the first Canadian Prime Minister never to have held elected office before assuming the premiership. This unconventional trajectory-from central banking to the highest political office-reflects the technocratic orientation increasingly evident in responses to complex geopolitical challenges.

The timing of Carney’s Davos intervention proved strategically significant. His address came mere days after a high-profile visit to Beijing, where he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and negotiated a “new strategic partnership” that substantially reduced tariffs on Canadian canola oil (from 85% to 15%) and Chinese electric vehicles (from 100% to 6.1%). This diplomatic manoeuvre exemplified the very philosophy he articulated at Davos: rather than lamenting the erosion of Western-led institutional frameworks, Canada was actively recalibrating its relationships to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.

The Intellectual Architecture: Value-Based Realism

Carney’s formulation draws explicitly on what he termed “value-based realism,” a concept articulated by Alexander Stubb, President of Finland. This framework represents a deliberate synthesis of two traditionally opposed analytical traditions: the idealist commitment to universal values (human rights, sovereignty, democratic governance) and the realist acknowledgement of power dynamics and national interest. Rather than treating these as contradictory, value-based realism posits that nations can maintain principled commitments whilst simultaneously engaging pragmatically with the world as it exists rather than as they wish it to be.

This intellectual positioning reflects broader currents in contemporary international relations theory. The concept challenges what scholars term “liberal internationalism”-the post-1945 consensus that institutionalised rules, multilateral organisations, and shared norms could transcend power politics. Carney’s acknowledgement that “the old comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security” no longer hold valid represents a significant concession to structural realist arguments that have long emphasised the primacy of material capabilities and strategic positioning over institutional arrangements.

Leading Theorists and Intellectual Foundations

Structural Realism and the Multipolar Transition: Carney’s analysis aligns substantially with structural realist scholarship, particularly the work of scholars examining the transition from unipolarity to multipolarity. Theorists such as John Mearsheimer have long argued that the post-Cold War unipolar moment was inherently unstable and that the rise of peer competitors (particularly China) would inevitably erode the institutional frameworks built during American hegemony. Carney’s acknowledgement that “the powerful have their power” whilst Canada must “build our strength at home” reflects this realist recognition that material capabilities ultimately determine strategic options.

Strategic Autonomy and Middle Power Theory: Carney explicitly positioned Canada as a “middle power” capable of exercising disproportionate influence through strategic positioning. This concept draws on middle power theory, developed by scholars including Andrew Cooper and Evan Potter, which argues that states occupying the intermediate tier of the international system can leverage their geographic position, institutional expertise, and coalition-building capacity to exercise influence beyond their material weight. Carney’s emphasis on “building strategic autonomy whilst maintaining values” reflects this theoretical framework-middle powers must avoid dependency on great power patrons whilst retaining the principled commitments that differentiate them from purely transactional actors.

The Fracture Metaphor and Institutional Decay: Carney’s use of “fracture” rather than “collapse” or “transformation” carries theoretical significance. This language echoes the work of scholars examining institutional erosion, particularly those studying the decline of post-war multilateral organisations. Theorists including Dani Rodrik have documented how globalisation and geopolitical competition have strained the institutional consensus that underpinned the Bretton Woods system and its successors. The fracture metaphor suggests not apocalyptic breakdown but rather the splintering of previously unified frameworks into competing regional and bilateral arrangements.

Constructivist Approaches to Order-Building: Carney’s assertion that “from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, and more just” reflects constructivist international relations theory, which emphasises that international orders are socially constructed rather than determined by material forces alone. Scholars including Alexander Wendt have argued that actors can reshape international structures through strategic communication and norm entrepreneurship. Carney’s framing positions Canada not as a passive victim of systemic change but as an active participant in constructing new institutional arrangements-a distinctly constructivist orientation.

