SMPostStory Archives - Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting

Term: Tokenisation

“Tokenisation is the process of converting sensitive data or real-world assets into non-sensitive, unique digital identifiers (tokens) for secure use, commonly seen in data security (replacing credit card numbers with tokens) or blockchain (representing assets like real estate as digital tokens).” – Tokenisation

Tokenisation is the process of replacing sensitive data or real-world assets with non-sensitive, unique digital identifiers called tokens. These tokens have no intrinsic value or meaning outside their specific context, ensuring security in data handling or asset representation on blockchain networks.

In data security, tokenisation substitutes sensitive information like credit card numbers with tokens stored in secure vaults, allowing safe processing without exposing originals. This meets standards such as PCI DSS, GDPR, and HIPAA, reducing breach risks as stolen tokens are useless without vault access.

In blockchain and crypto, it converts assets like real estate, artwork, or shares into digital tokens on a blockchain, enabling fractional ownership, trading, and custody while linking to the physical asset in secure facilities.

How Tokenisation Works

Typically involves three parties: the data/asset owner, an intermediary (e.g., merchant), and a secure vault provider. Sensitive data is sent to the vault, replaced by a unique token, and the original is discarded or stored securely. Tokens preserve data format and length for system compatibility, unlike encryption which alters them.

Vaulted Tokenisation: Original data stays in a central vault; tokens are de-tokenised only when needed within the vault.
Format-Preserving: Tokens match original data structure for seamless integration.
Blockchain Tokenisation: Assets are represented by tokens on networks like Ethereum, with compliance and custody mechanisms.

Benefits of Tokenisation

Enhanced security against breaches and insider threats.
Regulatory compliance with reduced audit scope.
Improved performance via smaller token sizes.
Data anonymisation for analytics and AI/ML.
Flexibility across cloud, on-premises, and hybrid setups.

Key Theorist: Don Tapscott

Don Tapscott, a pioneering strategist in digital economics and blockchain, is closely linked to asset tokenisation through his co-authorship of Blockchain Revolution (2016). With Alex Tapscott, he popularised the concept of tokenising real-world assets, arguing it democratises finance by enabling fractional ownership and liquidity for illiquid assets like property.

Born in 1947 in Canada, Tapscott began as a management consultant, authoring bestsellers like The Digital Economy (1995), which foresaw internet-driven business shifts. He founded the Tapscott Group and New Paradigm, advising firms and governments. His blockchain work critiques centralised finance, promoting decentralised ledgers for transparency. As Chair of the Blockchain Research Institute, he influences policy, with tokenisation central to his vision of a ‘token economy’ transforming global markets.

References

1. https://brave.com/glossary/tokenization/

2. https://entro.security/glossary/tokenization/

3. https://www.fortra.com/blog/what-data-tokenization-key-concepts-and-benefits

4. https://www.fortanix.com/faq/tokenization/data-tokenization

5. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-tokenization

6. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/tokenization

7. https://www.keyivr.com/us/knowledge/guides/guide-what-is-tokenization/

8. https://chain.link/education-hub/tokenization

Quote: Nate B Jones

“The pleasant surprise is how much you can accomplish when you properly harness your agents, and how big companies are leaning in and able to actually get volume done on that basis.” – Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

Context of the Quote

This quote from Nate B Jones captures a pivotal moment in the evolution of AI agents within enterprise settings. Delivered in his AI News & Strategy Daily series, it highlights the unexpected productivity gains when organisations implement AI agents correctly. Jones emphasises that major firms like JP Morgan and Walmart are already deploying these systems at scale, achieving high-volume outputs that traditional software cycles could not match^1,2. The core insight is that proper orchestration-combining AI with human oversight-unlocks disproportionate value, countering the hype-driven delays many companies face.

Backstory on Nate B Jones

Nate B Jones is a leading voice in enterprise AI strategy, known for his pragmatic frameworks that guide businesses from AI hype to production deployment. Through his platform natebjones.com and Substack newsletter Nate’s Newsletter, he distils complex AI developments into actionable insights for executives^1,2,7. Jones produces daily video briefings like AI News & Strategy Daily, where he analyses real-world use cases, warns against common pitfalls such as over-reliance on unproven models, and provides custom prompts for rapid agent prototyping^2,4.

His work focuses on bridging the gap between AI potential and enterprise reality. For instance, he critiques the ‘human throttle’-where hesitation and risk aversion limit agent autonomy-and advocates for decision infrastructure like audit logs and reversible processes to build trust³. Jones has documented production AI agents at scale, urging leaders to act swiftly as competitors gain ‘durable advantage’ through accumulated institutional intelligence². His library of use cases spans finance (e.g., JP Morgan’s choreographed workflows) to operations, emphasising that agents excel in ‘level four’ tasks: AI drafts, humans review, then AI proceeds¹. By October 2025, his briefings were already forecasting 2026 as a year of job-by-job AI transformation⁵.

Leading Theorists and the Subject of AI Agents

AI agents-autonomous systems that perceive, reason, act, and learn to achieve goals-represent a shift from passive tools to proactive workflows. Nate B Jones builds on foundational work by key theorists:

Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig: Pioneers of modern AI, their textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach defines rational agents as entities maximising expected utility in dynamic environments. This underpins Jones’s emphasis on structured autonomy over raw intelligence^1,3.
Andrew Ng: Dubbed the ‘Godfather of AI,’ Ng popularised agentic workflows at Stanford and through Landing AI. He advocates ‘agentic reasoning,’ where AI chains tools and decisions, aligning with Jones’s production playbooks for enterprises like Walmart².
Yohei Nakajima: Creator of BabyAGI (2023), an early open-source agent framework that demonstrated recursive task decomposition. This inspired Jones’s warnings against hype, stressing expert-designed workflows for complex problems^1,4.
Anthropic Researchers: Their work on Constitutional AI and agent patterns (e.g., long-running memory) informs Jones’s analyses of scalable agents, as seen in his breakdowns of reliable architectures⁶.

Jones synthesises these ideas into enterprise strategy, arguing that agents are not future tech but ‘production infrastructure now.’ He counters delays by outlining six principles for quick builds (days or weeks), including context-aware prompts and risk-mitigated deployment². This positions him as a practitioner-theorist, translating academic foundations into C-suite playbooks amid the 2025-2026 agent revolution.

Broader Implications for Workflows

Jones’s quote underscores a paradigm shift: AI agents amplify top human talent, making them ‘more fingertippy’ rather than replacing them¹. Big companies succeed by ‘leaning in’-auditing processes, building observability, and iterating fast-yielding volume at scale. For leaders, the message is clear: harness agents properly, or risk irreversible competitive lag^2,3.

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obqjIoKaqdM

2. https://natesnewsletter.substack.com/p/executive-briefing-your-2025-ai-agent

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NjtPH8VMAU

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKxyPAJ2Ok

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

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

7. https://www.natebjones.com

Term: Stablecoin

“A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, unlike volatile assets like Bitcoin, by pegging its price to a stable reserve asset, usually a fiat currency (like the USD) or a commodity (like gold).” – Stablecoin

What is a Stablecoin?

A **stablecoin** is a type of cryptocurrency engineered to preserve a consistent value relative to a specified asset, such as a fiat currency (e.g., the US dollar), a commodity (e.g., gold), or a basket of assets, in stark contrast to the high volatility of assets like Bitcoin.

Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, stablecoins employ stabilisation mechanisms including reserve assets held by custodians or algorithmic protocols that adjust supply and demand to sustain the peg. Fiat-backed stablecoins, the most common variant, mirror money market funds by holding reserves in short-term assets like treasury bonds, commercial paper, or bank deposits. Commodity-backed stablecoins peg to physical assets like gold, while cryptocurrency-backed ones, such as DAI or Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), use overcollateralised crypto reserves managed via smart contracts on decentralised networks.

Types of Stablecoins

Fiat-backed: Centralised issuers hold equivalent fiat reserves (e.g., USD) to support 1:1 redeemability.
Commodity-backed: Pegged to commodities, with issuers maintaining physical reserves.
Cryptocurrency-backed: Collateralised by other cryptocurrencies, often overcollateralised to buffer volatility.
Algorithmic: Rely on smart contracts to dynamically adjust supply without full reserves, though prone to failure.

Despite the name, stablecoins are not immune to depegging, as evidenced by historical failures amid market stress or redemption pressures, potentially triggering systemic risks akin to fire-sale contagions in traditional finance. They facilitate rapid, low-cost blockchain transactions, serving as a bridge between fiat and crypto ecosystems for payments, settlements, and trading.

Regulatory Landscape

Governments worldwide are intensifying oversight due to stablecoins’ growing role in transactions. For instance, Nebraska’s Financial Innovation Act (2021, updated 2024) permits digital asset depositories to issue stablecoins backed by reserves in FDIC-insured institutions.

Key Theorist: Robert Shiller and the Conceptual Foundations

The most relevant strategy theorist linked to stablecoins is **Robert Shiller**, a Nobel Prize-winning economist whose pioneering work on financial stability, behavioural finance, and asset pricing underpins the economic rationale for pegged digital assets. Shiller’s theories address the volatility that stablecoins explicitly counter, positioning them as practical applications of stabilising speculative markets.

Born in 1946 in Detroit, Michigan, Shiller earned his PhD in economics from MIT in 1972 under advisor Robert Solow. He joined Yale University in 1982, where he remains the Sterling Professor of Economics. Shiller gained prominence for developing the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, a leading US housing market benchmark. His seminal book, Irrational Exuberance (2000), presciently warned of the dot-com bubble and later the 2008 financial crisis, critiquing how narratives drive asset bubbles.

Shiller’s relationship to stablecoins stems from his advocacy for financial innovations that mitigate volatility. In works like Finance and the Good Society (2012), he explores stabilising mechanisms such as index funds and derivatives, which parallel stablecoin pegs by tethering values to underlying assets. He has discussed cryptocurrencies in interviews and writings, noting their potential to enhance financial inclusion if stabilised-echoing stablecoins’ design to combine crypto’s efficiency with fiat-like reliability. Shiller’s CAPE (Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings) ratio exemplifies pegging metrics to long-term fundamentals, a concept mirrored in stablecoin reserves. While not a crypto native, his behavioural insights explain depegging risks from herd mentality, making him the foremost theorist for stablecoin strategy in volatile markets.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stablecoin

2. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/stablecoin

3. https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/what-is-a-stablecoin

4. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/basics-crypto-conservative-coins-bains-singh

5. https://klrd.gov/2024/11/15/stablecoin-overview/

6. https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/market-updates/on-the-minds-of-investors/what-is-a-stablecoin/

7. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-are-stablecoins-and-how-do-they-work

8. https://bvnk.com/blog/stablecoins-vs-bitcoin

9. https://business.cornell.edu/article/2025/08/stablecoins/

Quote: Jim Simons – Renaissance Technologies founder

“In this business it’s easy to confuse luck with brains.” – Jim Simons – Renaissance Technologies founder

Jim Simons: A Mathematical Outsider Who Conquered Markets

James Harris Simons (1938-2024), founder of Renaissance Technologies, encapsulated the perils of financial overconfidence with his incisive observation: “In this business it’s easy to confuse luck with brains.” This quote underscores a core tenet of quantitative investing: distinguishing genuine predictive signals from random noise in market data^1,2,4.

Simons’ Extraordinary Backstory

Born in Brookline, Massachusetts, to a film industry salesman father and a shoe factory manager relative, Simons displayed early mathematical brilliance. He earned a bachelor’s degree from MIT at 20 and a PhD from UC Berkeley by 23, specialising in topology and geometry. His seminal work on the Chern-Simons theory earned him the American Mathematical Society’s Oswald Veblen Prize^1,2,3.

Simons taught at MIT and Harvard but felt like an outsider in academia, pursuing side interests in trading soybean futures and launching a Colombian manufacturing venture¹. At the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), he cracked Soviet codes during the Cold War, honing skills in pattern recognition and data analysis that later fuelled his financial models. Fired for opposing the Vietnam War, he chaired Stony Brook University’s mathematics department, building it into a world-class institution^1,2,4.

By his forties, disillusioned with academic constraints and driven by a desire for control after financial setbacks, Simons entered finance. In 1978, he founded Monemetrics (renamed Renaissance Technologies in 1982) in a modest strip mall near Stony Brook. Rejecting Wall Street conventions, he hired mathematicians, physicists, and code-breakers-not MBAs-to exploit market inefficiencies via algorithms^2,3,4.

Renaissance Technologies: The Quant Revolution

Renaissance pioneered quantitative trading, using statistical models to predict short-term price movements in stocks, commodities, and currencies. Key hires like Leonard E. Baum (creator of the Baum-Welch algorithm for hidden Markov models) and James Ax developed early systems. The Medallion Fund, launched in 1988, became legendary, averaging 66% annual returns before fees over three decades-vastly outperforming benchmarks^2,4.

Simons capped Medallion at $10 billion, expelling outsiders by 2005 to preserve edge, while public funds lagged dramatically (e.g., Medallion gained 76% in 2020 amid public fund losses)⁴. His firm amassed terabytes of data, analysing factors from weather to sunspots, embodying machine learning precursors like pattern-matching across historical market environments^4,5. Dubbed the “Quant King,” Simons ranked among the world’s richest at $31.8 billion, yet emphasised collaboration: “My management style has always been to find outstanding people and let them run with the ball”³. He retired as CEO in 2010, with Peter Brown and Robert Mercer succeeding him⁴.

Context of the Quote

The quote reflects Simons’ philosophy amid Renaissance’s secrecy and success. In an industry rife with survivorship bias-where winners attribute gains to genius while ignoring luck-Simons stressed rigorous statistical validation. His models sought non-random patterns, acknowledging markets’ inherent unpredictability. This humility contrasted with boastful peers, aligning with his outsider ethos and code-breaking rigour^1,4.

Leading Theorists in Quantitative Finance and Prediction

Leonard E. Baum: Simons’ IDA colleague and Renaissance pioneer. Baum’s hidden Markov models, vital for speech recognition and early machine learning, adapted to forecast currency trades by modelling sequential market states^2,4.
James Ax: Stony Brook mathematician who oversaw Baum’s work at Renaissance, advancing algebraic geometry applications to financial signals^2,4.
Edward Thorp: Precursor quant who applied probability theory to blackjack and options pricing, influencing beat-the-market strategies (though not directly tied to Simons)⁴.
Harry Markowitz: Modern portfolio theory founder (1952), emphasising diversification and risk via mean-variance optimisation-foundational to quant risk models⁴.
Eugene Fama: Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) proponent, arguing prices reflect all information, challenging pure prediction but spurring anomaly hunts like Renaissance’s⁴.

Simons’ legacy endures through the Simons Foundation, funding maths and basic science, and Renaissance’s proof that data-driven science trumps intuition in finance³. His quote remains a sobering reminder in prediction’s high-stakes arena.

