文 | 斯马克机器人版
2022年的一次闭门会
2026年10月，一段61秒的视频在海外社媒上流传。
夜里，一台银白色的人形机器人助跑起跳，翻上一辆轿车的车顶，膝撞击凹车门，肘击砸瘪引擎盖。
白天，它又插在一个持刀者和一名女子之间，不让行凶者靠近受害人。
评论区里有人这么写，大意是：
富人总是能比普通人更早玩上酷炫的高科技玩具。
"富人们想要的是能把人打出屎来的机器人"，他们想在仓库里囤满这玩意，以防哪天有人想去分他们的财产。
我想让 AI 替我洗衣服洗碗，好让我腾出时间搞艺术和写作，而不是让 AI 去搞艺术和写作，留我在这儿洗衣服洗碗。
这玩意最好留一个容易按到的关机开关。
这些话被当成普通骂街，传了一圈就翻过去了，可以说无人在意。
媒体理论家 Douglas Rushkoff 写过一本书，叫《Survival of the Richest》。
书里讲了这么一段经历。
他被邀请去一个高级度假村做一场关于"科技的未来"的演讲，报酬大约是他半年工资。
事前他认真地做了 PPT，以为哥们今天要上Tedtalk了。
到了现场才发现，房间里只有五个人——全是科技投资与对冲基金界的顶级人物，其中至少两位是亿万富翁。
PPT 一页没让他放，他们直接开始问。
开头还挺正常：
比特币还是以太坊？量子计算谁先搞出来？
然后主题慢慢滑向他们真正关心的事。
新西兰和阿拉斯加，哪个受气候变化影响小？
然后据 Rushkoff 叙述，一位券商公司的 CEO 说自己快要建完自家的地下掩体系统了，问：
"How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?"
（"那件事"发生之后，我怎么维持对我的安保队伍的权威？）
"The Event" —— 就是他们对环境崩溃、社会动荡、核爆、太阳风暴、无法阻止的病毒，或者一场能把一切都搞垮的黑客攻击的统称。
关于这一个问题的研讨，占了剩下整整一个小时。
Rushkoff 写道：他们知道需要武装守卫来防住劫掠者和愤怒的暴民。
其中一位已经安排好了"一打海豹突击队员"，只要他给出信号就会赶去他的庄园。
但难题也 在这儿 —— 一旦连他的加密货币都一文不值了，他拿什么付工资？
有什么能还阻止这些守卫最后自己选一个新老大出来？
他们讨论了三个方案：
- 给食物供应装上只有自己知道密码的组合锁，靠发口粮控制人
- 让守卫戴上某种"纪律项圈"，以换取活下去的资格
- 或者干脆造机器人来当守卫和工人 —— 如果技术能及时开发出来的话
Rushkoff 给的建议是，想让你的人将来对你忠诚，现在就把他们当朋友。
别只投资于弹药和电网，或者投资人和人脉关系。
他甚至说了"确保你的安保主管明天不割你喉咙的最好办法，是今天替他的日常开销买单。"
据他叙述，那些人都翻了个白眼。
不是技术跟不上需求，是技术从来不由需求决定。
"富人总是先玩上好东西"
新技术从上往下扩散的过程，从来如此。
汽车、电话、手机、无人机，无一例外。
第一批用上手机的，是买得起大哥大的人。
第一批坐上汽车的，是雇得起马车司机的人。
"先玩上"的真正好处不是先享受，是获得定义权。
所有品类的早期产品有三个固定特征：贵、粗糙、功能残缺。
能同时接受这三个特征的人只有一种——对价格不敏感、对缺陷有容忍度的人。
而这类人天然会做一件事：向厂商提需求。
需求回流到研发，研发照着需求改，改出来的东西更贴合第一批人的场景，于是吸引第二批同类人。
这个过程再跑几轮，产品的形态就锁死了，现在的阔折叠手机就是如此。
以前这个规律没什么杀伤力。
因为过去的新技术，第一批买家要的东西和大众最终要的东西，方向至少是一致的 —— 汽车富人要跑得快的，大众也要跑得快的。
手机富人要信号好的，最好卫星电话也给我配上，大众也是一样。
奢侈品和平替的差别只在性能和价格，不在方向。
所以"富人先玩上"只是赶了个时间差。
最后大家用的是同一个东西，只是晚了几年。
这一轮不一样
第一批买家要的是"能打"，是方向差别。
而这两个方向，甚至可以说在开发上是南辕北辙。
体能可以通过堆料实现 —— 加大电机、加强结构、加扭矩、提控制频率。工程上总有办法，钱砸进去就有回报，今天投明天说不定就能见。
技能做不到。
如果让第一批买单的绝对因素是"威慑力"，那么这个品类会自己成长为一个独立物种，然后占住赛道、叙事、和资本的注意力 —— 直到所有人都默认"人形机器人"就该是那个样子。