The Rejection of Nostalgia as Strategic Doctrine

Carney’s explicit rejection of nostalgia as a strategic framework warrants particular attention. This formulation directly challenges what scholars term “nostalgic nationalism”-the tendency of declining powers to seek restoration of previous hierarchies rather than adaptation to new circumstances. The statement “nostalgia is not a strategy” functions as both intellectual critique and practical warning. It implicitly critiques both American efforts to reassert unilateral dominance and European attempts to preserve Cold War alliance structures unchanged.

This positioning reflects contemporary debates within strategic studies about how established powers should respond to relative decline. Scholars including Hal Brands have examined whether declining powers typically pursue accommodation or confrontation; Carney’s framework suggests a third path: strategic recalibration that preserves core values whilst abandoning outdated institutional assumptions.

Domestic Foundations: Building Strength at Home

Carney’s emphasis on building “strength at home” through tax reductions, removal of interprovincial trade barriers, and a trillion-dollar investment programme in energy, artificial intelligence, and critical minerals reflects economic nationalism tempered by liberal institutional commitments. This approach synthesises elements of developmental state theory (the strategic deployment of state capacity to build competitive advantage) with market-liberal principles. The doubling of defence spending by decade’s end, coupled with investments in domestic industrial capacity, reflects what scholars term “strategic decoupling”-the deliberate reduction of dependency on potentially unreliable partners through domestic capability development.

This domestic orientation also reflects recognition of what political economists call the “trilemma of globalisation”: the impossibility of simultaneously maintaining democratic sovereignty, deep economic integration, and fixed exchange rates. By prioritising sovereignty and strategic autonomy, Carney’s government implicitly accepts reduced integration with some partners whilst deepening selective relationships (notably with China) where mutual benefit is demonstrable.

The Broader Geopolitical Significance

Carney’s Davos address arrived at a moment of acute geopolitical tension. The ongoing trade conflict with the United States, the continuation of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the intensifying competition for technological and resource dominance between Western and Chinese-led blocs have created what scholars term a “multiplex world order”-one characterised by simultaneous cooperation and competition across multiple domains rather than simple bipolarity or unipolarity.

His reception-described as earning “a rare standing ovation” at Davos-suggests that his articulation of value-based realism resonated with an international audience of business and political leaders grappling with similar strategic dilemmas. The framework offers intellectual legitimacy for the pragmatic recalibration that many middle and smaller powers have already undertaken, whilst maintaining rhetorical commitment to universal principles.

Implications for International Order-Building

Carney’s vision of building “something bigger, better, stronger, and more just” from the fracture of the old order represents an optimistic but contingent proposition. It assumes that the emerging multipolar system need not replicate the zero-sum competition that characterised earlier multipolar eras, and that institutional innovation can accommodate both great power competition and cooperative problem-solving on transnational challenges.

This optimism reflects what scholars call “liberal institutionalism”-the belief that even in anarchic international systems, institutions can facilitate cooperation and reduce transaction costs. Yet Carney’s framework differs from earlier liberal institutionalism in its explicit acknowledgement that such institutions must reflect contemporary power distributions rather than attempting to preserve outdated hierarchies. The Canada-China strategic partnership, with its focus on trade, energy, and technology, exemplifies this approach: cooperation structured around mutual benefit rather than ideological alignment or institutional obligation.

The intellectual coherence of Carney’s position lies in its rejection of false dichotomies. It refuses the choice between principled commitment and pragmatic engagement, between national interest and international cooperation, between acknowledging systemic change and working to shape its trajectory. Whether this framework can sustain itself amid intensifying great power competition remains an open question-one that will substantially determine the character of the emerging international order.