References

1. https://www.jermainebrown.org/posts/why-jim-simons-founded-renaissance-technologies

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

3. https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2024/05/10/remembering-the-life-and-careers-of-jim-simons/

4. https://fortune.com/2024/05/10/jim-simons-obituary-renaissance-technologies-quant-king/

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbdZb0UPac

6. https://stockcircle.com/portfolio/jim-simons

7. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/quant-pioneer-james-simons-math-money-and-philanthropy

Quote: Luis Flavio Nunes – Investing.com

“The crash wasn’t caused by manipulation or panic. It revealed something more troubling: Bitcoin had already become the very thing it promised to destroy.” – Luis Flavio Nunes – Investing.com

The recent Bitcoin crashes of 2025 and early 2026 were not random market events driven by panic or coordinated manipulation. Rather, they exposed a fundamental paradox that has quietly developed as Bitcoin matured from a fringe asset into an institutional investment vehicle. What began as a rebellion against centralised financial systems has, through the mechanisms of modern finance, recreated many of the same structural vulnerabilities that plagued traditional markets.

The Institutional Transformation

Bitcoin’s journey from obscurity to mainstream acceptance represents one of the most remarkable financial transformations of the past decade. When Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin whitepaper in 2008, the explicit goal was to create “a purely peer-to-peer electronic cash system” that would operate without intermediaries or central authorities. The cryptocurrency was designed as a direct response to the 2008 financial crisis, offering an alternative to institutions that had proven themselves untrustworthy stewards of capital.

Yet by 2025, Bitcoin had become something quite different. Institutional investors, corporations, and even governments began treating it as a store of value and portfolio diversifier. This shift accelerated dramatically following the approval of Bitcoin spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in major markets, which legitimised cryptocurrency as an institutional asset class. What followed was an influx of capital that transformed Bitcoin from a peer-to-peer system into something resembling a leveraged financial instrument.

The irony is profound: the very institutions that Bitcoin was designed to circumvent became its largest holders and most active traders. Corporate treasury departments, hedge funds, and financial firms accumulated Bitcoin positions worth tens of billions of dollars. But they did so using the same tools that had destabilised traditional markets-leverage, derivatives, and interconnected financial relationships.

The Digital Asset Treasury Paradox

The clearest manifestation of this contradiction emerged through Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATCos). These firms, which manage Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for corporate clients, accumulated approximately $42 billion in positions by late 2025.¹ The appeal was straightforward: Bitcoin offered superior returns compared to traditional treasury instruments, and companies could diversify their cash reserves whilst potentially generating alpha.

However, these positions were not held in isolation. Many DATCos financed their Bitcoin purchases through debt arrangements, creating leverage ratios that would have been familiar to any traditional hedge fund manager. When Bitcoin’s price declined sharply in November 2025, falling to $91,500 and erasing most of the year’s gains, these overleveraged positions became underwater.¹ The result was a cascade of forced selling that had nothing to do with Bitcoin’s utility or technology-it was pure financial mechanics.

By mid-November 2025, DATCo losses had reached $1.4 billion, representing a 40% decline in their aggregate positions.¹ More troublingly, analysts estimated that if even 10-15% of these positions faced forced liquidation due to debt covenants or modified Net Asset Value (mNAV) pressures, it could trigger $4.3 to $6.4 billion in selling pressure over subsequent weeks.¹ For context, this represented roughly double the selling pressure from Bitcoin ETF outflows that had dominated market headlines.

Market Structure and Liquidity Collapse

What made this forced selling particularly destructive was the simultaneous collapse in market liquidity. Bitcoin’s order book depth at the 1% price band-a key measure of market resilience-fell from approximately $20 million in early October to just $14 million by mid-November, a 33% decline that never recovered.¹ Analysts described this as a “deliberate reduction in market-making commitment,” suggesting that professional market makers had withdrawn support precisely when it was most needed.

This combination of forced selling and vanishing liquidity created a toxic feedback loop. Small selling moves produced disproportionately large price movements. When prices fell sharply, leveraged positions across the entire crypto ecosystem faced liquidation. On January 29, 2026, Bitcoin crashed from above $88,000 to below $85,000 in minutes, triggering $1.68 billion in forced selling across cryptocurrency markets.⁵ The speed and violence of these moves bore no relationship to any fundamental change in Bitcoin’s technology or adoption-they were purely mechanical consequences of leverage unwinding in illiquid markets.

The Retail Psychology Amplifier

Institutional forced selling might have been manageable if retail investors had provided offsetting demand. Instead, retail psychology amplified the downward pressure. Many retail investors, armed with historical price charts and belief in Bitcoin’s four-year halving cycle, began selling preemptively to avoid what they anticipated would be a 70-80% drawdown similar to previous market cycles.¹

This created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Retail investors, convinced that a crash was coming based on historical patterns, exited their positions voluntarily. This removed the “conviction-based spot demand” that might have absorbed institutional forced selling.¹ Instead of a market where buyers stepped in during weakness, there was only a queue of sellers waiting for lower prices. The belief in the cycle became the mechanism that perpetuated it.

The psychological dimension was particularly striking. Reddit communities filled with discussions of Bitcoin falling to $30,000 or lower, with investors citing historical precedent rather than fundamental analysis.¹ The narrative had shifted from “Bitcoin is digital gold” to “Bitcoin is a leveraged Nasdaq ETF.” When Bitcoin gained only 4% year-to-date whilst gold rose 29%, and when AI stocks like C3.ai dropped 54% and Bitcoin crashed in sympathy, the pretence of Bitcoin as an independent asset class evaporated.¹

The Macro Backdrop and Data Vacuum

These structural vulnerabilities were exacerbated by macroeconomic uncertainty. In October 2025, a U.S. government shutdown resulted in missing economic data, leaving the Federal Reserve, as the White House stated, “flying blind at a critical period.”¹ Without Consumer Price Index and employment reports, Fed rate-cut expectations collapsed from 67% to 43% probability.¹

Bitcoin, with its 0.85 correlation to dollar liquidity, sold off sharply as investors struggled to price risk in a data vacuum.¹ This revealed another uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin’s price movements had become increasingly correlated with traditional financial markets and macroeconomic conditions. The asset that was supposed to be uncorrelated with fiat currency systems now moved in lockstep with Fed policy expectations and dollar liquidity conditions.

Theoretical Foundations: Understanding the Contradiction

To understand how Bitcoin arrived at this paradoxical state, it is useful to examine the theoretical frameworks that shaped both cryptocurrency’s design and its subsequent institutional adoption.

Hayek’s Denationalisation of Money

Friedrich Hayek’s 1976 work “Denationalisation of Money” profoundly influenced Bitcoin’s philosophical foundations. Hayek argued that government monopolies on currency creation were inherently inflationary and economically destructive. He proposed that competition between private currencies would discipline monetary policy and prevent the kind of currency debasement that had plagued the 20th century. Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins was a direct implementation of Hayekian principles-a currency that could not be debased through monetary expansion because its supply was mathematically constrained.

However, Hayek’s framework assumed that competing currencies would be held and used by individuals making rational economic decisions. He did not anticipate a world in which Bitcoin would be held primarily by leveraged financial institutions using it as a speculative asset rather than a medium of exchange. When Bitcoin became a vehicle for institutional leverage rather than a tool for individual monetary sovereignty, it violated the core assumption of Hayek’s theory.

Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis

Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis provides a more prescient framework for understanding Bitcoin’s recent crashes. Minsky argued that capitalist economies are inherently unstable because of the way financial systems evolve. In periods of stability, investors become increasingly confident and willing to take on leverage. This leverage finances investment and consumption, which generates profits that validate the initial optimism. But this very success breeds complacency. Investors begin to underestimate risk, financial institutions relax lending standards, and leverage ratios climb to unsustainable levels.

Eventually, some shock-often minor in itself-triggers a reassessment of risk. Leveraged investors are forced to sell assets to meet margin calls. These sales drive prices down, which triggers further margin calls, creating a cascade of forced selling. Minsky called this the “Minsky Moment,” and it describes precisely what occurred in Bitcoin markets in late 2025 and early 2026.

The tragedy is that Bitcoin’s design was explicitly intended to prevent Minskyan instability. By removing the ability of central banks to expand money supply and by making the currency supply mathematically fixed, Bitcoin was supposed to eliminate the credit cycles that Minsky identified as the source of financial instability. Yet by allowing itself to be financialised through leverage and derivatives, Bitcoin recreated the exact dynamics it was designed to escape.

Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics, and Crashes

Charles Kindleberger’s historical analysis of financial crises identifies a recurring pattern: displacement (a new investment opportunity emerges), euphoria (prices rise as investors become convinced of unlimited upside), financial distress (early investors begin to exit), and finally panic (a rush for the exits as leverage unwinds). Bitcoin’s trajectory from 2020 to 2026 followed this pattern almost precisely.

The displacement occurred with the approval of Bitcoin ETFs and corporate treasury adoption. The euphoria phase saw Bitcoin reach nearly $100,000 as institutions poured capital into the asset. Financial distress emerged when DATCo positions became underwater and forced selling began. The panic phase manifested in the sharp crashes of late 2025 and early 2026, where $1.68 billion in liquidations could occur in minutes.

What Kindleberger’s framework reveals is that these crises are not failures of individual decision-makers but rather inevitable consequences of how financial systems evolve. Once leverage enters the system, instability becomes structural rather than accidental.

The Centralisation of Bitcoin Ownership

Perhaps the most damning aspect of Bitcoin’s institutional transformation is the concentration of ownership. Whilst Bitcoin was designed as a decentralised system where no single entity could control the network, the distribution of Bitcoin wealth has become increasingly concentrated. Large institutional holders, including corporations, hedge funds, and DATCos, now control a substantial portion of all Bitcoin in existence.

This concentration creates a new form of centralisation-not of the protocol itself, but of the economic incentives that drive price discovery. When a small number of large holders face forced selling, their actions dominate price movements. The market becomes less like a peer-to-peer system of millions of independent participants and more like a traditional financial market where large institutions set prices through their trading activity.

The irony is complete: Bitcoin was created to escape the centralised financial system, yet it has become a vehicle through which that same centralised system operates. The institutions that Bitcoin was designed to circumvent are now its largest holders and most influential participants.

What the Crashes Revealed

The crashes of 2025 and early 2026 were not anomalies or temporary setbacks. They were revelations of structural truths about how Bitcoin had evolved. The asset had retained the volatility and speculative characteristics of an emerging technology whilst acquiring the leverage and interconnectedness of traditional financial markets. It had none of the stability of fiat currency systems (which are backed by government power and tax revenue) and none of the decentralisation of its original design (which had been compromised by institutional concentration).

Bitcoin had become, in the words attributed to Luis Flavio Nunes, “the very thing it promised to destroy.” It had recreated the leverage-driven instability of traditional finance, the concentration of economic power in large institutions, and the vulnerability to forced selling that characterises modern financial markets. The only difference was that these dynamics operated at higher speeds and with greater violence due to the 24/7 nature of cryptocurrency markets and the absence of circuit breakers or trading halts.

The question that emerged from these crashes was whether Bitcoin could evolve beyond this contradictory state. Could it return to its original purpose as a peer-to-peer currency system? Could it shed its role as a leveraged speculative asset? Or would it remain trapped in this paradoxical identity-a decentralised system controlled by centralised institutions, a hedge against financial instability that had become a vehicle for financial instability?

These questions remain unresolved as of early 2026, but the crashes have made clear that Bitcoin’s identity crisis is not merely philosophical. It has material consequences for millions of investors and reveals uncomfortable truths about how financial innovation can be absorbed and repurposed by the very systems it was designed to challenge.

References

1. https://uk.investing.com/analysis/bitcoin-encounters-a-hidden-wave-of-selling-from-overleveraged-treasury-firms-200620267

2. https://www.investing.com/analysis/bitcoin-prices-could-stabilize-as-market-searches-for-new-support-levels-200668467

3. https://ca.investing.com/members/contributors/272097941/opinion/2

4. https://www.investing.com/analysis/crypto-bulls-lost-the-wheel-as-bitcoin-and-ethereum-roll-over-200673726

5. https://investing.com/analysis/golds-12-crash-how-17-billion-in-crypto-liquidations-tanked-precious-metals-200674247?ampMode=1

6. https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/272097941/opinion

7. https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/272097941

8. https://www.investing.com/analysis/cryptocurrency

9. https://au.investing.com/analysis/bitcoin-holds-the-line-near-90k-as-macro-pressure-caps-upside-momentum-200611192

10. https://www.investing.com/crypto/bitcoin/bitcoin-futures

Term: AI slop

“AI slop refers to low-quality, mass-produced digital content (text, images, video, audio, workflows, agents, outputs) generated by artificial intelligence, often with little effort or meaning, designed to pass as social media or pass off cognitive load in the workplace.” – AI slop

AI slop refers to low-quality, mass-produced digital content created using generative artificial intelligence that prioritises speed and volume over substance and quality.¹ The term encompasses text, images, video, audio, and workplace outputs designed to exploit attention economics on social media platforms or reduce cognitive load in professional environments through minimal-effort automation.^2,3 Coined in the 2020s, AI slop has become synonymous with digital clutter-content that lacks originality, depth, and meaningful insight whilst flooding online spaces with generic, unhelpful material.¹

Key Characteristics

AI slop exhibits several defining features that distinguish it from intentionally created content:

Vague and generalised information: Content remains surface-level, offering perspectives and insights already widely available without adding novel value or depth.²
Repetitive structuring and phrasing: AI-generated material follows predictable patterns-rhythmic structures, uniform sentence lengths, and formulaic organisation that create a distinctly robotic quality.²
Lack of original insight: The content regurgitates existing information from training data rather than generating new perspectives, opinions, or analysis that differentiate it from competing material.²
Neutral corporate tone: AI slop typically employs bland, impersonal language devoid of distinctive brand voice, personality, or strong viewpoints.²
Unearned profundity: Serious narrative transitions and rhetorical devices appear without substantive foundation, creating an illusion of depth.⁶

Origins and Evolution

The term emerged in the early 2020s as large language models and image diffusion models accelerated the creation of high-volume, low-quality content.¹ Early discussions on platforms including 4chan, Hacker News, and YouTube employed “slop” as in-group slang to describe AI-generated material, with alternative terms such as “AI garbage,” “AI pollution,” and “AI-generated dross” proposed by journalists and commentators.¹ The 2025 Word of the Year designation by both Merriam-Webster and the American Dialect Society formalised the term’s cultural significance.¹

Manifestations Across Contexts

Social Media and Content Creation: Creators exploit attention economics by flooding platforms with low-effort content-clickbait articles with misleading titles, shallow blog posts stuffed with keywords for search engine manipulation, and bizarre imagery designed for engagement rather than authenticity.^1,4 Examples range from surreal visual combinations (Jesus made of spaghetti, golden retrievers performing surgery) to manipulative videos created during crises to push particular narratives.^1,5

Workplace “Workslop”: A Harvard Business Review study conducted with Stanford University and BetterUp found that 40% of participating employees received AI-generated content that appeared substantive but lacked genuine value, with each incident requiring an average of two hours to resolve.¹ This workplace variant demonstrates how AI slop extends beyond public-facing content into professional productivity systems.

