Dr. Eric Jefferson stood at the edge of the grand auditorium in San Francisco, his palms slightly damp as he adjusted his tie. The Global Tech Summit buzzed with energy—economists, tech moguls, and policymakers from across the world filled the room, their voices a cacophony of optimism and caution. The topic dominating the agenda was artificial intelligence, a force that promised to reshape economies, societies, and lives. Eric, an economics professor from MIT, had been invited to share his perspective, but he felt the weight of skepticism pressing against his chest. The world was enamored with AI’s potential, but he saw a more complex truth—one that history had taught him to respect.
As he stepped onto the stage, the lights dimmed, and a hush fell over the crowd. Eric cleared his throat, his gaze sweeping over faces lit by the glow of laptops and tablets. “Good morning,” he began, his voice steady but deliberate. “Today, I want to talk about why our excitement for artificial intelligence—and other transformative technologies like Bitcoin—might be outpacing their real-world impact. Not because they lack potential, but because societies take time to adapt.”
He paused, letting the words settle. “Let’s start with AI. In the United States, we’re a nation of contrasts. We’re optimistic by nature—yet, if you look at the data, only 6% of Americans believe the future will be better. In China, that number is 41%. Why the difference? Americans are worried. They fear that AI, if widely adopted, could erode the middle class. Globalization already siphoned off jobs; now, AI threatens to widen the wealth gap further. People are asking: will machines take our livelihoods? Will inequality spiral out of control?”
Eric clicked to his first slide, a graph showing U.S. productivity trends. “Productivity is the backbone of prosperity, yet America’s productivity growth is stagnant. Since the 1970s, it’s hovered around 1.2% annually—dismal compared to post-World War II highs. Low productivity fuels inequality. Wages stagnate, the middle class grows restless, and social discontent festers. AI, we’re told, will change this. It’s a revolution waiting to happen. But is it?”
He leaned forward, his voice dropping. “Here’s the paradox: technological innovation hasn’t slowed. In the last decade, AI has birthed breakthroughs—machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, speech recognition, image recognition. Giants like Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft are pouring billions into AI, believing it’s on the cusp of a ‘final breakthrough.’ Since 2012, AI investment has grown tenfold. The optimism is palpable. So why hasn’t this translated into a productivity boom?”
Eric paced the stage, his thoughts drifting to a conversation he’d had the previous night with a young engineer from Silicon Valley. The engineer had gushed about AI’s potential to “solve everything,” from healthcare to transportation. Eric had smiled politely but thought of history’s lessons—promises that never quite materialized. “Let me take you back,” he said to the audience. “In the 1960s, scientists believed nuclear energy would solve humanity’s energy crisis. It was the ultimate solution—cheap, abundant power. Yet, half a century later, nuclear energy still can’t compete economically with oil or gas. Controlled nuclear fusion? Always ‘twenty years away,’ even after sixty years. Space exploration? We landed on the moon in 1969 and thought Mars was next by the 1980s. Forty years later, we haven’t returned to the moon.”
He chuckled softly, shaking his head. “And don’t get me started on flying cars. In the 1950s, we imagined cars sprouting wings, soaring above cities. Yet those blueprints never left the ground. Biofuels in the 1990s? Hyped as the answer to oil dependency, but the companies behind them vanished. Even AI itself isn’t new—its concept emerged in 1967, with promises of surpassing human intelligence. We’re still waiting.”
Eric’s tone grew serious. “This is my first point: technologists often overestimate the immediate impact of their inventions. They believe technology can solve every societal ill, but history shows otherwise. When I was a child, magazines like *Scientific American* painted visions of cities filled with flying spaceships by the year 2000. Two hundred years later, we’re still grounded. Why? Because technical optimism is a bias. It’s fueled by technologists’ faith, amplified by capital markets hungry for the next big thing and media chasing clicks. Every year, we’re promised a ‘revolution.’ But revolutions are rarely recognized in their infancy—they’re only clear in hindsight, decades later. What’s sold as a revolution often ends as a bubble.”
He moved to his second point, projecting a new slide. “My second argument is about measurement. Our economic metrics may be understating technology’s impact. Productivity statistics are often outdated, lagging behind reality. This isn’t new—economists have long debated whether our tools capture the full value of innovation.”
Eric’s mind flashed to a dinner he’d attended with colleagues, where a heated debate had erupted over whether AI’s benefits were concentrated among a few industries. “Which brings me to my third point,” he continued. “Technological breakthroughs often benefit a select few—specific sectors, specific people. AI is no exception. It’s transformative, but its gains are unevenly distributed.”
He paused, then smiled. “But my fourth point is the one I find most compelling. Major technological breakthroughs—like AI—require society to reorganize itself. And that takes time. AI isn’t just a tool; it’s a general-purpose technology, like the steam engine, electricity, computers, or the internet. These technologies share three traits: they spread across industries, they improve continuously, and they spark chain innovations—new industries, new business models, new ways of living.”
Eric’s voice grew animated as he recounted history. “Take the steam engine. It started in coal mines, draining water. Then it powered trains and ships, revolutionizing transport. Electricity? Discovered in the early 19th century, it wasn’t until the 1890s that electric motors entered U.S. industry. By 1919—thirty years later—over half of American factories used electricity. But in those early decades, productivity barely budged, growing just 1.2% annually. Why? Because factories were still designed for steam. Power was centralized, with one massive steam engine driving gears and belts. When electric motors arrived, they were initially just a cheaper substitute—no fundamental change.”