这个过程有没有正在发生？
有。
现在大部分机器人不都在学校的实验室里吊着吗？
"打人"与干活的区别
媒体朋友们通常的解释是：因为做家务太难，做不出来，所以只能先做体能强，会武术的。
这个答案只对了一半，要知道富人家里有洗碗机、保姆、司机、厨师。
他们根本不需要一个能洗碗的机器人。
而资本一定会先服务右上角——钱最多、最不挑。
人类历史上，富人从来不缺劳动力。
几千年来，把劳动外包出去，是人类最古老、最成熟的一项技术，比货币的出现还要古早。
所以当一个富人花几十万买一台机器人，买的绝不是"又一个人替我干活"。
那个东西他早就有了，而且比机器人便宜、好用、还更听话。
真正让他睡不着的是这些替他干活的人，是迟早会走的。
- 辞职
- 抱怨
- 偷东西
- 被别人用更高的价格买走
- 在最要命的那一刻，出卖自己
现在这些 CEO 们已经建完了掩体。
他现在最怕的是 —— 一旦大灾变来了，门口拿枪的那个人还听不听他的。
三个方案：密码锁、纪律项圈、机器人。
前两个都不过是在提高背叛的成本，只有第三个是在取消背叛这个选项。
一个人类最古老的统治难题。
所以富人心理阴暗，喜欢暴力？
也不是这样。
是因为"不会背叛"这个属性，恰好只能用"能打"来体现 —— 因为一个没有保护能力的守卫，能算一个有用的安保吗。
你不能指望一个抱枕替你挡住子弹，能力和属性是强相关的。
所以能打是"忠诚"的最低验收标准。
那为什么不直接造炮塔、造监控、造机械臂？
非得造个两条腿的？机器狗不行吗？
- 炮塔
不会开门、不会扶老人、不会判断"门外这位到底是客人还是别的什么"
- 监控
只会看。
记录一切，却干预不了任何事
- 固定机械臂
只有固定工作空间。
出了那一平方米，什么都不是
一旦承认了"要在人的世界里动手"，那就要有人的量级的力量"。
而一旦有了那个量级的力量，就会看起来就一定是"能打"的。
所以能打是一个没人主动追求、但必然出现的副产品。
凡勃伦框架失效了吗？
1899年，一个叫索尔斯坦·凡勃伦的美国人写了本《有闲阶级论》。
他提出了一个后来被用滥了的概念 —— 炫耀性消费（Conspicuous Consumption）。
他的原话大意是想赢得并保持人们的尊重，光拥有财富和权力是不够的。
财富和权力必须提出证据，因为唯有取得证据，才享有尊荣。
后来他说消费的一个重要目的，是给他人留下印象。
游艇、跑车、名表、高定时装、米其林餐厅——全部是"证据"。
凡勃伦框架的核心假设只有一条：富人消费，是为了被看见。
这条假设在过去一百二十多年里，几乎没错过。
然而今天暴力守卫机器人的价值，恰恰在于没人知道你有。
- 看得见的守卫是可以被绕开的
一个被看见的守卫，是可以被研究的。
研究完了就可以想办法针对。
而一个不确定的守卫，威慑力恰恰来自对方的信息不对称。
- 会反向伤害拥有者的声望
买游艇别人看你，产生的是羡慕。
买一台能打人的机器人并公开炫耀，别人看你产生的是 —— 警惕。
被人看见的那一刻起，这个商品就开始贬值。
在朋友圈发"我家新来了一位保镖，能一脚踢凹车门"。
评论区不会是一片"哇"，而是一片沉默。
好友们都会悄悄把你设为不可见的人。
- 心理上预设了一个不宜公开的日子
买了这玩意就是在心里承认"会有那么一天"。
而"那么一天"是不吉利的，是说了会显得自己神经质的。
就像买了高额人寿保险的人不会整天在饭局上聊这个。
所以它被买回家的命运，就是被推进暗无天日的地堡或者仓库。
所以我们现在可以给出一个全新的定义：
"不可见的炫耀品"（Inconspicuous Consumption）。
可以算是凡勃伦框架的一个边界条件：
当一个社会的不平等发展到某个程度，矛盾累计到了非常尖锐的地步，富人就不再追求被羡慕，转而追求"不被注意"。
弗吉尼亚州有一家公司叫 Hardened Structures，从1994年开始做加固住宅和掩体，团队里有前美国海军海豹突击队员。
官网上就写着"绝对保密"（Absolute confidentiality），以及提供"隐蔽施工 / 秘密承包"（Covert Construction & Clandestine Contracting）。
创始人 Brian Camden 对《华盛顿邮报》说过 —— 他的项目里会纳入一套他称之为 "anti-mutiny" procedures（防兵变程序）的设计，用来防止安保人员或者其他居住者在危机中夺取控制权。