Societal Impact

AI slop creates several interconnected problems. It displaces higher-quality material that could provide genuine utility, making it harder for original creators to earn citations and audience attention.² The homogenised nature of mass-produced AI content-where competitors’ material sounds identical-eliminates differentiation and creates forgettable experiences that fail to connect authentically with audiences.² Search engines increasingly struggle with content quality degradation, whilst platforms face challenges distinguishing intentional human creativity from synthetic filler.³

Mitigation Strategies

Organisations seeking to avoid creating AI slop should employ several practices: develop extremely specific prompts grounded in detailed brand voice guidelines and examples; structure reusable prompts with clear goals and constraints; and maintain rigorous human oversight for fact-checking and accuracy verification.² The fundamental antidote remains cultivating specificity rooted in particular knowledge, tangible experience, and distinctive perspective.⁶

Related Theorist: Jonathan Gilmore

Jonathan Gilmore, a philosophy professor at the City University of New York, has emerged as a key intellectual voice in analysing AI slop’s cultural and epistemological implications. Gilmore characterises AI-generated material as possessing an “incredibly banal, realistic style” that is deceptively easy for viewers to process, masking its fundamental lack of substance.¹

Gilmore’s contribution to understanding AI slop extends beyond mere description into philosophical territory. His work examines how AI-generated content exploits cognitive biases-our tendency to accept information that appears professionally formatted and realistic, even when it lacks genuine insight or originality. This observation proves particularly significant in an era where visual and textual authenticity no longer correlates reliably with truthfulness or value.

By framing AI slop through a philosophical lens, Gilmore highlights a deeper cultural problem: the erosion of epistemic standards in digital spaces. His analysis suggests that AI slop represents not merely a technical problem requiring better filters, but a fundamental challenge to how societies evaluate knowledge, authenticity, and meaningful communication. Gilmore’s work encourages critical examination of the systems and incentive structures that reward volume and speed over depth and truth-a perspective essential for understanding why AI slop proliferates despite its obvious deficiencies.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop

2. https://www.seo.com/blog/ai-slop/

3. https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-slop-is-on-the-rise-what-does-it-mean-for-how-we-use-the-internet

4. https://edrm.net/2024/07/the-new-term-slop-joins-spam-in-our-vocabulary/

5. https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

6. https://www.ignorance.ai/p/the-field-guide-to-ai-slop

Quote: Jim Simons

“One can predict the course of a comet more easily than one can predict the course of Citigroup’s stock. The attractiveness, of course, is that you can make more money successfully predicting a stock than you can a comet.” – Jim Simons – Renaissance Technologies founder

Jim Simons’ observation that “one can predict the course of a comet more easily than one can predict the course of Citigroup’s stock” encapsulates a profound paradox at the heart of modern finance. Yet Simons himself spent a lifetime proving that this apparent unpredictability could be systematically exploited through mathematical rigour. The quote reflects both the genuine complexity of financial markets and the tantalising opportunity they present to those equipped with the right intellectual tools.

Simons made this observation as the founder of Renaissance Technologies, the quantitative hedge fund that would become one of the most successful investment firms in history. The statement reveals his pragmatic philosophy: whilst comets follow the deterministic laws of celestial mechanics, stock prices are influenced by countless human decisions, emotions, and unforeseen events. Yet this very complexity-this apparent chaos-creates inefficiencies that a sufficiently sophisticated mathematical model can exploit for profit.

Jim Simons: The Mathematician Who Decoded Markets

James Harris Simons (1938-2024) was born in Newton, Massachusetts, and demonstrated an early affinity for mathematics that would define his extraordinary career. He earned his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley at the remarkably young age of 23, establishing himself as a prodigy in pure mathematics before his unconventional path led him toward finance.

Simons’ early career trajectory was marked by intellectual distinction across multiple domains. He taught mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, where he worked alongside some of the finest minds in academia. Between 1964 and 1968, he served on the research staff of the Communications Research Division of the Institute for Defence Analysis, where he contributed to classified cryptographic work, including efforts to break Soviet codes. In 1973, IBM enlisted his expertise to attack Lucifer, an early precursor to the Data Encryption Standard-work that demonstrated his ability to apply mathematical thinking to real-world security challenges.

From 1968 to 1978, Simons chaired the mathematics department at Stony Brook University, building it from scratch into a respected institution. He received the American Mathematical Society’s Oswald Veblen Prize in Geometry, one of the highest honours in his field. By conventional measures, he had achieved the pinnacle of academic success.

Yet Simons harboured interests that set him apart from his peers. He traded stocks and dabbled in soybean futures whilst at Berkeley, and he maintained a fascination with business and finance that his academic colleagues did not share. In interviews, he reflected on feeling like “something of an outsider” throughout his career-immersed in mathematics but never quite feeling like a full member of the academic community. This sense of not fitting into conventional boxes would prove formative.

The Catalyst: Control, Ambition, and the Vietnam War

Simons’ transition from academia to finance was precipitated by both personal circumstances and philosophical conviction. In 1966, he published an article in Newsweek opposing the Vietnam War, a public stance that led to his dismissal from the Institute for Defence Analysis. With three young children and significant debts-he had borrowed money to invest in a manufacturing venture in Colombia-this abrupt termination shook him profoundly. The experience crystallised his realisation that he lacked control over his own destiny when working within established institutions.

This episode proved transformative. Simons came to understand that financial independence equated to autonomy and power. He needed an environment where he could pursue his diverse interests-entrepreneurship, markets, and mathematics-simultaneously. No such environment existed within academia or traditional finance. Therefore, he would create one.

The Birth of Renaissance Technologies: 1978

In 1978, Simons left Stony Brook University to found Monometrics (later renamed Renaissance Technologies in 1982) in a modest strip mall near Stony Brook. The venture began with false starts, but Simons possessed a crucial insight: it should be possible to construct mathematical models of market data to identify profitable trading patterns.

This represented a radical departure from Wall Street convention. Rather than hiring experienced traders and financial professionals, Simons recruited mathematicians, physicists, and computer scientists-individuals of exceptional intellectual calibre who had never worked in finance. As he explained to California magazine: “We didn’t hire anyone who had worked on Wall Street before. We hired people who were very good scientists but who wanted to try something different. And make more money if it worked out.”

This hiring philosophy became Renaissance’s “secret sauce.” Simons assembled a team that included Leonard E. Baum and James Ax, mathematicians of the highest order. These scientists approached markets not as traders seeking intuitive edge, but as researchers seeking to identify statistical patterns and anomalies in vast datasets. They applied techniques from information theory, signal processing, and statistical analysis to construct algorithms that could identify and exploit market inefficiencies.

The Medallion Fund: Unprecedented Success

In 1988, Renaissance established the Medallion Fund, a closed investment vehicle that would become the most profitable hedge fund in history. Between its inception in 1988 and 2018, the Medallion Fund generated over $100 billion in trading profits, achieving a 66.1% average gross annual return (or 39.1% net of fees). These figures are without parallel in investment history. For context, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway-widely regarded as the gold standard of long-term investing-has achieved approximately 20% annualised returns over decades.

The Medallion Fund’s success vindicated Simons’ core thesis: whilst individual stock movements may appear random and unpredictable, patterns exist within the noise. By applying sophisticated mathematical models to vast quantities of market data, these patterns could be identified and exploited systematically. The fund’s returns were not the product of luck or market timing, but of rigorous scientific methodology applied to financial data.

Renaissance Technologies also managed three additional funds open to outside investors-the Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund, Renaissance Institutional Diversified Alpha, and Renaissance Institutional Diversified Global Equity Fund-which collectively managed approximately $55 billion in assets as of 2019.

The Theoretical Foundations: Quantitative Finance and Market Microstructure

Simons’ success emerged from a convergence of theoretical advances and technological capability. The intellectual foundations for quantitative finance had been developing throughout the twentieth century, though Simons and Renaissance were among the first to apply these theories systematically at scale.

Eugene Fama and the Efficient Market Hypothesis

Eugene Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), developed in the 1960s, posited that asset prices fully reflect all available information, making it impossible to consistently outperform the market through analysis. If markets were truly efficient, Simons’ entire enterprise would be theoretically impossible. Yet Simons’ empirical results demonstrated that markets contained exploitable inefficiencies-what economists would later term “market anomalies.” Rather than accepting EMH as gospel, Simons treated it as a hypothesis to be tested against data. His success suggested that whilst markets were broadly efficient, they were not perfectly so, and the gaps could be identified through rigorous statistical analysis.

Harry Markowitz and Modern Portfolio Theory

Harry Markowitz’s pioneering work on portfolio optimisation in the 1950s established the mathematical framework for understanding risk and return. Markowitz demonstrated that investors could construct optimal portfolios by balancing expected returns against volatility, measured as standard deviation. Renaissance built upon this foundation, but extended it dramatically. Whilst Markowitz’s approach was largely static, Renaissance employed dynamic models that continuously adjusted positions based on evolving market conditions and statistical signals.

Statistical Arbitrage and Market Microstructure

Renaissance’s core methodology centred on statistical arbitrage-identifying pairs or groups of securities whose prices had deviated from their historical relationships, then betting that these relationships would revert to equilibrium. This required deep understanding of market microstructure: the mechanics of how prices form, how information propagates through markets, and how trading activity itself influences prices. Simons and his team studied these phenomena with the rigour of physicists studying natural systems.

Information Theory and Signal Processing

Simons’ background in cryptography and information theory proved invaluable. Just as cryptographers extract meaningful signals from noise, Renaissance’s algorithms extracted trading signals from the apparent randomness of price movements. The team applied techniques from signal processing-originally developed for telecommunications and radar-to identify patterns in financial data that others overlooked.

The Philosophical Implications of Simons’ Quote

Simons’ observation about comets versus stocks reflects a deeper philosophical position about the nature of complexity and predictability. Comets follow deterministic equations derived from Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. Their trajectories are, in principle, perfectly predictable given sufficient initial conditions. Yet they are also distant, their behaviour unaffected by human activity.

Stock prices, by contrast, emerge from the aggregated decisions of millions of participants acting on incomplete information, subject to psychological biases, and influenced by unpredictable events. This apparent chaos seems to defy prediction. Yet Simons recognised that this very complexity creates opportunity. The inefficiencies that arise from human psychology, information asymmetries, and market structure are precisely what quantitative models can exploit.

The quote also embodies Simons’ pragmatism. He was not interested in predicting stocks with perfect accuracy-an impossible task. Rather, he sought to identify statistical edges: situations where the probability distribution of future returns was sufficiently favourable to generate consistent profits over time. This is fundamentally different from prediction in the deterministic sense. It is prediction in the probabilistic sense-identifying where odds favour the investor.

Legacy and Impact on Finance

Simons’ success catalysed a revolution in finance. The quantitative approach that Renaissance pioneered has become increasingly dominant. Today, algorithmic and quantitative trading account for a substantial portion of market activity. Universities have established entire programmes in financial engineering and computational finance. The intellectual framework that Simons helped develop-treating markets as complex systems amenable to mathematical analysis-has become orthodoxy.

In 2006, Simons was named Financial Engineer of the Year by the International Association of Financial Engineers, recognition of his transformative impact on the field. His personal wealth accumulated accordingly: in 2020, he was estimated to have earned $2.6 billion, making him one of the highest-earning individuals in finance.

Yet Simons’ later life demonstrated that his intellectual curiosity extended far beyond finance. After retiring as chief executive officer of Renaissance Technologies in 2010, he devoted himself increasingly to the Simons Foundation, which he and his wife Marilyn had established. The foundation has become one of the world’s leading supporters of fundamental scientific research, funding work in mathematics, theoretical physics, computer science, and biology. In 2012, Simons convened a seminar bringing together leading scientists from diverse fields, which led to the creation of Simons Collaborations-programmes supporting interdisciplinary research on fundamental questions about the nature of reality and life itself.

In 2004, Simons founded Math for America, a nonprofit organisation dedicated to improving mathematics education in American public schools by recruiting and supporting highly qualified teachers. This initiative reflected his conviction that mathematical literacy is foundational to scientific progress and economic competitiveness.

Conclusion: The Outsider Who Built a New World

Jim Simons’ career exemplifies the power of intellectual courage and the willingness to challenge established paradigms. He was, by his own admission, an outsider-never quite fitting into the boxes that academia and conventional finance offered. Rather than accepting these constraints, he created an entirely new environment where his diverse talents could flourish: a place where pure mathematics, empirical data analysis, and financial markets intersected.

His observation about comets and stocks captures this perfectly. Whilst others accepted that stock markets were fundamentally unpredictable, Simons saw opportunity in complexity. He assembled a team of the world’s finest scientists and tasked them with finding patterns in apparent chaos. The result was not merely financial success, but a transformation of how finance itself is understood and practised.

Simons passed away on 10 May 2024, at the age of 86, leaving behind a legacy that extends far beyond Renaissance Technologies. He demonstrated that intellectual rigour, scientific methodology, and collaborative excellence can generate both extraordinary financial returns and profound contributions to human knowledge. His life stands as a testament to the proposition that the greatest opportunities often lie at the intersection of disciplines, and that those willing to think differently can reshape entire fields.

References

1. https://www.jermainebrown.org/posts/why-jim-simons-founded-renaissance-technologies

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

3. https://inspire.berkeley.edu/p/promise-spring-2016/jim-simons-life-left-turns/

4. https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2024/05/10/remembering-the-life-and-careers-of-jim-simons/

5. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/jim-simons

6. https://news.stonybrook.edu/university/jim-simons-a-life-of-scholarship-leadership-and-philanthropy/

Quote: Andrew Ng – AI guru. Coursera founder

“I find that we’ve done this “let a thousand flowers bloom” bottom-up [AI] innovation thing, and for the most part, it’s led to a lot of nice little things but nothing transformative for businesses.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

In a candid reflection at the World Economic Forum 2026 session titled ‘Corporate Ladders, AI Reshuffled,’ Andrew Ng critiques the prevailing ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ approach to AI innovation. He argues that while this bottom-up strategy has produced numerous incremental tools, it falls short of delivering the profound business transformations required in today’s competitive landscape^1,3,4. This perspective emerges from Ng’s deep immersion in AI’s evolution, where he observes a landscape brimming with potential yet hampered by fragmented efforts.

Andrew Ng: The Architect of Modern AI Education and Research

Andrew Ng stands as one of the foremost figures in artificial intelligence, often dubbed an ‘AI guru’ for his pioneering contributions. A British-born computer scientist, Ng co-founded Coursera in 2012, revolutionising online education by making high-quality courses accessible worldwide, with a focus on machine learning and AI^1,4. Prior to that, he led the Google Brain project from 2011 to 2012, establishing one of the first large-scale deep learning initiatives that laid foundational work for advancements now powering Google DeepMind¹.

Today, Ng heads DeepLearning.AI, offering practical AI training programmes, and serves as managing general partner at AI Fund, investing in transformative AI startups. His career also includes professorships at Stanford University and Baidu’s chief scientist role, where he scaled AI applications in China. At Davos 2026, Ng highlighted Google’s resurgence with Gemini 3 while emphasising the ‘white hot’ AI ecosystem’s opportunities for players like Anthropic and OpenAI¹. He consistently advocates for upskilling, noting that ‘a person that uses AI will be so much more productive, they will replace someone that doesn’t,’ countering fears of mass job losses with a vision of augmented human capabilities³.

Context of the Quote: Davos 2026 and the Shift from Experimentation to Enterprise Impact

Delivered in January 2026 during a YouTube live session on how AI is reshaping jobs, skills, careers, and workflows, Ng’s remark underscores a pivotal moment in AI adoption[Source]. Amid Davos discussions, he addressed the tension between hype and reality: bottom-up innovation has yielded ‘nice little things’ like chatbots and coding assistants, but businesses crave systemic overhauls in areas such as travel, retail, and domain-specific automation¹. Ng points to underinvestment in the application layer, urging a pivot towards targeted, top-down strategies to unlock transformative value-echoing themes of agentic AI, task automation, and workflow integration[TAGS].