References

1. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/

2. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/about

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney

4. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/01/16/prime-minister-carney-forges-new-strategic-partnership-peoples

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miM4ur5WH3Y

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIUrFANCvU

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01QBT5fR-DY

read more
Quote: Andre Karpathy

Quote: Andre Karpathy

“I’ve never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful.” – Andre Karpathy – AI guru

Andre Karpathy, a pioneering AI researcher, captures the profound disruption AI is bringing to programming in this quote: “I’ve never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful.”1,2 Delivered amid his reflections on AI’s rapid evolution, it underscores his personal sense of urgency as tools like large language models (LLMs) redefine developers’ roles from code writers to orchestrators of intelligent systems.2

Context of the Quote

Karpathy shared this introspection as part of his broader commentary on the programming profession’s transformation, likely tied to his June 17, 2025, keynote at AI Startup School in San Francisco titled “Software Is Changing (Again).”4 In it, he outlined Software 3.0—a paradigm where LLMs enable natural language as the primary programming interface, allowing AI to generate code, design systems, and even self-improve with minimal human input.1,4,5 The quote reflects his firsthand experience: traditional Software 1.0 (handwritten code) and Software 2.0 (neural networks trained on data) are giving way to 3.0, where programmers contribute “sparse” high-level guidance amid AI-generated code, evoking a feeling of both lag and untapped potential.1,2 He likens developers to “virtual managers” overseeing AI collaborators, focusing on architecture, decomposition, and ethics rather than syntax.2 This shift mirrors historical leaps—like from machine code to high-level languages—but accelerates via tools like GitHub Copilot, making elite programmers those who master prompt engineering and human-AI loops.2,4

Backstory on Andre Karpathy

Born in Slovakia and raised in Canada, Andrej Karpathy earned his PhD in computer vision at Stanford University, where he architected and led CS231n, the first deep learning course there, now one of Stanford’s most popular.3 A founding member of OpenAI, he advanced generative models and reinforcement learning. At Tesla (2017–2022), as Senior Director of AI, he led Autopilot vision, data labeling, neural net training, and deployment on custom inference chips, pushing toward Full Self-Driving.3,4 Briefly involved in Tesla Optimus, he left to found Eureka Labs, modernizing education with AI.3 Known as an “AI guru” for viral lectures like “The spelled-out intro to neural networks” and zero-to-hero LLM courses, Karpathy embodies the transition to Software 3.0, having deleted C++ code in favor of growing neural nets at Tesla.3,4

Leading Theorists on Software Paradigms and AI-Driven Programming

Karpathy’s framework builds on foundational ideas from deep learning pioneers. Key figures include:

  • Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton (the “Godfathers of AI”): Their 2010s work on deep neural networks birthed Software 2.0, where optimization on massive datasets replaces explicit programming. LeCun (Meta AI chief) pioneered convolutional nets; Bengio advanced sequence models; Hinton coined “backpropagation.” Their Turing Awards (2018) validated data-driven learning, enabling Karpathy’s Tesla-scale deployments.1

  • Ian Goodfellow (GAN inventor, 2014): His Generative Adversarial Networks prefigured Software 3.0’s generative capabilities, where AI creates code and data autonomously, blurring human-AI creation boundaries.1

  • Andrej Karpathy himself: Extends these into Software 3.0, emphasizing recursive self-improvement (AI writing AI) and “vibe coding” via natural language, as in his 2025 talks.1,4

  • Related influencers: Fei-Fei Li (Stanford, co-creator of ImageNet) scaled vision datasets fueling Software 2.0; Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI co-founder) drove LLMs like GPT, powering 3.0’s code synthesis.3

This evolution demands programmers adapt: curricula must prioritize AI collaboration over syntax, with humans excelling in judgment and oversight amid accelerating abstraction.1,2

References

1. https://inferencebysequoia.substack.com/p/andrej-karpathys-software-30-and

2. https://ytosko.dev/blog/andrej-karpathy-reflects-on-ais-impact-on-programming-profession

3. https://karpathy.ai

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCEmiRjPEtQ

5. https://www.cio.com/article/4085335/the-future-of-programming-and-the-new-role-of-the-programmer-in-the-ai-era.html

read more
Quote: Marc Wilson – Global Advisors

Quote: Marc Wilson – Global Advisors

“Parents want to know what their kids should study in the age of AI – curiosity, agency, ability to learn and adapt, diligence, resilience, accountability, trust, ethics and teamwork define winners in the age of AI more than knowledge.” – Marc Wilson – Global Advisors

Over the last few years, I have spent thousands of hours inside AI systems – not as a spectator, but as someone trying to make them do real work. Not toy demos. Not slideware. I’m talking about actual consulting workflows: research, synthesis, modeling, data extraction, and client delivery.