说明在买家的心里，威胁不只是"外面的"，也包括来自于内部的。
Camden 还说了，他现在客户最主要的预设场景，不是核战，而是"长时间电网瘫痪"。
因为电网太脆弱了，现在所有人都在朝着这个方向设计。
有位亲历过苏联解体的从业者讲，供应链一断，人们就没有食物运进来。所以聪明人必须低调。
低调在这里也是一种性能参数。
而安保机器人，会是掩体堡垒的下一代产品，只是会移动了而已。
安全焦虑还是分配焦虑？
偷和抢，针对的是物。
是个体行为，是刑法意义上的犯罪，是一次性的。
分针对的是人。
是一个集体动作，是一个分配意义上的过程，是结构性的。
"防偷"装防盗门就够了，"防止再分配"的人，需要的不只是门。
人形机器人会是人类历史上，第一种被设计成可以对人主动施力的家用设备。
墙壁和保险柜的作用仅仅是提高对方的成本、延缓对方的时间、给真正的响应力量争取窗口。
马克斯·韦伯给"国家"下过一个被引用了上百年的定义：
国家是在一定领土之内垄断了合法使用暴力之权利的人类共同体。
关键在"垄断"两个字。
过去几百年，这条线一直在收紧：
私人武装被解散，城堡被拆除，决斗被禁止，持枪被管制，私人拷问被废除。
这是国家把暴力的使用权，一点一点从私人手里收回来。
当下富人一直还能买的，都是被动防护：防弹车、保镖、围墙、警报。
这些都是"抗打击能力"，不是"打击能力"。
保镖是会开枪，但保镖有执照约束、有法律边界、有事后责任、有他的雇主也管不了的职业道德。
一台被买回家、能在物理上对人施力的机器，终于在当下让"主动打击能力"回到了私人手里。
所以安保机器人不是为了"让生活变得更好"而生的技术，
是为了让已经分配好的格局保持不变。
人类技术史上第一次出现这样一个品类。
过去所有的技术，无论被谁先买走，字面上都叫"提升效率""改善生活""连接彼此"。
而这一类东西最好的使用方式，是最好一辈子都没派上用场。
忠诚值多少钱？
"忠诚"这个词太虚了，没法讨论。
但只要你给它标上价格，就立刻变得可以比较，做点加减法。
中国保安行业从业人员约 676 万，企业约 1.8 万家，市场规模超 3,600 亿元。
这是一个巨大的、极其成熟的存量市场。
客户都极其清楚自己每年在这件事上应该花多少钱。
买机器人是一次性支出，买人是永续支出，并且每年水涨船高。
第二年开始，前者的边际成本趋近于电费和维修，后者还是五位数一个月。
"忠诚"于历史上第一次开始变得廉价 —— 从这个点往后，每一年都会更便宜。
忠诚缺口现在有多大
古今中外，所有掌权者都面临这个问题。
血缘、宗教、封建契约、人身依附、长期激励、企业文化，工作签证 —— 都是在给这个缺口打补丁。
提高背叛的成本，让背叛变得不划算。
人类花了几千年，想尽办法让人变得忠诚。
现在终于有了一条捷径。
然而一个不会背叛的东西，同时也不会怜悯。
自然很难做出合理的，有人性的选择。
但是这个行业需要有冤大头先付出第一笔钱、踩完第一批坑、先把电机和减速器的成本打下来。
先富起来的那个物种，会帮后富起来的铺路，让"能打人的"那一拨产品先把市场教育完。
这就是技术扩散最常见的样子，虽然不怎么体面。
就像与我们深度绑定的互联网，原型也是来自于军用科技。
所以这个行业眼下最该回答的问题，是我们到底在为什么人造这些东西。
——————————
参考信源
- A Douglas Rushkoff《Survival of the Richest》(2022) 及其公开访谈
- A The Guardian、Resilience.org、Publish0x 等对 Rushkoff 上述经历的转述与评论
- A 宇树科技招股书及回复上海证券交易所问询函披露
- A 宇树科技 2026 年半年度财务数据
- A 21世纪经济报道、澎湃新闻、同花顺财经、华龙网、腾讯新闻：上述财务与收入结构的媒体转述
- A 中国信通院 × 清华《具身智能发展报告（2026）》
- A 斯坦福大学《人工智能指数报告 2026》
- A 宇树科技 H2-X「功夫传奇·守护」官方宣传片（2026.10.21）及官方账号配文
- A 凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》(1899)
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Man, Zoo, Smack.