This aligns with his broader Davos narrative, including calls for open-source AI to foster sovereignty (as for India) and pragmatic workforce reskilling, where AI handles 30-40% of tasks, leaving humans to manage the rest^2,3. The session, part of WEF’s exploration of AI’s role in corporate structures, signals a maturing field moving beyond foundational models to enterprise-grade deployment.

Leading Theorists on AI Innovation Paradigms: From Bottom-Up Bloom to Structured Transformation

Ng’s critique builds on foundational theories of innovation in AI, drawing from pioneers who shaped the debate between decentralised experimentation and directed progress.

Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton (The Godfathers of Deep Learning): These Turing Award winners ignited the deep learning revolution in the 2010s. Their bottom-up approach-exemplified by convolutional neural networks and backpropagation-mirrored Mao Zedong’s ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ metaphor, encouraging diverse neural architectures. Yet, as Ng notes, this has led to proliferation without proportional business disruption, prompting calls for vertical integration.
Jensen Huang (NVIDIA CEO): Huang’s five-layer AI stack-energy, silicon, cloud, foundational models, applications-provides the theoretical backbone for Ng’s views. He emphasises that true transformation demands investment atop the stack, not just base layers, aligning with Ng’s push beyond ‘nice little things’ to workflow automation⁵.
Fei-Fei Li (Stanford Vision Lab): Ng’s collaborator and ‘Godmother of AI,’ Li advocates human-centred AI, stressing application-layer innovations for real-world impact, such as in healthcare imaging-reinforcing the need for focused enterprise adoption.
Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind): From Ng’s Google Brain era, Hassabis champions unified labs for scalable AI, critiquing siloed efforts in favour of top-down orchestration, much like Ng’s prescription for business transformation.

These theorists collectively highlight a consensus: while bottom-up innovation democratised AI tools, the next phase requires deliberate, top-down engineering to embed AI into core business processes, driving productivity and competitive edges.

Implications for Businesses and the AI Ecosystem

Ng’s insight challenges leaders to reassess AI strategies, prioritising agentic systems that automate tasks and elevate human judgement. As the AI landscape heats up-with models like Gemini 3, Llama-4, and Qwen-2-opportunities abound for those bridging the application gap^1,2. This perspective not only contextualises current hype but guides towards sustainable, transformative deployment.

References

1. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/davos-summit/davos-2026-google-s-having-a-moment-but-ai-landscape-is-white-hot-says-andrew-ng-13779205.html

2. https://www.aicerts.ai/news/andrew-ng-open-source-ai-india-call-resonates-at-davos/

3. https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-makers/davos-2026-andrew-ng-says-fears-of-ai-driven-job-losses-are-exaggerated-87874.htm

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ9DTjyfIq8

5. https://globaladvisors.biz/2026/01/23/the-ai-signal-from-the-world-economic-forum-2026-at-davos/

Quote: Bill Gurley

“There are people in this world who view everything as a zero sum game and they will elbow you out the first chance they can get. And so those shouldn’t be your peers.” – Bill Gurley – GP at Benchmark

This incisive observation comes from Bill Gurley, a General Partner at Benchmark Capital, shared during his appearance on Tim Ferriss’s podcast in late 2025. In the discussion titled ‘Bill Gurley – Investing in the AI Era, 10 Days in China, and Important Life Lessons,’ Gurley outlines two key tests for selecting peers and collaborators: trust and a shared interest in learning. He warns against those with a zero-sum mentality-individuals who see success as limited, leading them to undermine others for personal gain. Instead, he advocates pushing such people aside to foster environments of mutual support and growth.^3,6

The quote resonates deeply in careers, entrepreneurship, and high-stakes fields like venture capital, where collaboration can amplify success. Gurley, drawing from decades in tech investing, emphasises that true progress thrives in positive-sum dynamics, where celebrating peers’ wins benefits all.^1,3

Bill Gurley’s Backstory

Bill Gurley is a towering figure in Silicon Valley, renowned for his prescient investments and analytical rigour. A General Partner at Benchmark Capital since 1999, he has backed transformative companies including Uber, Airbnb, Zillow, and Grubhub, generating billions in returns. His early career included roles at Morgan Stanley and as an executive at Compaq Computers, followed by an MBA from the University of Texas and a Harvard undergraduate degree.^1,2

Gurley’s philosophy rejects rigid rules in favour of asymmetric upside-focusing on ‘what could go right’ rather than minimising losses. He famously critiques macroeconomics as a ‘silly waste of time’ for investors and champions products that are ‘bought, not sold,’ with high-quality, recurring revenue.^1,2 An avid sports fan and athlete, he weaves analogies like ‘muscle memory’ into his insights, reminding entrepreneurs of past downturns like 1999 to build resilience.² Beyond investing, Gurley blogs prolifically on ‘Above the Crowd,’ dissecting marketplaces, network effects, and economic myths, such as the fallacy of zero-sum thinking in microeconomics.⁵

Context of Zero-Sum Thinking in Careers and Investing

Gurley’s advice counters the pervasive zero-sum worldview, where one person’s gain is another’s loss. He argues life and business are not zero-sum: ‘Don’t worry about proprietary advantage. It is not a zero-sum game.’¹ Celebrate peers’ accomplishments to build collaborative networks that propel collective success.¹ This mindset aligns with his investment strategy, prioritising demand aggregation and true network effects over cut-throat competition.^1,2

In the Tim Ferriss interview, Gurley ties this to team-building, invoking sports leaders like Sam Hinkie for disciplined, curiosity-driven cultures. He contrasts this with zero-sum actors who erode trust, essential for long-term performance across domains.³

Leading Theorists on Zero-Sum vs Positive-Sum Games

John Nash (1928-2015), the Nobel-winning mathematician behind Nash Equilibrium, revolutionised game theory. His work shows scenarios need not be zero-sum; equilibria emerge where players cooperate for mutual benefit, influencing economics, evolution, and AI strategy.

Robert Wright, in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny (2000), posits history evolves towards positive-sum complexity. Trade, technology, and information sharing create interdependence, countering zero-sum tribalism-echoing Gurley’s peer advice.

Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens, explores how shared myths enable large-scale cooperation, turning potential zero-sum conflicts into positive-sum societies through trust and collective fictions.

Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012), Nobel economist, demonstrated via empirical studies that communities self-govern common resources without zero-sum tragedy, through trust-based rules-validating Gurley’s emphasis on reliable peers.

These theorists underpin Gurley’s practical wisdom: reject zero-sum peers to unlock positive-sum opportunities in careers and ventures.^1,3,5

Related Insights from Bill Gurley

“It’s called asymmetric returns. If you invest in something that doesn’t work, you lose one times your money. If you miss Google, you lose 10,000 times your money.”^1,2
“Everybody has the will to win. People don’t have the will to practice.” (Favourite from Bobby Knight)¹
“Truly great products are bought, not sold.”¹
“Life is a use or lose it proposition.” (From partner Kevin Harvey)¹

References

1. https://www.antoinebuteau.com/lessons-from-bill-gurley/

2. https://25iq.com/2016/10/14/a-half-dozen-more-things-ive-learned-from-bill-gurley-about-investing/

3. https://tim.blog/2025/12/17/bill-gurley-running-down-a-dream/

4. https://macroops.substack.com/p/the-bill-gurley-chronicles-part-i

5. https://macro-ops.com/the-bill-gurley-chronicles-an-above-the-crowd-mba-on-vcs-marketplaces-and-early-stage-investing/

6. https://www.podchemy.com/notes/840-bill-gurley-investing-in-the-ai-era-10-days-in-china-and-important-life-lessons-from-bob-dylan-jerry-seinfeld-mrbeast-and-more-06a5cd0f-d113-5200-bbc0-e9f57705fc2c

Quote: Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

“My most productive developers are actually not fresh college grads; they have 10, 20 years of experience in coding and are on top of AI… one tier down… is the fresh college grads that really know how to use AI… one tier down from that is the people with 10 years of experience… the least productive that I would never hire are the fresh college grads that… do not know AI.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

In a candid discussion at the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos, Andrew Ng unveiled a provocative hierarchy of developer productivity, prioritising AI fluency over traditional experience. Delivered during the session ‘Corporate Ladders, AI Reshuffled,’ this perspective challenges conventional hiring norms amid AI’s rapid evolution. Ng’s remarks, captured in a live YouTube panel on 19 January 2026, underscore how artificial intelligence is redefining competence in software engineering.

Andrew Ng: The Architect of Modern AI Education

Andrew Ng stands as one of the foremost pioneers in artificial intelligence, blending academic rigour with entrepreneurial vision. A British-born computer scientist, he earned his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and later joined Stanford University, where he co-founded the Stanford AI Lab. Ng’s breakthrough came with his development of one of the first large-scale online courses on machine learning in 2011, which attracted over 100,000 students and laid the groundwork for massive open online courses (MOOCs).

In 2012, alongside Daphne Koller, he co-founded Coursera, transforming global access to education by partnering with top universities to offer courses in AI, data science, and beyond. The platform now serves millions, democratising skills essential for the AI age. Ng also led Baidu’s AI Group as Chief Scientist from 2014 to 2017, scaling deep learning applications at an industrial level. Today, as founder of DeepLearning.AI and managing general partner at AI Fund, he invests in and educates on practical AI deployment. His influence extends to Google Brain, which he co-founded in 2011, pioneering advancements in deep learning that power today’s generative models.

Ng’s Davos appearances, including 2026 interviews with Moneycontrol and others, consistently advocate for AI optimism tempered by pragmatism. He dismisses fears of an AI bubble in applications while cautioning on model training costs, and stresses upskilling: ‘A person that uses AI will be so much more productive, they will replace someone that doesn’t use AI.’^1,3

Context of the Quote: AI’s Disruption of Corporate Ladders

The quote emerged from WEF 2026’s exploration of how AI reshuffles organisational hierarchies and talent pipelines. Ng argued that AI tools amplify human capabilities unevenly, creating a new productivity spectrum. Seasoned coders who master AI-such as large language models for code generation-outpace novices, while AI-illiterate veterans lag. This aligns with his broader Davos narrative: AI handles 30-40% of many jobs’ tasks, leaving humans to focus on the rest, but only if they adapt.³

Ng highlighted real-world shifts in Silicon Valley, where AI inference demand surges, throttling teams due to capacity limits. He urged infrastructure build-out and open-source adoption, particularly for nations like India, warning against vendor lock-in: ‘If it’s open, no one can mess with it.’² Fears of mass job losses? Overhyped, per Ng-layoffs stem more from post-pandemic corrections than automation.³

Leading Theorists on AI, Skills, and Future Work

Ng’s views echo and extend seminal theories on technological unemployment and skill augmentation.

David Autor: MIT economist whose ‘skill-biased technological change’ framework (1990s onwards) posits automation displaces routine tasks but boosts demand for non-routine cognitive skills. Ng’s hierarchy mirrors this: AI supercharges experienced workers’ judgement while sidelining routine coders.³
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee: In ‘The Second Machine Age’ (2014), they describe how digital technologies widen productivity gaps, favouring ‘superstars’ who leverage tools. Ng’s top tier-AI-savvy veterans-embodies this ‘winner-takes-more’ dynamic in coding.¹
Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo: Their ‘task-based’ model (2010s) quantifies automation’s impact: AI automates coding subtasks, but complements human oversight. Ng’s 30-40% task automation estimate directly invokes this, predicting productivity booms for adapters.³
Fei-Fei Li: Ng’s Stanford colleague and ‘Godmother of AI Vision,’ she emphasises human-AI collaboration. Her work on multimodal AI reinforces Ng’s call for developers to integrate AI into workflows, not replace manual toil.
Yann LeCun, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yoshua Bengio: The ‘Godfathers of Deep Learning’ (Turing Award 2018) enabled tools like those Ng champions. Their foundational neural network advances underpin modern code assistants, validating Ng’s tiers where AI fluency trumps raw experience.

These theorists collectively frame AI as an amplifier, not annihilator, of labour-resonating with Ng’s prescription for careers: master AI or risk obsolescence. As workflows agenticise, coding evolves from syntax drudgery to strategic orchestration.

Implications for Careers and Skills

Ng’s ladder demands immediate action: prioritise AI literacy via platforms like Coursera, fine-tune open models like Llama-4 or Qwen-2, and rebuild talent pipelines around meta-skills like prompt engineering and bias auditing.^2,5 For IT powerhouses like India’s $280 billion services sector, upskilling velocity is non-negotiable.⁶ In this reshuffled landscape, productivity hinges not on years coded, but on AI mastery.

References

1. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/davos-summit/davos-2026-are-we-in-an-ai-bubble-andrew-ng-says-it-depends-on-where-you-look-13779435.html

2. https://www.aicerts.ai/news/andrew-ng-open-source-ai-india-call-resonates-at-davos/

3. https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-makers/davos-2026-andrew-ng-says-fears-of-ai-driven-job-losses-are-exaggerated-87874.htm

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ9DTjyfIq8

5. https://globaladvisors.biz/2026/01/23/the-ai-signal-from-the-world-economic-forum-2026-at-davos/

6. https://economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/india-must-speed-up-ai-upskilling-coursera-cofounder-andrew-ng/articleshow/126703083.cms

Term: Read the room

“To read the room means to assess and understand the collective mood, attitudes, or dynamics of a group of people and adjust your behavior or communication accordingly.” – Read the room

“To read the room” means to assess and understand the collective mood, attitudes, or dynamics of a group of people in a particular setting, and to adjust one’s behaviour or communication accordingly^1,3. This idiom emphasises emotional intelligence, enabling individuals to gauge the emotions, thoughts, and reactions of others through nonverbal cues, body language, and the overall atmosphere^2,4.

Originating from informal English usage, the phrase is commonly applied in social, professional, and online contexts. For instance, a dinner party host might “read the room” to determine if guests are enjoying themselves or tiring, deciding whether to open another bottle of wine¹. In meetings or video calls, it involves analysing general mood to adapt presentations, as visibility of only shoulders and faces can make this challenging¹. Sales professionals use it to pick up nonverbal cues during pitches^3,4, while social media users are advised to “read the room” before posting to avoid backlash, as seen in Kylie Jenner’s 2021 GoFundMe post that appeared tone-deaf amid economic hardship².

Key Contexts and Applications

Workplace and Meetings: Essential for effective communication; teachers “read the room” to avoid boring students, salespeople adjust pitches if the audience seems worried⁴.
Social Settings: Prevents missteps like telling jokes in a serious atmosphere, which is a classic “failure to read the room”⁴.
Online and Public Communication: Involves anticipating audience reactions to posts or statements for maximum engagement and minimal controversy².

The skill relies on observing body language-such as foot direction or shoulder positioning-and intuition to interpret the prevailing vibe⁴. It enhances interpersonal reactions and is crucial for authentic, context-sensitive interactions².