He leaned into the podium. “Then came standalone motors. Suddenly, factories could place smaller motors on each machine, freeing up layouts. This led to the assembly line—Ford’s great revolution. Production costs plummeted, efficiency soared. People moved to suburbs, drove cars, and American life transformed. But it took thirty years for electricity to reshape society.”
Eric shifted to a more recent example. “Now, let’s look at the IT revolution. It began in 1971 with Intel’s first commercial CPU, the 4004. A marvel, but primitive compared to today’s smartphones. Yet, from 1971 to the mid-1990s, U.S. productivity growth was abysmal—1.3% in the 1970s, 1.7% in the 1980s. It wasn’t until 1995, with Netscape Navigator and graphical browsers, that the internet sparked a true transformation. E-commerce, mobile apps, new business models—all emerged after a 25-year gestation. Only then did productivity surge.”
He paused, letting the audience absorb the pattern. “Whether it’s electricity or IT, it takes 25 to 30 years for society to adapt. Companies must reorganize, workers must retrain, and entire systems must shift. I saw this myself in 1994, as a graduate student discovering email. It was primitive—no graphical browsers, just text commands. I emailed a high school friend in Ohio, marveling at the speed. But why use email over a phone or fax? Cost. Long-distance calls were expensive. Email was a tool for efficiency, not transformation—until the internet matured.”
Eric’s thoughts turned to the present. “AI is no different. It’s spreading across industries—finance, healthcare, beyond IT. Its algorithms improve daily, and it’s sparking chain innovations. But society needs time to adapt. Look at factories in places like Dongguan, China, where automation is replacing workers. Only 10% of frontline workers can learn to program robots. The rest? They return to villages or take jobs as delivery drivers. Older workers resist change—they’re comfortable with old methods. Younger generations, born with technology, lead the way.”
He gestured to the audience. “Think about your social circles. In tech, most innovators are in their 20s and 30s. Older employees struggle to keep up, burdened by responsibilities. The future of AI will likely be driven by those born after 2000—digital natives with AI in their DNA. Companies like Google or Microsoft know this. They’re investing heavily, but even they face challenges. Google acquired nine robotics firms, hoping to dominate AI. Yet integration has faltered—talent leaves, startups emerge. The lesson? No matter how rich a company is, it can’t monopolize innovation. Young, knowledge-driven firms will always challenge the old guard.”
Eric’s lecture shifted to another disruptive force: Bitcoin. “Let’s pivot to another technology reshaping our world,” he said, clicking to a slide of a digital coin. “Bitcoin is a fascinating case. Its market is small—hundreds of billions—but it’s a battleground. Right now, it’s a guerrilla war, with pricing power in the hands of Bitcoin’s ‘miners’ and early adopters. But as its market grows to trillions, Wall Street will step in, turning it into a plains war—a structured battlefield of futures, ETFs, and derivatives.”
He recounted Wall Street’s strategy: legitimize Bitcoin through regulated exchanges like Chicago’s, then introduce ETFs to draw retail investors. “Once the market scales, derivatives will dwarf physical Bitcoin trading. Pricing power will shift to those who don’t even own Bitcoin—speculators betting against it. Just like gold, once the king of money, Bitcoin risks being tamed by Wall Street. They can’t destroy it, so they’ll co-opt it, inviting it from the mountains to the plains where they hold the advantage.”
Eric’s mind wandered to a late-night conversation with a colleague about Bitcoin’s value. “Is Bitcoin a currency, an asset, or a digital service?” he asked the audience. “It has currency traits: a medium of exchange, accepted by some e-commerce platforms and even Japanese firms for salaries; a unit of account, with countries like Germany considering its use for debts and taxes; and a store of value, thanks to its 21-million-coin cap. But a good currency must be stable. Bitcoin’s volatility—surging 18-fold or crashing 50%—makes it unreliable for trade. Stores hesitate to accept it, fearing losses.”
He continued, “As an asset, Bitcoin lacks cash flow, like a Van Gogh painting or gold jewelry. But those have intrinsic value—labor, creativity, mining costs. Bitcoin’s value lies in its blockchain, a ledger secured by immense computational power and electricity. Critics call this wasteful, but value always has a cost. Gold requires mining; fiat currency demands governmental discipline. Bitcoin’s cost is its security—a digital arms race that deters hackers.”
Eric’s voice softened. “But Bitcoin’s future isn’t guaranteed. Quantum computing could crack its encryption. MIT researchers estimate that while quantum computers won’t easily break Bitcoin’s ledger, they could reverse-engineer private keys, undermining trust. Nations are racing to build quantum machines, driven by military and intelligence goals. Bitcoin must upgrade its encryption within a shrinking window—perhaps five years, not ten.”
He concluded with a warning. “Bitcoin also faces competitors. Its blockchain is open-source, inspiring rivals. Imagine a digital currency backed by physical gold, stored in a vault with IoT chips for transparency. Such innovations could outshine Bitcoin, blending digital convenience with tangible value. Will Bitcoin remain a pioneer or become a martyr? Only time will tell.”
As Eric stepped off the stage, applause rippled through the room. He felt a mix of relief and unease. AI and Bitcoin were reshaping the world, but their promise came with a catch: society’s ability to adapt. History had shown that transformation was slow, uneven, and often painful. As he left the auditorium, he wondered if the next generation—those born with AI and blockchain in their veins—would navigate the future with more courage than caution.
English
中文 