A closed meeting in 2022.
In October 2026, a 61-second video was distributed to overseas media.
During the night, a silver-white human robot helped to jump, flipped over the roof of a car, hit the door of the car on the knee and hit the hood of the engine with an elbow.
During the day, it was inserted between a knifeman and a woman, preventing the perpetrator from approaching the victim.
It's written in the comment section to the effect:
The rich are always able to play high-tech toys before ordinary people.
"What the rich want is a robot that can beat people out of shit." They want to hoard it in a warehouse in case someone wants to split their property someday.
I want AI to wash my clothes and wash my dishes so I can spare time for art and writing instead of letting AI do art and writing and leave me here to do laundry and dishes.
It's better to keep an easy switch.
These words have been referred to as ordinary insults and have been turned over in a circle, which can be said to be ignored.
Media Theorist Douglas Rushkoff wrote a book called Survival of the Richest.
It's a story.
He was invited to a high-level resort to give a lecture on the future of technology, paid about six months' salary.
Before he did it seriously, he thought his buddy was going to Tedtalk today.
It was only at the scene that five people were found in the room — at least two of them billionaires — to be the top of the technology investment and hedge fund community.
PPT didn't let him play, they started asking.
The beginning was normal:
Bitcoin or Taifeng? Who gets it first?
And then the theme slowly slides to what they really care about.
Which of New Zealand and Alaska are least affected by climate change?
Then, according to Rushkoff, the CEO of a voucher company said he was about to finish building his own underground bunker, asking:
"How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?"
How can I maintain authority over my security force after that happened?
The Event -- that's what they call an environmental crash, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, an unstoppable virus, or a hacker attack that can destroy everything.
A full hour remained to be spent on this issue.
According to Rushkoff, they know that armed guards are needed to guard the looters and angry mobs.
One of them has already arranged for a dozen SEALs to be sent to his estate.
But the problem is here -- once his encrypted money is worthless, what does he pay for it?
What can prevent the guards from choosing a new boss?
They discussed three programmes:
- Pack food supplies with combination locks that only know their passwords, with rations to control them
- Put some kind of discipline collar on the guards in exchange for survival.
- Or just build a robot to be a guard and a worker -- if technology can be developed in time.
Rushkoff's advice is that your people will be loyal to you and will be friends now.
Don't invest only in ammunition and electricity grids, or in human connections.
He even said, "The best way to make sure your security chief doesn't slit your throat tomorrow is to pay for his daily expenses today."
According to his accounts, all those people turned their eyes.
It is not that technology does not keep pace with demand, it is that technology is never determined by demand.
"The rich always play with good things first."
The process of spreading new technologies from top to bottom has never been the same.
Vehicles, telephones, mobile phones, drones, without exception.
The first to use a cell phone is someone who can afford a big brother.
The first ones to get into a car were those who could afford a carriage driver.
The real advantage of "first play" is not to enjoy it first, but to get a definition.
There are three fixed characteristics of early products in all product categories: expensive, rough and dysfunctional.
There is only one person who can accept these three characteristics at the same time — a person who is not sensitive to prices and is tolerant of defects.
And it's natural for such people to do one thing: raise demand from manufacturers.
Demand flows back to R & D, which adapts to demand, and changes are more relevant to the scenes of the first group, thus attracting the second group.
The process runs a few more rounds, and the shape of the product is locked, as is now the case with the extensive folding of mobile phones.
It used to be harmless.
Because of the new technologies of the past, the first buyers wanted something that was at least in the same direction as what the public eventually wanted -- the rich in cars had to run fast, the public had to run fast.
The rich people want a good signal. I'd better get a satellite phone, too.