Best Related Strategy Theorist: Daniel Goleman

Daniel Goleman, a pioneering psychologist and science journalist, is the foremost theorist linked to “read the room” through his development of **emotional intelligence (EI)**, the core ability underpinning this idiom. Goleman popularised EI in his seminal 1995 book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, arguing that EI-encompassing self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills-often predicts success more than traditional IQ[supplied knowledge].

Born in 1946 in Stockton, California, Goleman earned a PhD in psychology from Harvard University in 1971, specialising in meditation and brain science. His early career as a New York Times science reporter (1972-1996) covered behavioural and brain sciences, leading to books like Vital Lies, Simple Truths (1985). Goleman’s relationship to “read the room” stems directly from EI’s social awareness component, particularly empathy and organisational awareness-skills for reading group emotions and dynamics to influence effectively[supplied knowledge]. He describes this as “reading the room” in leadership contexts, applying it to executives who attune to team moods for better decision-making.

Goleman’s work with the Hay Group (now Korn Ferry) developed EI assessments used in corporate training, reinforcing practical strategies for communication and behaviour adjustment. His biography reflects a blend of research and application: influenced by mindfulness studies in India during the 1970s, he bridged Eastern practices with Western psychology. Later books like Primal Leadership (2002, co-authored) apply EI to leadership, explicitly linking it to sensing group climates-a direct parallel to the term[supplied knowledge]. Goleman’s theories provide the scientific foundation for “reading the room” as a strategic tool in business, education, and personal interactions.

References

1. https://plainenglish.com/lingo/read-the-room/

2. https://1832communications.com/blog/read-room/

3. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/read-the-room

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRRlG39TKEA

Quote: Microsoft

“DeepSeek’s success reflects growing Chinese momentum across Africa, a trend that may continue to accelerate in 2026.” – Microsoft – January 2026

The quote originates from Microsoft’s Global AI Adoption in 2025 report, published by the company’s AI Economy Institute and detailed in a January 2026 blog post on ‘On the Issues’. It highlights the rapid ascent of DeepSeek, a Chinese open-source AI platform, in African markets. Microsoft notes that DeepSeek’s free access and strategic partnerships have driven adoption rates 2 to 4 times higher in Africa than in other regions, positioning it as a key factor in China’s expanding technological influence.^4,5

Backstory on the Source: Microsoft’s Perspective

Microsoft, a global technology leader with deep investments in AI through partnerships like OpenAI, tracks worldwide AI diffusion to inform its strategy. The 2025 report analyses user data across countries, revealing how accessibility shapes adoption. While Microsoft acknowledges its stake in broader AI proliferation, the analysis remains data-driven, emphasising DeepSeek’s role in underserved markets without endorsing geopolitical shifts.^1,2,4

DeepSeek holds significant market shares in Africa: 16-20% in Ethiopia, Tunisia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar; 11-14% in Uganda and Niger. This contrasts with low uptake in North America and Europe, where Western models dominate.^1,2,3

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI Challenger

Founded in 2023, DeepSeek is a Hangzhou-based startup rivalling OpenAI’s ChatGPT with cost-effective, open-source models under an MIT licence. Its free chatbot eliminates barriers like subscription fees or credit cards, appealing to price-sensitive regions. The January 2025 release of its R1 model, praised in Nature as a ‘landmark paper’ co-authored by founder Liang Wenfeng, demonstrated advanced reasoning for math and coding at lower costs.^2,4

Strategic distribution via Huawei phones as default chatbots, plus partnerships and telecom integrations, propelled its growth. Adoption peaks in China (89%), Russia (43%), Belarus (56%), Cuba (49%), Iran (25%), and Syria (23%). Microsoft warns this could serve as a ‘geopolitical instrument’ for Chinese influence where US services face restrictions.^2,3,4

Broader Implications for Africa and the Global South

Africa’s AI uptake accelerates via free platforms like DeepSeek, potentially onboarding the ‘next billion users’ from the global South. Factors include Huawei’s infrastructure push and awareness campaigns. However, concerns arise over biases, such as restricted political content aligned with Chinese internet access, and security risks prompting bans in the US, Australia, Germany, and even Microsoft internally.^1,2

Leading Theorists on AI Geopolitics and Global Adoption

Lavista Ferres (Microsoft AI researcher): Leads the lab behind the report. Observes DeepSeek’s technical strengths but notes political divergences, predicting influence on global discourse.²
Liang Wenfeng (DeepSeek founder): Drives open-source innovation, authoring peer-reviewed work on efficient AI models that challenge US dominance.²
Walid Kéfi (AI commentator): Analyses Africa’s generative AI surge, crediting free platforms for scaling adoption amid infrastructure challenges.¹

These insights underscore a pivotal shift: AI’s future hinges on openness and accessibility, reshaping power dynamics between US and Chinese ecosystems.⁴

References

1. https://www.ecofinagency.com/news/1301-51867-microsoft-study-maps-africa-s-generative-ai-uptake-as-free-platforms-drive-adoption

2. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/deepseeks-ai-gains-traction-developing-nations-microsoft-report-129021507

3. https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/01/09/deepseeks-ai-gains-traction-in-developing-nations-microsoft-report-says

4. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/ai-economy-institute/reports/global-ai-adoption-2025/

5. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2026/01/08/global-ai-adoption-in-2025/

6. https://www.cryptopolitan.com/microsoft-says-china-beating-america-in-ai/

Quote: Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

“I think one of the challenges is, because AI technology is still evolving rapidly, the skills that are going to be needed in the future are not yet clear today. It depends on lifelong learning.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

Delivered during a session on Corporate Ladders, AI Reshuffled at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, this insight from Andrew Ng captures the essence of navigating an era where artificial intelligence advances at breakneck speed. Ng’s words underscore a pivotal shift: as AI reshapes jobs and workflows, the uncertainty of future skills demands a commitment to continuous adaptation^1,2.

Andrew Ng: The Architect of Modern AI Education

Andrew Ng stands as one of the foremost figures in artificial intelligence, often dubbed an AI guru for his pioneering contributions to machine learning and online education. A British-born computer scientist, Ng co-founded Coursera in 2012, revolutionising access to higher education by partnering with top universities to offer massive open online courses (MOOCs). His platforms, including DeepLearning.AI and Landing AI, have democratised AI skills, training millions worldwide^2,3.

Ng’s career trajectory is marked by landmark roles: he led the Google Brain project, which advanced deep learning at scale, and served as chief scientist at Baidu, applying AI to real-world applications in search and autonomous driving. As managing general partner at AI Fund, he invests in startups bridging AI with practical domains. At Davos 2026, Ng addressed fears of AI-driven job losses, arguing they are overstated. He broke jobs into tasks, noting AI handles only 30-40% currently, boosting productivity for those who adapt: ‘A person that uses AI will be so much more productive, they will replace someone that doesn’t use AI’^2,3. His emphasis on coding as a ‘durable skill’-not for becoming engineers, but for building personalised software to automate workflows-aligns directly with the quoted challenge of unclear future skills¹.

The Broader Context: AI’s Impact on Jobs and Skills at Davos 2026

The quote emerged amid Davos discussions on agentic AI systems-autonomous agents managing end-to-end workflows-pushing humans towards oversight, judgement, and accountability. Ng highlighted meta-cognitive agility: shifting from perishable technical skills to ‘learning to learn’¹. This resonates with global concerns; IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva noted one in ten jobs in advanced economies already need new skills, with labour markets unprepared¹. Ng urged upskilling, especially for regions like India, warning its IT services sector risks disruption without rapid AI literacy^3,5.

Corporate strategies are evolving: the T-shaped model promotes AI literacy across functions (breadth) paired with irreplaceable domain expertise (depth). Firms rebuild talent ladders, replacing grunt work with AI-supported apprenticeships fostering early decision-making¹. Ng’s optimism tempers hype; AI improves incrementally, not in dramatic leaps, yet demands proactive reskilling³.

Leading Theorists Shaping AI, Skills, and Lifelong Learning

Ng’s views build on foundational theorists in AI and labour economics:

Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, and Yoshua Bengio (the ‘Godfathers of AI’): Pioneered deep learning, enabling today’s breakthroughs. Hinton, Ng’s early collaborator at Google Brain, warns of AI risks but affirms its transformative potential for productivity². Their work underpins Ng’s task-based job analysis.
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee (MIT): In ‘The Second Machine Age’, they theorise how digital technologies complement human skills, amplifying ‘non-routine’ cognitive tasks. This mirrors Ng’s productivity shift, where AI augments rather than replaces^1,2.
Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne (Oxford): Their 2013 study quantified automation risks for 702 occupations, sparking debates on reskilling. Ng extends this by focusing on partial automation (30-40%) and lifelong learning imperatives².
Daron Acemoglu (MIT): Critiques automation’s wage-polarising effects, advocating ‘so-so technologies’ that automate mid-skill tasks. Ng counters with optimism for human-AI collaboration via upskilling³.

These theorists converge on a consensus: AI disrupts routines but elevates human judgement, creativity, and adaptability-skills honed through lifelong learning, as Ng advocates.

Ng’s prescience positions this quote as a clarion call for individuals and organisations to embrace uncertainty through perpetual growth in an AI-driven world.

References

1. https://globaladvisors.biz/2026/01/23/the-ai-signal-from-the-world-economic-forum-2026-at-davos/

2. https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-makers/davos-2026-andrew-ng-says-fears-of-ai-driven-job-losses-are-exaggerated-87874.htm

3. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/davos-summit/davos-2026-ai-is-continuously-improving-despite-perception-that-excitement-has-faded-says-andrew-ng-13780763.html

4. https://www.aicerts.ai/news/andrew-ng-open-source-ai-india-call-resonates-at-davos/

5. https://economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/india-must-speed-up-ai-upskilling-coursera-cofounder-andrew-ng/articleshow/126703083.cms

Term: Steelman argument

“A steelman argument is a dialectical technique where you restate an opponent’s position in its strongest, most charitable, and most convincing form, even better than they presented it, before you offer your counterargument, aiming to understand the truth and engage.” – Steelman argument

The purpose is not to score rhetorical points, but to understand the underlying truth of the issue, test your own beliefs, and engage respectfully and productively with those who disagree.

In a steelman argument, a participant in a discussion:

Listens carefully to the other side’s position, reasons, evidence, and concerns.
Reconstructs that position as logically, factually, and rhetorically strong as possible, eliminating obvious errors, clarifying ambiguities, and adding reasonable supporting considerations.
Checks this reconstruction with the opponent to ensure it is both accurate and recognisable – ideally something they would endorse or even prefer to their original wording.
Only then advances their own critique, counterarguments, or alternative proposals, addressing this improved version rather than a weaker one.

This makes steelmanning the conceptual opposite of the straw man fallacy, where a position is caricatured or simplified to make it easier to attack. Where a straw man trades on distortion to make disagreement easier, a steelman trades on fairness and intellectual generosity to make understanding deeper.

Core principles of steelmanning

Four principles underpin effective steelman arguments:

Charity – You interpret your counterpart’s words in the most reasonable light, attributing to them the most coherent and defensible version of their view, rather than assuming confusion, bad faith, or ignorance.
Accuracy – You preserve the core commitments, values, and intended meaning of their position; you do not quietly change what is at stake, even while you improve its structure and support.
Strengthening – You explicitly look for the best reasons, analogies, and evidence that could support their view, including arguments they have not yet articulated but would plausibly accept.
Verification – You invite your interlocutor to confirm or refine your restatement, aiming for the moment when they can honestly say, “Yes, that is what I mean – and that is an even better version of my view than I initially gave.”

Steelman vs. straw man vs. related techniques

Concept	What it does	Typical intention
Steelman argument	Strengthens and clarifies the opposing view before critiquing it.	Seek truth, understand deeply, and persuade through fairness.
Straw man fallacy	Misrepresents or oversimplifies a view to make it easier to refute.	Win a debate, create rhetorical advantage, or avoid hard questions.
Devil’s advocate	Adopts a contrary position (not necessarily sincerely held) to expose weaknesses or overlooked risks.	Stress-test prevailing assumptions, foster critical thinking.
Thought experiment / counterfactual	Explores hypothetical scenarios to test principles or intuitions.	Clarify implications, reveal hidden assumptions, probe edge cases.

Steelman arguments often incorporate elements of counterfactuals and thought experiments. For example, to strengthen a policy criticism, you might ask: “Suppose this policy were applied in a more extreme case – would the same concerns still hold?” You then build the best version of the concern across such scenarios before responding.

Why steelmanning matters in strategy and decision-making

In strategic analysis, investing, policy design, and complex organisational decisions, steelman arguments help to:

Reduce confirmation bias by forcing you to internalise the strongest objections to your preferred view.
Improve risk management by properly articulating downside scenarios and adverse stakeholder perspectives before discarding them.
Enhance credibility with boards, clients, and teams, who see that arguments have been tested against serious, not superficial, opposition.
Strengthen strategy by making sure that chosen options have survived comparison with the most powerful alternatives, not just weakly framed ones.

When used rigorously, the steelman discipline often turns a confrontational debate into a form of collaborative problem-solving, where each side helps the other refine their views and the final outcome is more robust than either starting position.

Practical steps to construct a steelman argument

A practical steelmanning process in a meeting, negotiation, or analytical setting might look like this:

1. Elicit and clarify
Ask the other party to explain their view fully. Use probing but neutral questions: “What is the central concern?”, “What outcomes are you trying to avoid?”, “What evidence most strongly supports your view?”
2. Map and organise
Identify their main claims, supporting reasons, implicit assumptions, and key examples. Group these into a coherent structure, ranking the arguments from strongest to weakest.
3. Strengthen
Add reasonable premises they may have missed, improve their examples, and fill gaps with the best available data or analogies that genuinely support their position.
4. Restate back
Present your reconstructed version, starting with a phrase such as, “Let me try to state your view as strongly as I can.” Invite correction until they endorse it.
5. Engage and test
Only once agreement on the steelman is reached do you introduce counterarguments, alternative hypotheses, or different scenarios – always addressing the strong version rather than retreating to weaker caricatures.

Best related strategy theorist: John Stuart Mill

Although the term “steelman” is modern, the deepest intellectual justification for the practice in strategy, policy, and public reasoning comes from the nineteenth-century philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill. His work provides a powerful conceptual foundation for steelmanning, especially in high-stakes decision contexts.

Mill’s connection to steelmanning

Mill argued that you cannot truly know your own position unless you also understand, in its most persuasive form, the best arguments for the opposing side. He insisted that anyone who only hears or articulates one side of a case holds their opinion as a “prejudice” rather than a reasoned view. In modern terms, he is effectively demanding that responsible thinkers and decision-makers steelman their opponents before settling on a conclusion.

In his work on liberty, representative government, and political economy, Mill repeatedly:

Reconstructed opposing positions in detail, often giving them more systematic support than their own advocates had provided.
Explored counterfactual scenarios and hypotheticals to see where each argument would succeed or fail.
Treated thoughtful critics as partners in the search for truth rather than as enemies to be defeated.

This method aligns closely with the steelman ethos in modern strategy work: before committing to a policy, investment, or organisational move, you owe it to yourself and your stakeholders to understand the most credible case against your intended path – not a caricature of it.