What that experience strips away is the illusion that the future belongs to people who simply “know how to use AI.”

Every week there is a new tool, a new model, a new framework. What looked like a hard-won advantage six months ago is now either automated or irrelevant. Prompt engineering and tool-specific workflows are being collapsed into the models themselves. These are transitory skills. They matter in the moment, but they do not compound.

What does compound is agency.

Agency is the ability to look at a messy, underspecified problem and decide it will not beat you. It is the instinct to decompose a system, to experiment, and to push past failure when there is no clear map. AI does not remove the need for that; it amplifies it. The people who get the most from these systems are not the ones who know the “right” prompts – they are the ones who iterate until the system produces the required outcome.

In practice, that looks different from what most people imagine. The most effective practitioners don’t ask, “What prompt should I use?”

They ask, “How do I get this result?”

They iterate. They swap tools. They reframe the problem. They are not embarrassed by trial-and-error or a hallucination because they aren’t outsourcing responsibility to the machine. They own the output.

Parents ask what their children should study for the “age of AI.” The question is understandable, but it misses the mark. Knowledge has never been more abundant. The marginal value of knowing one more thing is collapsing. What is becoming scarce is the ability to turn knowledge into action.

That is the core of agency:

  • Curiosity to explore and continuously learn and adapt.

  • Diligence is care about the details.

  • Resilience in the face of failures and constant change.

  • Accountability to own the outcome.

  • Ethics that focus on humanity.

  • People who form trusted relationships.

These qualities are not “soft.” They are decisive.

Machines can write, code and reason at superhuman speed – the differentiator is not who has the most information – it is who takes responsibility for the outcome.

AI will reward the people who show up, take ownership and find a way through uncertainty. Everything else – including today’s fashionable technical skills – will be rewritten.

read more
Quote: Demis Hassabis- DeepMind co-founder, CEO

Quote: Demis Hassabis- DeepMind co-founder, CEO

“Actually, I think [China is] closer to the US frontier models than maybe we thought one or two years ago. Maybe they’re only a matter of months behind at this point.” – Demis Hassabis – DeepMind co-founder, CEO

Context of the Quote

In a CNBC Original podcast, The Tech Download, aired on 6 January 2026, Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, offered a candid assessment of China’s AI capabilities. He stated that Chinese AI models are now just a matter of months behind leading US frontier models, a significant narrowing from perceptions one or two years prior1,3,5. Hassabis highlighted models from Chinese firms like DeepSeek, Alibaba, and Zhipu AI, which have delivered strong benchmark performances despite US chip export restrictions1,3,5.

However, he tempered optimism by questioning China’s capacity for true innovation, noting they have yet to produce breakthroughs like the transformer architecture that powers modern generative AI. ‘Inventing something is 100 times harder than replicating it,’ he emphasised, pointing to cultural and mindset challenges in fostering exploratory research1,4,5. This interview underscores ongoing US-China AI competition amid geopolitical tensions, including bans on advanced Nvidia chips, though approvals for models like the H200 offer limited relief2,5.

Who is Demis Hassabis?

Demis Hassabis is a British AI researcher, entrepreneur, and neuroscientist whose career bridges neuroscience, gaming, and artificial intelligence. Born in 1976 in London to a Greek Cypriot father and Chinese Singaporean mother, he displayed prodigious talent early, winning the Eurovision Young Musicians contest at age 13 and becoming a chess master by 131,4.

Hassabis co-founded DeepMind in 2010 with the audacious goal of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). His breakthrough came with AlphaGo in 2016, which defeated world Go champion Lee Sedol, demonstrating deep reinforcement learning’s power1,4. Google acquired DeepMind in 2014 for £400 million, and Hassabis now leads as CEO, overseeing models like Gemini, which recently topped AI benchmarks3,4.