Differences between luxury goods and peaceful alternatives are limited to performance and prices, not direction.
So, "The rich go first" is just a time lag.
The last thing you used was the same thing, just a few years late.
This round is different.
The first buyers want to be able to fight. It's a difference of direction.
And those two directions, they could even be said to be the development path.
Physical energy can be achieved by stacking -- by increasing the power, strengthening the structure, twisting, lifting the control frequency. There's always a way to do it, and there's a reward for it, and it might be tomorrow.
Skills do not work.
If the absolute factor for the first payment is "demonstration," then the species will grow into an independent species, and then capture the course, narrative, and capital -- until everyone agrees that "human robot" is what it is.
Is this happening?
Yes.
Isn't most robots hanging from the school lab?
The difference between hitting and working.
It is usually explained by friends in the media that, because it is too difficult to do housework, they have to be strong and martial arts first.
The answer is only half: the rich have a dishwasher, a nanny, a driver, a cook.
They don't need a robot to wash dishes.
Capital, on the other hand, must serve the upper right corner — the most expensive and least selective.
In human history, the rich never lacked labour.
For thousands of years, outsourcing of labour has been one of the oldest and most mature technologies in humankind, before the emergence of currency.
So when a rich man buys a robot for hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's not "one more person to work for me."
He's got that thing long ago, and it's cheaper, better, better.
It's these people who can't sleep. They'll leave sooner or later.
- Resign.
- Worried.
- Stealing.
- It's bought at higher prices.
- Sell yourself at the worst.
Now these CEOs have finished building bunkers.
What he's most afraid of right now is that the man in front of the door with the gun won't listen to him if the disaster comes.
Three options: password locks, discipline collars, robots.
The first two are simply raising the cost of betrayal, and the third is removing the option of betrayal.
One of humanity's oldest governance challenges.
So rich people are dark, like violence?
Neither is it.
It's because of the "not betraying" attribute, which happens to be reflected in "playable" -- because a guard without protection is a useful security.
You can't expect a pillow to hold a bullet for you. Capabilities and attributes are relevant.
So it's the lowest acceptance criteria that can play "loyal."
Then why don't you just build a turret, a monitor, a mechanical arm?
You have to build two legs?
- Gun turret.
You don't open doors, you don't help old people, you don't judge whether the outside is a customer or something.
- Surveillance.
Just look.
Recording everything and not interfering with anything.
- Fixed arm.
Only fixed working space.
Out of that square metre, nothing.
Once you admit "to do it in the human world," it takes someone's strength."
And once you've got that kind of power, it'll look like you can fight.
So being able to fight is a by-product that no one wants, but is inevitable.
Has the Van Buren frame failed?
In 1899, an American named Thorstein Van Buren wrote a book entitled " Theory of the Free Classes ".
He proposed a concept that was subsequently used in an abusive way -- a display of consumption.
His words are to the effect that it is not enough to have wealth and power to win and maintain respect.
Wealth and power must be proven, as honour is only possible when evidence is obtained.
Later, he said that an important purpose of consumption was to impress others.
The yacht, the sports car, the watch, the high-scheduled fashion, the Michelin restaurant — all evidence.
There is only one central assumption in the Van Buren framework: that the rich consume to be seen.
That assumption has almost been true in the past 12 decades.
However, the value of violent guarding robots today lies precisely in the fact that no one knows you do.
- Visible guards can be bypassed.
A perceived guard can be studied.
When you're done with the research, you can find a way to target it.
And an uncertain guard, the deterrent is precisely asymmetrical information from the other side.
- It'll reverse the reputation of the owner.
Buying a yacht is what you look at, and it's what makes you jealous.
Buying a robot that can beat people and showing off openly, people see what you've created -- vigilance.
This commodity began to depreciate from the moment it was seen.
"There's a new bodyguard at my house who can kick the car door."
The comment area is not a "whoa" but a silence.
Friends will quietly make you invisible.
- It's psychologically pre-set an undisclosed day.
I bought this thing just to admit, "There will be a day."
And "that day" isn't good. It's said it'll look like it's nerve.
It's like people who buy high life insurance don't talk about it at dinner all day.
So it was bought back to its fate as a bunker or warehouse that was pushed into darkness.
So we can now give a whole new definition:
"Invisible display."
It is a border condition within the Van Buren framework:
When the inequalities of a society grow to a certain degree, and the contradictions accumulate to a very sharp degree, the rich no longer seek to be envied and instead to be "not noticed".