Biography and intellectual context

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) was an English philosopher, economist, and civil servant, widely regarded as one of the most influential thinkers in the liberal tradition. Educated intensively from a very young age by his father, James Mill, under the influence of Jeremy Bentham, he mastered classical languages, logic, and political economy in his childhood, but suffered a mental crisis in his early twenties that led him to broaden his outlook beyond strict utilitarianism.

Mill’s major works include:

System of Logic, where he analysed how we form and test hypotheses, including the role of competing explanations.
On Liberty, which defended freedom of thought, speech, and experimentation in ways that presuppose an active culture of hearing and strengthening opposing views.
Principles of Political Economy, a major text that carefully considers economic arguments from multiple sides before reaching policy conclusions.

As a senior official in the East India Company and later a Member of Parliament, Mill moved between theory and practice, applying his analytical methods to real-world questions of governance, representation, and reform. His insistence that truth and sound policy emerge only from confronting the strongest counter-arguments is a direct ancestor of the modern steelman method in strategic reasoning, board-level debate, and public policy design.

Mill’s legacy for modern strategic steelmanning

For contemporary strategists, investors, and leaders, Mill’s legacy can be summarised as a disciplined demand: before acting, ensure that you could state the best good-faith case against your intention more clearly and powerfully than its own advocates. Only then is your subsequent decision genuinely informed rather than insulated by bias.

In this way, John Stuart Mill stands as the key historical theorist behind the steelman argument – not for coining the term, but for articulating the intellectual and ethical duty to engage with opponents at their strongest, in pursuit of truth and resilient strategy.

References

1. https://aliabdaal.com/newsletter/the-steelman-argument/

2. https://themindcollection.com/steelmanning-how-to-discover-the-truth-by-helping-your-opponent/

3. https://ratiochristi.org/the-anatomy-of-persuasion-the-steel-man/

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

5. https://simplicable.com/en/steel-man

6. https://umbrex.com/resources/tools-for-thinking/what-is-steelmanning/

Quote: Professor Hannah Fry – University of Cambridge

“Humans are not very good at exponentials. And right now, at this moment, we are standing right on the bend of the curve. AGI is not a distant thought experiment anymore.” – Professor Hannah Fry – Univeristy of Cambridge

The quote comes at the end of a wide?ranging conversation between applied mathematician and broadcaster Professor Hannah Fry and DeepMind co?founder Shane Legg, recorded for the “Google DeepMind, the podcast” series in late 2025. Fry is reflecting on Legg’s decades?long insistence that artificial general intelligence would arrive much sooner than most experts expected, and on his argument that its impact will be structurally comparable to the Industrial Revolution: a technology that reshapes work, wealth, and the basic organisation of society rather than just adding another digital tool. Her remark that “humans are not very good at exponentials” is a pointed reminder of how easily people misread compounding processes, from pandemics to technological progress, and therefore underestimate how quickly “next decade” scenarios can become “this quarter” realities.?

Context of the quote

Fry’s line follows a discussion in which Legg lays out a stepwise picture of AI progress: from today’s uneven but impressive systems, through “minimal AGI” that can reliably perform the full range of ordinary human cognitive tasks, to “full AGI” capable of the most exceptional creative and scientific feats, and then on to artificial superintelligence that eclipses human capability in most domains. Throughout, Legg stresses that current models already exceed humans in language coverage, encyclopaedic knowledge and some kinds of problem solving, while still failing at basic visual reasoning, continual learning, and robust commonsense. The trajectory he sketches is not a gentle slope but a sharpening curve, driven by scaling laws, data, architectures and hardware; Fry’s “bend of the curve” image captures the moment when such a curve stops looking linear to human intuition and starts to feel suddenly, uncomfortably steep.?

That curve is not just about raw capability but about diffusion into the economy. Legg argues that over the next few years, AI will move from being a helpful assistant to doing a growing share of economically valuable work—starting with software engineering and other high?paid cognitive roles that can be done entirely through a laptop. He anticipates that tasks once requiring a hundred engineers might soon be done by a small team amplified by advanced AI tools, with similarly uneven but profound effects across law, finance, research, and other knowledge professions. By the time Fry delivers her closing reflection, the conversation has moved from technical definitions to questions of social contract: how to design a post?AGI economy, how to distribute the gains from machine intelligence, and how to manage the transition period in which disruption and opportunity coexist.?

Hannah Fry: person and perspective

Hannah Fry is a professor in the mathematics of cities who has built a public career explaining complex systems—epidemics, finance, urban dynamics and now AI—to broad audiences. Her training in applied mathematics and complexity science has made her acutely aware of how exponential processes play out in the real world, from contagion curves during COVID?19 to the compounding effect of small percentage gains in algorithmic performance and hardware efficiency. She has repeatedly highlighted the cognitive bias that leads people to underreact when growth is slow and overreact when it becomes visibly explosive, a theme she explicitly connects in this podcast to the early days of the pandemic, when warnings about exponential infection growth were largely ignored while life carried on as normal.?

In the AGI conversation, Fry positions herself as an interpreter between technical insiders and a lay audience that is already experiencing AI in everyday tools but may not yet grasp the systemic implications. Her remark that the general public may, in some sense, “get it” better than domain specialists echoes Legg’s observation that non?experts sometimes see current systems as already effectively “intelligent,” while many professionals in affected fields downplay the relevance of AI to their own work. When she says “AGI is not a distant thought experiment anymore,” she is distilling Legg’s timelines—his long?standing 50/50 prediction of minimal AGI by 2028, followed by full AGI within a decade—into a single, accessible warning that the window for slow institutional adaptation is closing.?

Meaning of “not very good at exponentials”

The specific phrase “humans are not very good at exponentials” draws on a familiar insight from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology: people routinely misjudge exponential growth, treating it as if it were linear. During the COVID?19 pandemic, this manifested in the gap between early warnings about exponential case growth and the public’s continued attendance at large events right up until visible crisis hit, an analogy Fry explicitly invokes in the episode. In technology, the same bias leads organisations to plan as if next year will look like this year plus a small increment, even when underlying drivers—compute, algorithmic innovation, investment, data availability—are compounding at rates that double capabilities over very short horizons.?

Fry’s “bend of the curve” language marks the point where incremental improvements accumulate to the point that qualitative change becomes hard to ignore: AI systems not only answering questions but autonomously writing production code, conducting literature reviews, proposing experiments, or acting as agents in the world. At that bend, the lag between capability and governance becomes a central concern; Legg emphasises that there will not be enough time for leisurely consensus?building once AGI is fully realised, hence his call for every academic discipline and sector—law, education, medicine, city planning, economics—to begin serious scenario work now. Fry’s closing comment translates that call into a general admonition: exponential technologies demand anticipatory thinking, not reactive crisis management.?

Leading theorists behind the ideas

The intellectual backdrop to Fry’s quote and Legg’s perspectives on AGI blends several strands of work in AI theory, safety and the study of technological revolutions.

Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel helped revive and popularise the term “artificial general intelligence” in the early 2000s to distinguish systems aimed at broad, human?like cognitive competence from “narrow AI” optimised for specific tasks. Legg’s own academic work, influenced by his supervisor Marcus Hutter, explores formal definitions of universal intelligence and the conditions under which machine systems could match or exceed human problem?solving across many domains.?
I. J. Good introduced the “intelligence explosion” hypothesis in 1965, arguing that a sufficiently advanced machine intelligence capable of improving its own design could trigger a runaway feedback loop of ever?greater capability. This notion of recursive self?improvement underpins much of the contemporary discourse about AI timelines and the risks associated with crossing particular capability thresholds.?
Eliezer Yudkowsky developed thought experiments and early arguments about AGI’s existential risks, emphasising that misaligned superintelligence could be catastrophically dangerous even if human developers never intended harm. His writing helped seed the modern AI safety movement and influenced researchers and entrepreneurs who later entered mainstream organisations.?
Nick Bostrom synthesised and formalised many of these ideas in “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” providing widely cited scenarios in which AGI rapidly transitions into systems whose goals and optimisation power outstrip human control. Bostrom’s work is central to Legg’s concern with how to steer AGI safely once it surpasses human intelligence, especially around questions of alignment, control and long?term societal impact.?
Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell and other AI pioneers have added their own warnings in recent years: Hinton has drawn parallels between AI and other technologies whose potential harms were recognized only after wide deployment, while Russell has argued for a re?founding of AI as the science of beneficial machines explicitly designed to be uncertain about human preferences. Their perspectives reinforce Legg’s view that questions of ethics, interpretability and “System 2 safety”—ensuring that advanced systems can reason transparently about moral trade?offs—are not peripheral but central to responsible AGI development.?

Together, these theorists frame AGI as both a continuation of a long scientific project to build thinking machines and as a discontinuity in human history whose effects will compound faster than our default intuitions allow. In that context, Fry’s quote reads less as a rhetorical flourish and more as a condensed thesis: exponential dynamics in intelligence technologies are colliding with human cognitive biases and institutional inertia, and the moment to treat AGI as a practical, near?term design problem rather than a speculative future is now.?

References

https://eeg.cl.cam.ac.uk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Legg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMUdrUP-QCs
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-general-intelligence
https://kingy.ai/blog/exploring-the-concept-of-artificial-general-intelligence-agi/
https://jetpress.org/v25.2/goertzel.pdf
https://www.dce.va/content/dam/dce/resources/en/digital-cultures/Encountering-AI—Ethical-and-Anthropological-Investigations.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.08476.pdf
https://hermathsstory.eu/author/admin/page/7/
https://www.shunryugarvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/YISR_I_46_1-2_TEXT_P-1.pdf
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37368915/Nina%20Begus%20Dissertation%20DAC.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lifeboatfoundation/posts/10162407288283455/
https://globaldashboard.org/economics-and-development/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2024/03/29/artificial-general-intelligence-or-agi-a-very-short-history/
https://ebe.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/content_migration/ebe_uct_ac_za/169/files/WEB%2520UCT%2520CHEM%2520D023%2520Centenary%2520Design.pdf

Quote: Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

“There’s one skill that is already emerging… it’s time to get everyone to learn to code…. not just the software engineers, but the marketers, HR professionals, financial analysts, and so on – the ones that know how to code are much more productive than the ones that don’t, and that gap is growing.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

In a forward-looking discussion at the World Economic Forum’s 2026 session on ‘Corporate Ladders, AI Reshuffled’, Andrew Ng passionately advocates for coding as the pivotal skill defining productivity in the AI era. Delivered in January 2026, this insight underscores how AI tools are democratising coding, enabling professionals beyond software engineering to harness technology for greater efficiency¹. Ng’s message aligns with his longstanding mission to make advanced technology accessible through education and practical application.

Who is Andrew Ng?

Andrew Ng stands as one of the foremost figures in artificial intelligence, renowned for bridging academia, industry, and education. A British-born computer scientist, he earned his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and has held prestigious roles including adjunct professor at Stanford University. Ng co-founded Coursera in 2012, revolutionising online learning by offering courses to millions worldwide, including his seminal ‘Machine Learning’ course that has educated over 4 million learners. He led Google Brain, Google’s deep learning research project, from 2011 to 2014, pioneering applications that advanced AI capabilities across industries. Currently, as founder of Landing AI and DeepLearning.AI, Ng focuses on enterprise AI solutions and accessible education platforms. His influence extends to executive positions at Baidu and as a venture capitalist investing in AI startups^1,2.

Context of the Quote

The quote emerges from Ng’s reflections on AI’s transformative impact on workflows, particularly at the WEF 2026 event addressing how AI reshuffles corporate structures. Here, Ng highlights ‘vibe coding’-AI-assisted coding that lowers barriers, allowing non-engineers like marketers, HR professionals, and financial analysts to prototype ideas rapidly without traditional hand-coding. He argues this boosts productivity and creativity, warning that the divide between coders and non-coders will widen. Recent talks, such as at Snowflake’s Build conference, reinforce this: ‘The bar to coding is now lower than it ever has been. People that code… will really get more done’¹. Ng critiques academia for lagging behind, noting unemployment among computer science graduates due to outdated curricula ignoring AI tools, and stresses industry demand for AI-savvy talent^1,2.

Leading Theorists and the Broader Field

Ng’s advocacy builds on foundational AI theories while addressing practical upskilling. Pioneers like Geoffrey Hinton, often called the ‘Godfather of Deep Learning’, laid groundwork through backpropagation and neural networks, influencing Ng’s Google Brain work. Hinton, Ng’s former advisor at Stanford, warns of AI’s job displacement risks but endorses human-AI collaboration. Yann LeCun, Meta’s Chief AI Scientist, complements this with convolutional neural networks essential for computer vision, emphasising open-source AI for broad adoption. Fei-Fei Li, ‘Godmother of AI’, advanced image recognition and co-directs Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute, aligning with Ng’s educational focus.

In skills discourse, World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 projects technological skills, led by AI and big data, as fastest-growing in importance through 2030, alongside lifelong learning³. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella echoes: ‘AI won’t replace developers, but developers who use AI will replace those who don’t’³. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Klarna’s Sebastian Siemiatkowski advocate AI agents and tools like Cursor, predicting hybrid human-AI teams¹. Ng’s tips-take AI courses, build systems hands-on, read papers-address a talent crunch where 51% of tech leaders struggle to find AI skills².

Implications for Careers and Workflows

AI-Assisted Coding: Tools like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Replit enable ‘agentic development’, delegating routine tasks to AI while humans focus on creativity^1,3.
Universal Upskilling: Ng urges structured learning via platforms like Coursera, followed by practice, as theory alone insufficient-like studying aeroplanes without flying².
Industry Shifts: Companies like Visa and DoorDash now require AI code generator experience; polyglot programming (Python, Rust) and prompt engineering rise^1,3.
Warnings: Despite optimism, experts like Stuart Russell caution AI could disrupt 80% of jobs, underscoring adaptive skills².

Ng’s vision positions coding not as a technical niche but a universal lever for productivity in an AI-driven world, urging immediate action to close the growing gap.

References

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/google-brain-founder-andrew-ng-on-why-it-is-still-important-to-learn-coding/articleshow/125247598.cms

2. https://www.finalroundai.com/blog/andrew-ng-ai-tips-2026

3. https://content.techgig.com/career-advice/top-10-developer-skills-to-learn-in-2026/articleshow/125129604.cms

4. https://www.coursera.org/in/articles/ai-skills

5. https://www.idnfinancials.com/news/58779/ai-expert-andrew-ng-programmers-are-still-needed-in-a-different-way

Term: Counterfactual

“A counterfactual is a hypothetical scenario or statement that considers what would have happened if a specific event or condition had been different from what actually occurred. In simple terms, it is a ‘what if’ or ‘if only’ thought process that contradicts the established facts.” – Counterfactual

A counterfactual is a hypothetical scenario or statement that imagines what would have happened if a specific event, condition, or action had differed from what actually occurred. It represents a ‘what if’ or ‘if only’ thought process that directly contradicts established facts, enabling exploration of alternative possibilities for past or future events.