In 2024, he shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with John Jumper and David Baker for AlphaFold2, which predicts protein structures with unprecedented accuracy, revolutionising biology1,4. Hassabis predicts AGI within 5-10 years, down from his initial 20-year estimate, and regrets Google’s slower commercialisation of innovations like the transformer and AlphaGo despite inventing ‘90% of the technology everyone uses today’1,4. DeepMind operates like a ‘modern-day Bell Labs,’ prioritising fundamental research5.

Leading Theorists and the Subject Matter: The AI Frontier and Innovation Race

The quote touches on frontier AI models – state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) pushing performance limits – and the distinction between replication and invention. Key theorists shaping this field include:

  • Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, and Yoshua Bengio (‘Godfathers of AI’): Pioneered deep learning. Hinton, at Google (emeritus), advanced backpropagation and neural networks. LeCun (Meta) developed convolutional networks for vision. Bengio (Mila) focused on sequence modelling. Their work underpins transformers1,5.
  • Ilya Sutskever: OpenAI co-founder, key in GPT series and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Left to found Safe Superintelligence Inc., emphasising AGI safety3.
  • Andrej Karpathy: Ex-OpenAI/Tesla, popularised transformers via tutorials; now at his own venture5.
  • The Transformer Architects: Vaswani et al. (Google, 2017) introduced the transformer in ‘Attention is All You Need,’ enabling parallel training and scaling laws that birthed ChatGPT and Gemini. Hassabis notes China’s lack of equivalents1,4,5.

China’s progress, via firms like DeepSeek (cost-efficient models on lesser chips) and giants Alibaba/Baidu/Tencent, shows engineering prowess but lags in paradigm shifts2,3,5. US leads in compute (Nvidia GPUs) and innovation ecosystems, though restrictions may spur domestic chips like Huawei’s2,3. Hassabis’ view challenges US underestimation, aligning with Nvidia’s Jensen Huang: America is ‘not far ahead’5.

This backdrop highlights AI’s dual nature: rapid catch-up via scaling compute/data, versus elusive invention requiring bold theory1,2.

References

1. https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/01/16/deepmind-ceo-hassabis-china-may-catch-up-in-ai-but-true

2. https://intellectia.ai/news/stock/google-deepmind-ceo-claims-chinas-ai-is-just-months-behind

3. https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/china-ai-models-only-months-behind-us-efforts-deepmind-ceo-tells-cnbc-4450966

4. https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-it/2026/01/16/IQH4RV54VVGJVGTSYHWSARHOEU/

5. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/google-deepmind-ceo-demis-hassabis-corrects-almost-everyone-in-america-on-chinas-ai-capability-they-are-not-/articleshow/126561720.cms

6. https://brief.bismarckanalysis.com/s/ai-2026

read more
Quote: Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

Quote: Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

“Execution capacity isn’t scarce anymore. Ten days, four people, and [Anthropic are] shipping 60 to 100 releases daily. Execution capacity is not the problem.” – Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

Nate B Jones, a prominent voice in AI news and strategy, made this striking observation on 15 January 2026, highlighting how execution speed at leading AI firms like Anthropic has rendered traditional capacity constraints obsolete.

Context of the Quote

The quote originates from a discussion in AI News & Strategy Daily, capturing the blistering pace of development at Anthropic, the creators of the Claude AI models. Jones points to a specific instance where just four people, over ten days, facilitated 60 to 100 daily releases. This underscores a paradigm shift: in AI labs, small teams leveraging advanced tools now achieve output volumes that once required vast resources. The statement challenges the notion that scaling human execution remains a barrier, positioning it instead as a solved problem amid accelerating AI capabilities.1,4

Backstory on Nate B Jones

Nate B Jones is a key commentator on AI developments, known for his daily newsletter AI News & Strategy Daily. His insights dissect breakthroughs, timelines, and strategic implications in artificial intelligence. Jones frequently analyses outputs from major players like Anthropic, OpenAI, and others, providing data-driven commentary on progress towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). His work emphasises empirical evidence from releases, funding rounds, and capability benchmarks, making him a go-to source for professionals tracking the AI race. This quote, delivered via a YouTube discussion, exemplifies his focus on how AI is redefining productivity in software engineering and research.

