“We thought AI would make us smarter. We were wrong. It is turning our best specialists into highly paid button-pushers, and we ourselves are paying for this transformation.” - HardIT.tech
The Illusion of Democratization as Strategic Dumping
Mainstream discourse views artificial intelligence through the lens of the productivity curve. This is a fundamental error of perception. Generative AI is not a new printing press; it is the first tool in history to make the production of knowledge economically unviable for those who do not own it from the outset.
Free access to LLMs is a classic predatory pricing tactic aimed at eliminating competitors. When universities in Europe and Asia close departments of computational mathematics and corporations cut senior staff, replacing them with prompt operators, they are committing civilizational suicide for the sake of quarterly payroll savings. Centers of power sell painkillers after first breaking the patient’s legs.
We argue that control over AI stacks is shifting from an economic advantage into a lever of existential pressure. Whoever controls transformer architectures gains the ability to directly determine the trajectory of degradation of entire states.
Neurobiology of Deskilling: The Anatomy of Cognitive Dependency
The process of competence loss has a physiological basis. A 2025 MIT Media Lab study recorded a decline in synaptic density in the prefrontal cortex among students who delegated writing tasks to algorithms. However, the problem runs deeper than simple memory loss. The very architecture of problem-solving is being destroyed.
In the IT sector, we are witnessing the collapse of the mentorship system. Junior engineers are deprived of the opportunity to make mistakes—the primary mechanism of learning. By receiving perfect code from a model, they lose the ability to overcome impasses. A phenomenon of “cognitive prosthetics” emerges: the brain adapts to the absence of any need to synthesize meaning.
Our field experiment (N=48N=48, T=6T=6 months) confirmed that teams using AI for code generation demonstrate exponential growth in technical debt. By the fifth month, architectural fragmentation had caused a complete product shutdown. The attractive interface proved functionally unusable because not a single operator understood the underlying mechanics of the microservices that held it together. AI created a perfect prison for which its creators possess no keys.
Institutional Trap: Vendor Lock-In at National Scale
Integrating proprietary APIs into critical infrastructure turns states into digital tenants on their own territory. The vendor lock-in strategy, previously applied by Oracle to the corporate sector, has been scaled up to the level of national security.
Europe is the most tragic case. The adoption of the stringent EU AI Act paradoxically entrenches the EU’s lag. By regulating ethics, Brussels ignores physics: the absence of domestic hyperscalers makes any European innovation hostage to American clouds. India and Russia, having recognized the threat, are building bastions of sovereignty but face a problem at the hardware layer. Without domestic chip manufacturing, any local software remains merely an elegant decoration on someone else’s stage.
This brings us to the main conclusion: deploying closed AI means granting an external actor veto power over your future. The architecture of a closed model begins to define the boundaries of what is possible in national policy more effectively than any military base.
Economics of Regression: Monopoly as a Degradation-Management Service
Today’s AI market is a classic oligopoly protected by the law of increasing returns. Training GPT-5 requires budgetsrequires budgets comparable to the GDP of mid-sized European economies. This guarantees that real expertise will remain inside five corporations. The rest of the world is becoming “digital serfs” - inhabitants of a global village who process their own data for free, treating it as an epistemic resource, hand it over to the metropole to train models, and then pay to rent those same models.
Here, an inversion of historical progress is taking place. Previously, technology raised the living standards of the poor, bringing them closer to those of the rich. AI works in reverse: it enables elites to automate their own labor, permanently separating them from the rest of humanity. The divide does not run between those who have internet access and those who do not. It runs between the designers of algorithms and their biological appendages.
Core Message: AI as a Standoff Weapon
This is precisely where the true nature of what is happening becomes apparent. Artificial intelligence has become a new type of standoff weapon.
The mechanism of this “cognitive embargo” is flawless:
The metropole provides low-cost access to powerful models.
The periphery, striving for efficiency, voluntarily destroys its own expertise by closing laboratories and dismissing experts.
At time T - through sanctions, licensing changes, or a simple increase in token prices - the metropole cuts off access.
The peripheral state faces a choice: return to a managed Stone Age or begin buying back the very competencies it had just allowed to be destroyed.
The right to development becomes a scarce service. Corporations sell a shovel to someone they have just forbidden from owning land. This is not nineteenth-century colonialism exploiting resources. It is post-industrial apartheid exploiting society’s very capacity to think.
Forecast 2026–2036: Bifurcation and Three Future Scenarios
The next decade will determine the direction of civilization’s development. We reject the linear forecasts of Goldman Sachs and Acemoglu as an accounting snapshot of a dying era. Reality will be determined by one factor: whether humanity can build safeguards before algorithmic oligarchy becomes irreversible.
Scenario A: Algorithmic Feudalism — Most Likely, 70%
The world fractures into rigid techno-economic blocs (Splinternet 2.0). The United States and China consolidate their status as “Algorithmic Metropoles.” Europe, Latin America, and Africa become permanent consumers whose political agency is eroded by external algorithmic will. Universities turn into vendor training and sales outlets. Knowledge becomes permanently alienated from the human being.
Scenario B: Sovereign Renaissance — Optimistic, 20%
Projects such as Project Tapestry succeed in creating a viable alternative. A layer of “Sovereign Adapters” emerges, pooling compute capacity without transferring raw data. The market is fragmented but competitive. Humanity retains agency at the cost of lower short-term economic efficiency.
Scenario C: Singularity of Control — Black Swan, 10%
The transition to autonomous AI agents occurs faster than the creation of containment systems. States hand over the management of defense and finance to machines. An era of algorithmic warfare begins, in which wars are fought at the reaction speed of servers and diplomacy becomes impossible because decision-making in black boxes is opaque.
Conclusion: Choosing the Weapon
Artificial intelligence will inevitably evolve from an optimization tool into a mechanism for redistributing power. The only question is what we agree to become.
Will AI become a catalyst for a new Enlightenment? No. Under the current market architecture, this is ruled out. The world will descend into a state of sustained technological feudalism, in which knowledge- and cognitive capacity itself - is alienated from the majority and concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle of algorithmic oligarchies.
The choice does not depend on engineers. It depends on politicians and society: are we prepared to tolerate the pain and expense of genuine invention, or is it easier for us to put on a digital collar, in which food is dispensed at the press of a button while the noose is tightened remotely by a data center in Oregon.
Top comments (0)