Counterfactual thinking involves mentally simulating outcomes contrary to reality, such as ‘If I had not taken that sip of hot coffee, I would not have burned my tongue.’ This cognitive process is common in reflection on mistakes, regrets, or opportunities, like pondering ‘If only I had caught that flight, my career might have advanced differently.’^1,2,3

Key Characteristics and Types

Additive vs. Subtractive: Additive counterfactuals imagine adding an action (e.g., ‘If I had swerved, the accident would have been avoided’), while subtractive ones remove one (e.g., ‘If the child had not cried, I would have focused on the road’).³
Upward vs. Downward: Upward focuses on better alternatives, often leading to regret; downward considers worse ones, fostering relief.³
Mutable vs. Immutable: People tend to mutate exceptional or controllable events in their imaginings.¹

Applications Across Disciplines

In causal inference, counterfactuals estimate effects by comparing observed outcomes to hypothetical ones, such as ‘What would the yield be if a different treatment was applied to this plot?’ They underpin concepts like potential outcomes in statistics.^4,7

In philosophy and logic, counterfactuals are analysed as conditionals where the antecedent is false, symbolised as A ?? C (if A were the case, C would be), contrasting with material implications.⁶

In machine learning, counterfactual explanations clarify model decisions, e.g., ‘If feature X changed to value x, the prediction would shift.’²

Everyday examples include regretting a missed job (‘If I had not been late, I would have that promotion’) or entrepreneurial reflection (‘If we chose a different partner, the startup might have succeeded’).³

Leading Theorist: Judea Pearl

The most influential modern theorist linking counterfactuals to strategy is Judea Pearl, a pioneering computer scientist and philosopher whose causal inference framework revolutionised how counterfactuals inform decision-making, policy analysis, and strategic planning.

Biography: Born in 1936 in Tel Aviv, Pearl emigrated to the US in 1960 after studying electrical engineering in Israel. He earned a PhD from Rutgers University in 1965 and joined UCLA, where he is now a professor emeritus. Initially focused on AI and probabilistic reasoning, Pearl developed Bayesian networks in the 1980s, earning the Turing Award in 2011 for advancing AI through probability and causality.

Relationship to Counterfactuals: Pearl’s seminal work, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems (1988) and Causality (2000), formalised counterfactuals using structural causal models (SCMs). He defined the counterfactual query ‘Y would be y had X been x’ via do-interventions and potential outcomes, e.g., Y_x(u) = y denotes the value Y takes under intervention do(X=x) in unit u’s background context.⁴ This ‘ladder of causation’-from association to intervention to counterfactuals-enables strategic ‘what if’ analysis, such as evaluating policy impacts or business decisions by computing missing data: ‘Given observed E=e, what is expected Y if X differed?’⁴

Pearl’s framework aids strategists in risk assessment, A/B testing, and scenario planning, distinguishing correlation from causation. His do-calculus provides computable algorithms for counterfactuals, making them practical tools beyond mere speculation.^4,7

References

1. https://conceptually.org/concepts/counterfactual-thinking

2. https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/counterfactual.html

3. https://helpfulprofessor.com/counterfactual-thinking-examples/

4. https://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/PRIMER/primer-ch4.pdf

5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterfactual

6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/counterfactuals/

7. https://causalwizard.app/inference/article/counterfactual

Quote: Wingate, et al – MIT SMR

“It is tempting for a company to believe that it will somehow benefit from AI while others will not, but history teaches a different lesson: Every serious technical advance ultimately becomes equally accessible to every company.” – Wingate, et al – MIT SMR

The Quote in Context

David Wingate, Barclay L. Burns, and Jay B. Barney’s assertion that companies cannot sustain competitive advantage through AI alone represents a fundamental challenge to prevailing business orthodoxy. Their observation-that every serious technical advance ultimately becomes equally accessible-draws from decades of technology adoption patterns and competitive strategy theory. This insight, published in the MIT Sloan Management Review in 2025, cuts through the hype surrounding artificial intelligence to expose a harder truth: technological parity, not technological superiority, is the inevitable destination.

The Authors and Their Framework

David Wingate, Barclay L. Burns, and Jay B. Barney

The three researchers who authored this influential piece bring complementary expertise to the question of sustainable competitive advantage. Their collaboration represents a convergence of strategic management theory and practical business analysis. By applying classical frameworks of competitive advantage to the contemporary AI landscape, they demonstrate that the fundamental principles governing technology adoption have not changed, even as the technology itself has become more sophisticated and transformative.

Their central thesis rests on a deceptively simple observation: artificial intelligence, like the internet, semiconductors, and electricity before it, possesses a critical characteristic that distinguishes it from sources of lasting competitive advantage. Because AI is fundamentally digital, it is inherently copyable, scalable, repeatable, predictable, and uniform. This digital nature means that any advantage derived from AI adoption will inevitably diffuse across the competitive landscape.

The Three Tests of Sustainable Advantage

Wingate, Burns, and Barney employ a rigorous analytical framework derived from resource-based theory in strategic management. They argue that for any technology to confer sustainable competitive advantage, it must satisfy three criteria simultaneously:

Valuable: The technology must create genuine economic value for the organisation
Unique: The technology must be unavailable to competitors
Inimitable: Competitors must be unable to replicate the advantage

Whilst AI unquestionably satisfies the first criterion-it is undeniably valuable-it fails the latter two. No organisation possesses exclusive access to AI technology, and the barriers to imitation are eroding rapidly. This analytical clarity explains why even early adopters cannot expect their advantages to persist indefinitely.

Historical Precedent and Technology Commoditisation

The Pattern of Technical Diffusion

The authors’ invocation of historical precedent is not merely rhetorical flourish; it reflects a well-documented pattern in technology adoption. When electricity became widely available, early industrial adopters gained temporary advantages in productivity and efficiency. Yet within a generation, electrical power became a commodity-a baseline requirement rather than a source of differentiation. The same pattern emerged with semiconductors, computing power, and internet connectivity. Each represented a genuine transformation of economic capability, yet each eventually became universally accessible.

This historical lens reveals a crucial distinction between transformative technologies and sources of competitive advantage. A technology can fundamentally reshape an industry whilst simultaneously failing to provide lasting differentiation for any single competitor. The value created by the technology accrues to the market as a whole, lifting all participants, rather than concentrating advantage in the hands of early movers.

The Homogenisation Effect

Wingate, Burns, and Barney emphasise that AI will function as a source of homogenisation rather than differentiation. As AI capabilities become standardised and widely distributed, companies using identical or near-identical AI platforms will produce increasingly similar products and services. Consider their example of multiple startups developing AI-powered digital mental health therapists: all building on comparable AI platforms, all producing therapeutically similar systems, all competing on factors beyond the underlying technology itself.

This homogenisation effect has profound strategic implications. It means that competitive advantage cannot reside in the technology itself but must instead emerge from what the authors term residual heterogeneity-the ability to create something unique that extends beyond what is universally accessible.

Challenging the Myths of Sustainable AI Advantage

Capital and Hardware Access

One common belief holds that companies with superior access to capital and computing infrastructure can sustain AI advantages. Wingate, Burns, and Barney systematically dismantle this assumption. Whilst it is true that organisations with the largest GPU farms can train the most capable models, scaling laws ensure diminishing returns. Recent models like GPT-4 and Gemini represent only marginal improvements over their predecessors despite requiring massive investments in data centres and engineering talent. The cost-benefit curve flattens dramatically at the frontier of capability.

Moreover, the hardware necessary for state-of-the-art AI training is becoming increasingly commoditised. Smaller models with 7 billion parameters now match the performance of yesterday’s 70-billion-parameter systems. This dual pressure-from above (ever-larger models with diminishing returns) and below (increasingly capable smaller models)-ensures that hardware access cannot sustain competitive advantage for long.

Proprietary Data and Algorithmic Innovation

Perhaps the most compelling argument for sustainable AI advantage has centred on proprietary data. Yet even this fortress is crumbling. The authors note that almost all AI models derive their training data from the same open or licensed datasets, producing remarkably similar performance profiles. Synthetic data generation is advancing rapidly, reducing the competitive moat that proprietary datasets once provided. Furthermore, AI models are becoming increasingly generalised-capable of broad competence across diverse tasks and easily adapted to proprietary applications with minimal additional training data.

The implication is stark: merely possessing large quantities of proprietary data will not provide lasting protection. As AI research advances toward greater statistical efficiency, the amount of proprietary data required to adapt general models to specific tasks will continue to diminish.

The Theoretical Foundations: Strategic Management Theory

Resource-Based View and Competitive Advantage

The analytical framework employed by Wingate, Burns, and Barney draws from the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, a dominant paradigm in strategic management theory. Developed primarily by scholars including Jay Barney himself (one of the article’s authors), the RBV posits that sustainable competitive advantage derives from resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and non-substitutable.

This theoretical tradition has proven remarkably durable precisely because it captures something fundamental about competition: advantages that can be easily replicated cannot persist. The RBV framework has successfully explained why some companies maintain competitive advantages whilst others do not, across industries and time periods. By applying this established theoretical lens to AI, Wingate, Burns, and Barney demonstrate that AI does not represent an exception to these fundamental principles-it exemplifies them.

The Distinction Between Transformative and Differentiating Technologies

A critical insight emerging from their analysis is the distinction between technologies that transform industries and technologies that confer competitive advantage. These are not synonymous. Electricity transformed manufacturing; the internet transformed commerce; semiconductors transformed computing. Yet none of these technologies provided lasting competitive advantage to any single organisation once they became widely adopted. The value they created was real and substantial, but it accrued to the market collectively rather than to individual competitors exclusively.

AI follows this established pattern. Its transformative potential is genuine and profound. It will reshape business processes, redefine skill requirements, unlock new analytical possibilities, and increase productivity across sectors. Yet these benefits will be available to all competitors, not reserved for the few. The strategic challenge for organisations is therefore not to seek advantage in the technology itself but to identify where advantage can still be found in an AI-saturated competitive landscape.

The Concept of Residual Heterogeneity

Beyond Technology: The Human Element

Wingate, Burns, and Barney introduce the concept of residual heterogeneity as the key to understanding where sustainable advantage lies in an AI-dominated future. Residual heterogeneity refers to the ability of a company to create something unique that extends beyond what is accessible to everyone else. It encompasses the distinctly human elements of business: creativity, insight, passion, and strategic vision.

This concept represents a return to first principles in competitive strategy. Before the AI era, before the digital revolution, before the internet, competitive advantage derived from human ingenuity, organisational culture, brand identity, customer relationships, and strategic positioning. The authors argue that these sources of advantage have not been displaced by technology; rather, they have become more important as technology itself becomes commoditised.

Practical Implications for Strategy

The strategic implication is clear: companies should not invest in AI with the expectation that the technology itself will provide lasting differentiation. Instead, they should view AI as a capability enabler-a tool that allows them to execute their distinctive strategy more effectively. The sustainable advantage lies not in having AI but in what the organisation does with AI that others cannot or will not replicate.

This might involve superior customer insight that informs how AI is deployed, distinctive brand positioning that AI helps reinforce, unique organisational culture that attracts talent capable of innovative AI applications, or strategic vision that identifies opportunities others overlook. In each case, the advantage derives from human creativity and strategic acumen, with AI serving as an accelerant rather than the source of differentiation.

Temporary Advantage and Strategic Timing

The Value of Being First

Whilst Wingate, Burns, and Barney emphasise that sustainable advantage cannot derive from AI, they implicitly acknowledge that temporary advantage has real strategic value. Early adopters can gain speed-to-market advantages, compress product development cycles, and accumulate learning curve advantages before competitors catch up. In fast-moving markets, a year or two of advantage can be decisive-sufficient to capture market share, build brand equity, establish customer switching costs, and create momentum that persists even after competitive parity is achieved.

The authors employ a surfing metaphor that captures this dynamic perfectly: every competitor can rent the same surfboard, but only a few will catch the first big wave. That wave may not last forever, but riding it well can carry a company far ahead. The temporary advantage is real; it is simply not sustainable in the long term.

Implications for Business Strategy and Innovation

Reorienting Strategic Thinking

The Wingate, Burns, and Barney framework calls for a fundamental reorientation of how organisations think about AI strategy. Rather than viewing AI as a source of competitive advantage, organisations should view it as a necessary capability-a baseline requirement for competitive participation. The strategic question is not “How can we use AI to gain advantage?” but rather “How can we use AI to execute our distinctive strategy more effectively than competitors?”

This reorientation has profound implications for resource allocation, talent acquisition, and strategic positioning. It suggests that organisations should invest in AI capabilities whilst simultaneously investing in the human creativity, strategic insight, and organisational culture that will ultimately determine competitive success. The technology is necessary but not sufficient.

The Enduring Importance of Human Creativity

Perhaps the most important implication of the authors’ analysis is the reassertion of human creativity as the ultimate source of competitive advantage. In an era of technological hype, it is easy to assume that machines will increasingly determine competitive outcomes. The Wingate, Burns, and Barney analysis suggests otherwise: as technology becomes commoditised, the distinctly human capacities for creativity, insight, and strategic vision become more valuable, not less.

This conclusion aligns with broader trends in strategic management theory, which have increasingly emphasised the importance of organisational culture, human capital, and strategic leadership. Technology amplifies these human capabilities; it does not replace them. The organisations that will thrive in an AI-saturated competitive landscape will be those that combine technological sophistication with distinctive human insight and creativity.

Conclusion: A Sobering Realism

Wingate, Burns, and Barney’s assertion that every serious technical advance ultimately becomes equally accessible represents a sobering but realistic assessment of competitive dynamics in the AI era. It challenges the prevailing narrative that early AI adoption will confer lasting competitive advantage. Instead, it suggests that organisations should approach AI with clear-eyed realism: as a transformative technology that will reshape industries and lift competitive baselines, but not as a source of sustainable differentiation.

The strategic imperative is therefore to invest in AI capabilities whilst simultaneously cultivating the human creativity, organisational culture, and strategic insight that will ultimately determine competitive success. The technology is essential; the human element is decisive. In this sense, the AI revolution represents not a departure from established principles of competitive advantage but a reaffirmation of them: lasting advantage derives from what is distinctive, difficult to imitate, and rooted in human creativity-not from technology that is inherently copyable and universally accessible.

References

1. https://www.sensenet.com/en/blog/posts/why-ai-can-provide-competitive-advantage

2. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-ai-will-not-provide-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

3. https://grtshw.substack.com/p/beyond-ai-human-insight-as-the-advantage

4. https://informedi.org/2025/05/16/why-ai-will-not-provide-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

5. https://shop.sloanreview.mit.edu/why-ai-will-not-provide-sustainable-competitive-advantage

Quote: Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

“Someone that knows how to use AI will replace someone that doesn’t, even if AI itself won’t replace a person. So getting through the hype to give people the skills they need is critical.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

The distinction Andrew Ng draws between AI replacing jobs and AI-capable workers replacing their peers represents a fundamental reorientation in how we should understand technological disruption. Rather than framing artificial intelligence as an existential threat to employment, Ng’s observation-articulated at the World Economic Forum in January 2026-points to a more granular reality: the competitive advantage lies not in the technology itself, but in human mastery of it.

The Context of the Statement

Ng made these remarks during a period of intense speculation about AI’s labour market impact. Throughout 2025 and into early 2026, technology companies announced significant workforce reductions, and public discourse oscillated between utopian and apocalyptic narratives about automation. Yet Ng’s position, grounded in his extensive experience building AI systems and training professionals, cuts through this polarisation with empirical observation.