Anthropic’s Blazing Execution Pace

Anthropic, founded in 2021 by former OpenAI executives including CEO Dario Amodei, has emerged as a frontrunner in safe AI systems. Backed by over $23 billion in funding-including major investments from Microsoft and Nvidia-the firm achieved a $5 billion revenue run rate by August 2025 and is projected to hit $9 billion annualised by year-end. Speculation surrounds a potential IPO as early as 2026, with valuations soaring to $300-350 billion amid a massive funding round.2

Internally, Anthropic’s engineers report transformative AI integration. A August 2025 survey of 132 staff revealed Claude enabling complex tasks with fewer human interventions: tool calls per transcript rose 116% to 21.2 consecutive actions, while human turns dropped 33% to 4.1 on average. This aligns directly with Jones’s claim of hyper-efficient shipping, where AI handles code generation, edits, and commands autonomously.4

Broader metrics from Anthropic’s January 2026 Economic Index show explosive Claude usage growth, with rapid diffusion despite uneven global adoption tied to GDP levels.5 Predictions from CEO Dario Amodei include AI writing 90% of code by mid-2025 (partially realised) and nearly all by March 2026, fuelling daily release cadences.1

Leading Theorists on AI Execution and Speed

  • Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO): A pioneer in scalable AI oversight, Amodei forecasts powerful AI by early 2027, with systems operating at 10x-100x human speeds on multi-week tasks. His ‘Machines of Loving Grace’ essay outlines AGI timelines as early as 2026, driving Anthropic’s aggressive R&D.1
  • Jakob Nielsen (UX and AI Forecaster): Nielsen predicts AI will handle 39-hour human tasks by end-2026, with capability doubling every 4 months-from 3 seconds (GPT-2, 2019) to 5 hours (Claude Opus 4.5, late 2025). He highlights examples like AI designing infographics in under a minute, amplifying execution velocity.3
  • Redwood Research Analysts: Bloggers at Redwood detail Anthropic’s AGI bets, noting resource repurposing for millions of model instances and AI accelerating engineering 3x-10x by late 2026. They anticipate full R&D automation medians shifting to 2027-2029 based on milestones like multi-week task success.1

These theorists converge on a narrative of exponential acceleration: AI is not merely assisting but supplanting human bottlenecks in execution, code, and innovation. Jones’s quote encapsulates this consensus, signalling that in 2026, the real frontiers lie beyond mere deployment speed.

References

1. https://blog.redwoodresearch.org/p/whats-up-with-anthropic-predicting

2. https://forgeglobal.com/insights/anthropic-upcoming-ipo-news/

3. https://jakobnielsenphd.substack.com/p/2026-predictions

4. https://www.anthropic.com/research/how-ai-is-transforming-work-at-anthropic

5. https://www.anthropic.com/research/anthropic-economic-index-january-2026-report

6. https://kalshi.com/markets/kxclaude5/claude-5-released/kxclaude5-27

7. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/ai-and-machine-learning/jpm26-anthropic-launches-claude-healthcare-targeting-health-systems-payers

read more
Quote: Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

Quote: Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

“Suddenly your risk is timidity. Your risk is lack of courage. The danger isn’t necessarily building the wrong thing, because you’ve got 50 shots [a year] to build the right thing. The danger is not building enough things toward a larger vision that is really transformative for the customer.” – Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

This provocative statement emerged from Nate B. Jones’s AI News & Strategy Daily on 15 January 2026, amid accelerating AI advancements reshaping software development and business strategy. Jones challenges conventional risk management in an era where AI tools like Cursor enable engineers to ship code twice as fast, and product managers double productivity through prompt engineering. Execution has become ‘cheaper’, but Jones warns that speed alone breeds quality nightmares – security holes, probabilistic outputs demanding sustained QA, and technical debt from rapid prototyping.1,2