There is a company in Virginia called Hardened Structures, which began in 1994 as a reinforced house and bunker with a former United States Navy SEAL commando.
"Absolute confidentiality" and "Covert Construction & Clandestine Contracting" are available online.
Brian Camden, the founder, told the Washington Post that his project would include a design called "anti-mutny" programmes to prevent security personnel or other residents from taking control in a crisis.
In the buyer's mind, threats are not just "outside" but also internal.
Camden also said that his client's preset scenario was not a nuclear war, but "long-term grid paralysis".
Because the grid is too fragile, everyone's working on it.
One of the practitioners who had experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union said that once the supply chain had been cut off, there was no food coming in. So smart people have to keep a low profile.
Low profile here is also a performance parameter.
And security robots, the next generation of bunkers, just move.
Security anxiety or distribution anxiety?
Stealing and robbing, targeting things.
It is an individual act, a crime within the meaning of criminal law and a one-time act.
It's about people.
It's a collective move, it's a distributional process, it's structural.
It's enough to "prevent theft" and "prevent redistribution" people who need more than doors.
Human robots can be the first kind of home-based equipment in human history that can be designed to work with people.
The role of walls and safes is simply to raise the cost of the other party, to delay the time of the other party and to win a window for the real response force.
Max Weber gave "the nation" a hundred-year-old definition:
The State is a human community that has a monopoly on the legitimate right to use violence within a given territory.
The key to the word "monopolity".
This line has been tightening over the last few hundred years:
Private armed groups were dismantled, castles were dismantled, duel was banned, weapons were controlled and private torture was abolished.
It is the right of the State to reclaim the use of violence from private hands.
What the rich can always buy is passive protection: bulletproof vehicles, bodyguards, walls, alarms.
These are "resistance," not "attack."
The bodyguards were capable of shooting, but they were bound by a licence, had legal boundaries, had ex post responsibilities and had professional ethics beyond the control of his employer.
A machine that was bought home and physically able to help people finally returned to private hands.
So security robots aren't technology for making life better.
It is to keep the pattern that has been distributed unchanged.
For the first time in the history of human technology, such a class emerged.
All the technologies of the past, whoever buys them first, are literally called "Improving Efficiency" and "Improving Life" connected to each other.
And the best way to use this kind of thing is to never use it.
How much is loyalty worth?
The word "loyalty" is too false to discuss.
But if you put a price on it, it becomes comparable at once, add or decrease.
The Chinese security industry employs approximately 6.76 million people, and businesses about 18 million, with a market of over $360 billion.
This is a huge, highly mature stock market.
The customers are extremely aware of how much they should spend each year on this matter.
The purchase of robots is a one-time expense, the purchase of people is a permanent expense, and every year the water rises.
Starting the second year, marginal costs for the former are approaching electricity costs and maintenance, while the latter are still five digits per month.
For the first time in history, loyalty began to be cheap -- from this point forward, every year is cheaper.
How big is the loyalty gap now?
Today and beyond, all those in power face this problem.
Blood, religion, feudal contracts, personal dependency, long-term incentives, corporate culture, work visas -- they're filling this gap.
Raising the cost of betrayal makes it uneconomical.
Mankind has spent thousands of years trying to make people loyal.
Now there's a shortcut.
But a thing that will not betray and will not have mercy.
Naturally, it is difficult to make reasonable, human choices.
But the industry needs to pay the first price first, to step on the first pits and to cut down the costs of electric power and speed-reducing devices.
The first rich species will pave the way for the later rich, so that the product that can beat people can finish the market.
This is the most common form of technology proliferation, although less decent.
It's like the Internet that's tied deep to us, and the prototype comes from military technology.
So the most important question for the industry right now is why we're building these things.
——————————
Reference Sources
- A Douglas Rushkoff, Survival of the Richest (2022) and his public interviews.
- A copy and commentary from The Guardian, Research.org, Publish0x and others on the experience of Rushkoff.
- A WikiLeaks and responses to Shanghai Stock Exchange queries disclosed
2026, semi-annual financial data.
A. Economic coverage in the 21st century, news stories, money-for-profits, Zalong, Tencent news: a recitation of the above financial and income structure
Qinghua's Smart Development Report (2026)
- A. Stanford University, Artificial Intelligence Index 2026.
- A. Woo Tree Technologies H2-X "Kung Fu Legends and Guardians" official promotional film (2026.10.21) and official account matching
- A Van Buren's Theory of Free Classes (1899)
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.