Speaking at Davos on 19 January 2026, Ng emphasised that “for many jobs, AI can only do 30-40 per cent of the work now and for the foreseeable future.” This technical reality underpins his broader argument: the challenge is not mass technological unemployment, but rather a widening productivity gap between those who develop AI competency and those who do not. The implication is stark-in a world where AI augments rather than replaces human labour, the person wielding these tools becomes exponentially more valuable than the person without them.

Understanding the Talent Shortage

The urgency behind Ng’s call for skills development is rooted in concrete market dynamics. According to research cited by Ng, demand for AI skills has grown approximately 21 per cent annually since 2019. More dramatically, AI jumped from the 6th most scarce technology skill globally to the 1st in just 18 months. Fifty-one per cent of technology leaders report struggling to find candidates with adequate AI capabilities.

This shortage exists not because AI expertise is inherently rare, but because structured pathways to acquiring it remain underdeveloped. Ng has observed developers reinventing foundational techniques-such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) document chunking or agentic AI evaluation methods-that already exist in the literature. These individuals expend weeks on problems that could be solved in days with proper foundational knowledge. The inefficiency is not a failure of intelligence but of education.

The Architecture of Ng’s Approach

Ng’s prescription comprises three interconnected elements: structured learning, practical application, and engagement with research literature. Each addresses a specific gap in how professionals currently approach AI development.

Structured learning provides the conceptual scaffolding necessary to avoid reinventing existing solutions. Ng argues that taking relevant courses-whether through Coursera, his own DeepLearning.AI platform, or other institutions-establishes a foundation in proven approaches and common pitfalls. This is not about shortcuts; rather, it is about building mental models that allow practitioners to make informed decisions about when to adopt existing solutions and when innovation is genuinely warranted.

Hands-on practice translates theory into capability. Ng uses the analogy of aviation: studying aerodynamics for years does not make one a pilot. Similarly, understanding AI principles requires experimentation with actual systems. Modern AI tools and frameworks lower the barrier to entry, allowing practitioners to build projects without starting from scratch. The combination of coursework and building creates a feedback loop where gaps in understanding become apparent through practical challenges.

Engagement with research provides early signals about emerging standards and techniques. Reading academic papers is demanding and less immediately gratifying than building applications, yet it offers a competitive advantage by exposing practitioners to innovations before they become mainstream.

The Broader Theoretical Context

Ng’s perspective aligns with and extends classical economic theories of technological adoption and labour market dynamics. The concept of “skill-biased technological change”-the idea that new technologies increase the relative demand for skilled workers-has been central to labour economics since the 1990s. Economists including David Autor and Frank Levy have documented how computerisation did not eliminate jobs wholesale but rather restructured labour markets, creating premium opportunities for those who could work effectively with new tools whilst displacing those who could not.

What distinguishes Ng’s analysis is its specificity to AI and its emphasis on the speed of adaptation required. Previous technological transitions-from mechanisation to computerisation-unfolded over decades, allowing gradual workforce adjustment. AI adoption is compressing this timeline significantly. The productivity gap Ng identifies is not merely a temporary friction but a structural feature of labour markets in the near term, creating urgent incentives for rapid upskilling.

Ng’s work also reflects insights from organisational learning theory, particularly the distinction between individual capability and organisational capacity. Companies can acquire AI tools readily; what remains scarce is the human expertise to deploy them effectively. This scarcity is not permanent-it reflects a lag between technological availability and educational infrastructure-but it creates a window of opportunity for those who invest in capability development now.

The Nuance on Job Displacement

Importantly, Ng does not claim that AI poses no labour market risks. He acknowledges that certain roles-contact centre positions, translation work, voice acting-face sharper disruption because AI can perform a higher percentage of the requisite tasks. However, he contextualises these as minority cases rather than harbingers of economy-wide displacement.

His framing rejects both technological determinism and complacency. AI will not automatically eliminate most jobs, but neither will workers remain unaffected if they fail to adapt. The outcome depends on human agency: specifically, on whether individuals and institutions invest in building the skills necessary to work alongside AI systems.

Implications for Professional Development

The practical consequence of Ng’s analysis is straightforward: professional development in AI is no longer optional for knowledge workers. The competitive dynamic he describes-where AI-capable workers become more productive and thus more valuable-creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Early adopters of AI skills gain productivity advantages, which translate into career advancement and higher compensation, which in turn incentivises further investment in capability development.

This dynamic also has implications for organisational strategy. Companies that invest in systematic training programmes for their workforce-ensuring broad-based AI literacy rather than concentrating expertise in specialist teams-position themselves to capture productivity gains more rapidly and broadly than competitors relying on external hiring alone.

The Hype-Reality Gap

Ng’s emphasis on “getting through the hype” addresses a specific problem in contemporary AI discourse. Public narratives about AI tend toward extremes: either utopian visions of abundance or dystopian scenarios of mass unemployment. Both narratives, in Ng’s view, obscure the practical reality that AI is a tool requiring human expertise to deploy effectively.

The hype creates two problems. First, it generates unrealistic expectations about what AI can accomplish autonomously, leading organisations to underinvest in the human expertise necessary to realise AI’s potential. Second, it creates anxiety that discourages people from engaging with AI development, paradoxically worsening the talent shortage Ng identifies.

By reframing the challenge as fundamentally one of skills and adaptation rather than technological inevitability, Ng provides both a more accurate assessment and a more actionable roadmap. The future is not predetermined by AI’s capabilities; it will be shaped by how quickly and effectively humans develop the competencies to work with these systems.

References

1. https://www.finalroundai.com/blog/andrew-ng-ai-tips-2026

2. https://www.moneycontrol.com/artificial-intelligence/davos-2026-andrew-ng-says-ai-driven-job-losses-have-been-overstated-article-13779267.html

3. https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-makers/davos-2026-andrew-ng-says-fears-of-ai-driven-job-losses-are-exaggerated-87874.htm

4. https://m.umu.com/ask/a11122301573853762262

Term: Jevons paradox

“Jevons paradox is an economic theory that states that as technological efficiency in using a resource increases, the total consumption of that resource also increases, rather than decreasing. Efficiency gains make the resource cheaper and more accessible, which in turn stimulates higher demand and new uses.” – Jevons paradox

Definition

The Jevons paradox is an economic theory stating that as technological efficiency in using a resource increases, the total consumption of that resource also increases rather than decreasing. Efficiency gains make the resource cheaper and more accessible, which stimulates higher demand and enables new uses, ultimately offsetting the conservation benefits of the initial efficiency improvement.

Core Mechanism: The Rebound Effect

The paradox operates through what economists call the rebound effect. When efficiency improvements reduce the cost of using a resource, consumers and businesses find it more economically attractive to use that resource more intensively. This increased affordability creates a feedback loop: lower costs lead to expanded consumption, which can completely negate or exceed the original efficiency gains.

The rebound effect exists on a spectrum. A rebound effect between 0 and 100 percent-known as “take-back”-means actual consumption is reduced but not as much as expected. However, when the rebound effect exceeds 100 percent, the Jevons paradox applies: efficiency gains cause overall consumption to increase absolutely.

Historical Origins and William Stanley Jevons

The paradox is named after William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), an English economist and logician who first identified this phenomenon in 1865. Jevons observed that as steam engine efficiency improved throughout the Industrial Revolution, Britain’s total coal consumption increased rather than decreased. He recognised that more efficient steam engines made coal cheaper to use-both directly and indirectly, since more efficient engines could pump water from coal mines more economically-yet simultaneously made coal more valuable by enabling profitable new applications.

Jevons’ insight was revolutionary: efficiency improvements paradoxically expanded the scale of coal extraction and consumption. As coal became cheaper, incomes rose across the coal-fired industrial economy, and profits were continuously reinvested to expand production further. This dynamic became the engine of industrial capitalism’s growth.

Contemporary Examples

Energy and Lighting: Modern LED bulbs consume far less electricity than incandescent bulbs, yet overall lighting energy consumption has not decreased significantly. The reduced cost per light unit has prompted widespread installation of additional lights-in homes, outdoor spaces, and seasonal displays-extending usage hours and offsetting efficiency gains.

Transportation: Vehicles have become substantially more fuel-efficient, yet total fuel consumption continues to rise. When driving becomes cheaper, consumers afford to drive faster, further, or more frequently than before. A 5 percent fuel efficiency gain might reduce consumption by only 2 percent, with the missing 3 percent attributable to increased driving behaviour.

Systemic Scale: Research from 2007 suggested the Jevons paradox likely exists across 18 European countries and applies not merely to isolated sectors but to entire economies. As efficiency improvements reduce production costs across multiple industries, economic growth accelerates, driving increased extraction and consumption of natural resources overall.

Factors Influencing the Rebound Effect

The magnitude of the rebound effect varies significantly based on market maturity and income levels. In developed countries with already-high resource consumption, efficiency improvements produce weaker rebound effects because consumers and businesses have less capacity to increase usage further. Conversely, in developing economies or emerging markets, the same efficiency gains may trigger stronger rebound effects as newly affordable resources enable expanded consumption patterns.

Income also influences the effect: higher-income populations exhibit weaker rebound effects because they already consume resources at near-saturation levels, whereas lower-income populations may dramatically increase consumption when efficiency makes resources more affordable.

The Paradox Beyond Energy

The Jevons paradox extends beyond energy and resources. The principle applies wherever efficiency improvements reduce costs and expand accessibility. Disease control advances, for instance, have enabled humans and livestock to live at higher densities, eventually creating conditions for more severe outbreaks. Similarly, technological progress in production systems-including those powering the gig economy-achieves higher operational efficiency, making exploitation of natural inputs cheaper and more manageable, yet paradoxically increasing total resource demand.

Implications for Sustainability

The Jevons paradox presents a fundamental challenge to conventional sustainability strategies that rely primarily on technological efficiency improvements. Whilst efficiency gains lower costs and enhance output, they simultaneously increase demand and overall resource consumption, potentially increasing pollution and environmental degradation rather than reducing it.

Addressing the paradox requires systemic approaches beyond efficiency alone. These include transitioning towards circular economies, promoting sharing and collaborative consumption models, implementing legal limits on resource extraction, and purposefully constraining economic scale. Some theorists argue that setting deliberate limits on resource use-rather than pursuing ever-greater efficiency-may be necessary to achieve genuine sustainability. As one perspective suggests: “Efficiency makes growth. But limits make creativity.”

Contemporary Relevance

In the 21st century, as environmental pressures intensify and macroeconomic conditions suggest accelerating expansion rates, the Jevons paradox has become increasingly pronounced and consequential. The principle now applies to emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, where computational efficiency improvements may paradoxically increase overall energy demand and resource consumption as new applications become economically viable.

References

1. https://www.greenchoices.org/news/blog-posts/the-jevons-paradox-when-efficiency-leads-to-increased-consumption

2. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-17/jevons-paradox/

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

4. https://lpcentre.com/articles/jevons-paradox-rethinking-sustainability

5. https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/02/07/jevons-paradox-ai-future/

6. https://adgefficiency.com/blog/jevons-paradox/

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting

How Tokenisation Works

Benefits of Tokenisation

Key Theorist: Don Tapscott

Share this:

“The pleasant surprise is how much you can accomplish when you properly harness your agents, and how big companies are leaning in and able to actually get volume done on that basis.” – Nate B Jones – AI News & Strategy Daily

Context of the Quote

Backstory on Nate B Jones

Leading Theorists and the Subject of AI Agents

Broader Implications for Workflows

Share this:

“A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, unlike volatile assets like Bitcoin, by pegging its price to a stable reserve asset, usually a fiat currency (like the USD) or a commodity (like gold).” – Stablecoin

What is a Stablecoin?

Types of Stablecoins

Regulatory Landscape

Key Theorist: Robert Shiller and the Conceptual Foundations

Share this:

“In this business it’s easy to confuse luck with brains.” – Jim Simons – Renaissance Technologies founder

Jim Simons: A Mathematical Outsider Who Conquered Markets

Simons’ Extraordinary Backstory

Renaissance Technologies: The Quant Revolution

Context of the Quote

Leading Theorists in Quantitative Finance and Prediction

Share this:

“The crash wasn’t caused by manipulation or panic. It revealed something more troubling: Bitcoin had already become the very thing it promised to destroy.” – Luis Flavio Nunes – Investing.com

The Institutional Transformation

The Digital Asset Treasury Paradox

Market Structure and Liquidity Collapse

The Retail Psychology Amplifier

The Macro Backdrop and Data Vacuum

Theoretical Foundations: Understanding the Contradiction

The Centralisation of Bitcoin Ownership

What the Crashes Revealed

Share this:

“AI slop refers to low-quality, mass-produced digital content (text, images, video, audio, workflows, agents, outputs) generated by artificial intelligence, often with little effort or meaning, designed to pass as social media or pass off cognitive load in the workplace.” – AI slop

Key Characteristics

Origins and Evolution

Manifestations Across Contexts

Societal Impact

Mitigation Strategies

Related Theorist: Jonathan Gilmore

Share this:

“One can predict the course of a comet more easily than one can predict the course of Citigroup’s stock. The attractiveness, of course, is that you can make more money successfully predicting a stock than you can a comet.” – Jim Simons – Renaissance Technologies founder

Jim Simons: The Mathematician Who Decoded Markets

The Catalyst: Control, Ambition, and the Vietnam War

The Birth of Renaissance Technologies: 1978

The Medallion Fund: Unprecedented Success

The Theoretical Foundations: Quantitative Finance and Market Microstructure

The Philosophical Implications of Simons’ Quote

Legacy and Impact on Finance

Conclusion: The Outsider Who Built a New World

Share this:

“I find that we’ve done this “let a thousand flowers bloom” bottom-up [AI] innovation thing, and for the most part, it’s led to a lot of nice little things but nothing transformative for businesses.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder

Andrew Ng: The Architect of Modern AI Education and Research

Context of the Quote: Davos 2026 and the Shift from Experimentation to Enterprise Impact

Leading Theorists on AI Innovation Paradigms: From Bottom-Up Bloom to Structured Transformation

Implications for Businesses and the AI Ecosystem

Share this:

“There are people in this world who view everything as a zero sum game and they will elbow you out the first chance they can get. And so those shouldn’t be your peers.” – Bill Gurley – GP at Benchmark

Bill Gurley’s Backstory

Context of Zero-Sum Thinking in Careers and Investing

Leading Theorists on Zero-Sum vs Positive-Sum Games

Related Insights from Bill Gurley

Share this:

Andrew Ng: The Architect of Modern AI Education

Context of the Quote: AI’s Disruption of Corporate Ladders

Leading Theorists on AI, Skills, and Future Work

Implications for Careers and Skills

Share this:

“To read the room means to assess and understand the collective mood, attitudes, or dynamics of a group of people and adjust your behavior or communication accordingly.” – Read the room

Key Contexts and Applications

Best Related Strategy Theorist: Daniel Goleman

Share this:

“DeepSeek’s success reflects growing Chinese momentum across Africa, a trend that may continue to accelerate in 2026.” – Microsoft – January 2026

Backstory on the Source: Microsoft’s Perspective

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI Challenger

Broader Implications for Africa and the Global South

Leading Theorists on AI Geopolitics and Global Adoption

Share this:

“I think one of the challenges is, because AI technology is still evolving rapidly, the skills that are going to be needed in the future are not yet clear today. It depends on lifelong learning.” – Andrew Ng – AI guru, Coursera founder