The quote reframes failure: with rapid iteration (50+ attempts yearly), building suboptimal products is survivable. True peril lies in hesitation – failing to generate volume towards a bold, customer-transforming vision. This aligns with Jones’s emphasis on ‘AI native’ approaches, transcending mere acceleration to orchestration, coordination, and human-AI symbiosis for compounding gains.3

Backstory on Nate B. Jones

Nate B. Jones is a leading AI strategist, content creator, and independent analyst whose platforms – including his Substack newsletter, personal site (natebjones.com), and YouTube channel AI News & Strategy Daily (127K subscribers) – deliver ‘deep analysis, actionable frameworks, zero hype’.2,7 He dissects real-world AI implementation, from prompt stacks enhancing workflows to predictions on 2026 breakthroughs like memory advances, agent UIs, continual learning, and recursive self-improvement.5,6

Jones’s work spotlights execution dynamics: automation avalanches make work cheaper, yet spawn trust deficits from ‘dirty’ AI code and jailbreaking needs.1 He advocates team ‘film review’ loops using AI rubrics for decision docs, specs, and risk articulation – turning human skills into scalable drills.3 Videos like ‘The AI Trick That Finally Made Me Better at My Job’ and ‘Debunking AI Myths’ showcase his practical ethos, proving AI’s innovative edge via breakthroughs like AlphaDev’s faster algorithms and AlphaFold’s protein atlas.3,4

Positioned as ‘the most cogent, sensible, and insightful AI resource’, Jones guides ventures towards genuine AI nativity, urging leaders to escape terminal-bound agents for task queues and human-AI coordination.2

Leading Theorists on AI Execution, Speed, and Transformative Vision

Jones’s ideas echo foundational thinkers in AI strategy and rapid iteration:

  • Eric Ries (Lean Startup): Pioneered ‘build-measure-learn’ loops, validating Jones’s ’50 shots’ tolerance for failure. Ries argued validated learning trumps perfect planning, mirroring AI’s cheap execution.1
  • Andrew Ng (AI Pioneer): Emphasises AI’s productivity multiplier but warns of overhype; his advocacy for ‘AI transformation’ aligns with Jones’s customer vision, as seen in AlphaFold’s impact.4
  • Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution): Referenced by Jones for pre-AI decision frameworks now supercharged by AI critique loops, enabling ‘athlete-like’ review at scale.3
  • Sam Altman (OpenAI): Drives agentic AI evolution (e.g., recursive self-improvement), fuelling Jones’s 2026 predictions on long-running agents and human attention focus.5
  • Demis Hassabis (DeepMind): AlphaDev and GNoME exemplify AI innovation beyond speed, proving machines discover novel algorithms – validating Jones’s debunking of ‘AI can’t innovate’.4

These theorists collectively underpin Jones’s thesis: in AI’s ‘automation avalanche’, courageously shipping volume towards transformative goals outpaces timid perfectionism.1

Implications for Leaders

Traditional Risk AI-Era Risk (per Jones)
Building the wrong thing Timidity and lack of volume
Slow, cautious execution Quality/security disasters from unchecked speed
Single-shot perfection 50+ iterations towards bold vision

Jones’s insight demands a paradigm shift: harness AI for fearless experimentation, sustained quality, and visionary scale.

References

1. https://natesnewsletter.substack.com/p/2026-sneak-peek-the-first-job-by-9ac

2. https://www.natebjones.com

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td_q0sHm6HU

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isuzSmJkYlc

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOb0pjXpn6Q

6. https://natesnewsletter.substack.com/p/my-prompt-stack-for-work-16-prompts

7. https://www.youtube.com/@NateBJones

read more

Download brochure

Introduction brochure

What we do, case studies and profiles of some of our amazing team.

Download

Our latest podcasts on Spotify

Sign up for our newsletters - free

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting