Powerful framing. The Odysseus parallel maps directly to the physical AI deployment challenge: the Sirens are the allure of fully autonomous systems that promise to remove humans entirely, while the real path forward -- like Odysseus lashing himself to the mast -- is human-in-the-loop edge AI governance. In IoT fleet management, the most successful deployments aren't fully autonomous, they're orchestrated systems with eSIM-based connectivity, OTA model governance, and deterministic human override capabilities. Post-scarcity doesn't mean post-agency -- it means building infrastructure that amplifies human judgment rather than replacing it.
Alvin, I always love your writings. I found your piece clarifying, calling out that sometimes we build something that can outmatch us in the very faculties we rely on to steer ourselves or to help us create who we are. In the moments where *external* things anticipate, flatter, and finish our *internal* work, the slow processes where our character is formed, the struggles that (in part) define us... the enduring question is not how to transcend the temptation to use these resources (because that's simply not going to be realistic) but instead to think about what kind of self we are creating when convenience and instant gratification becomes our constant companion. And I say this as someone who uses AI every day in my work, and as someone who has fallen more than once into the trap of "easy". What I want to add, speaking as both a mom and a mentor who is very focused on human development and workforce development, is the moral asymmetry of these moments. Children and young adults are encountering synthetic persuasion, synthetic belonging, and even a synthetic competence at exactly the age when they are supposed to be building their value systems, boundaries and approaches to life. Many of them have not had enough life experience to tell the difference between real knowledge/growth versus the optimized experience and gratification of having the answer at their fingertips (literally). They also have not had enough time in the ordinary struggles of life, work, friendship, conflict, wanting, embarrassment, repair, etc. to understand why struggle is not an error in a system but instead a formative teacher. I'm so thankful for my struggles and for the things that have not come easy to me, because those things have helped me shape resilience, optimism, fortitude and grit, and I'm grounded in a view of humanity that treats life experiences as things you earn, and then you share with others. Those of us who understand the perils and *promise* of these AI systems have a duty of mentoring/leading those who don't yet fully understand the tradeoffs. And I don't mean the tech tradeoffs, or time, or even ethics, but more fundamental than that... how our daily experiences and choices/agency help shape who we are as a person. In my latest podcast we briefly discussed parents making sure their children understand how AI is being used to influence them, not simply entertain them. I believe a 9-11 year old can be taught the concept of algos and how AI can be both compelling and manipulative. Stewardship means we need to somehow preserve the *productive * friction of learning. We need to help our children and mentees understand the systems and constructs that are starting to shape their identity. If we get this wrong, we will not simply have a generation that can use smarter tools. We will raise them in a way where they are less practiced in becoming fully human. Beautifully made, but imperfect and scarred.... intelligent and privileged with their access, but knowing the difference in the impact to our *souls* when we choose easy over struggle, and what happens when we are more focused on being right (or being right *quickly*) over developing the skill of learning...
💯 So true. I just had a long talk with a friend that’s struggling with this exact issue. His daughter goes to an ivy but doesn’t read full books and lacks basic understanding of history, philosophy, politics etc. …sadly all her friends were the same. 😔 We’ve failed to educate our children by offloading it to schools.
And also by not raising them to have a hunger for learning, a curiosity ... instead often pressuring them to get As and get into the great schools by learning to the tests versus learning to understand. And sometimes along with intelligence comes difficulty in learning how to learn. (This is very prevalent in Massachusetts given its emphasis on education.) School came very easy to me, and I had to learn how to learn later in life. Had I not been inspired to learn, and had I not been curious, it would've been very easy to just coast. As we raised our family, we instead focused on how to learn... frameworks, mind-maps, note-taking, asking questions, building relationships with teachers, and going deeper than the curriculum using outside resources were all key. Making the journey of learning a great experience, I believe, is more important than getting the answer exactly right, or getting it done quickly. Only in arithmetic is there only one correct approach. The joy of learning is in the gray and sometimes it's even in the debate. My friend's brother in law is an ivy league teacher, and he told her that students no longer come to open office hours, instead choosing to use AI for any questions they have. When any question can be answered with a prompt, many lose sight that a broad, general knowledge can be the basis of understanding into more complex concepts. Without philosophy, how does one form their ethos? Without a knowledge of history, how does one understand and appreciate culture? Without knowledge of politics, or at least civics, how does one participate in their community and take action? These answers aren't found on our phones. AI can't determine our values for us, although it may indeed try!
Powerful framing. The Odysseus parallel maps directly to the physical AI deployment challenge: the Sirens are the allure of fully autonomous systems that promise to remove humans entirely, while the real path forward -- like Odysseus lashing himself to the mast -- is human-in-the-loop edge AI governance. In IoT fleet management, we see this constantly: the most successful deployments aren't fully autonomous, they're orchestrated systems with eSIM-based connectivity, OTA model governance, and deterministic human override capabilities. Post-scarcity doesn't mean post-agency -- it means building infrastructure that amplifies human judgment rather than replacing it.
The point isn’t whether this resembles Iraq, Cold War interventions, or fascist war-making.
It’s that legitimacy itself is no longer being invoked. Power is being exercised without narrative closure, legal justification, or institutional continuity.
Structural flaws may limit an individual's ability to act on the external world, but it doesn't limit our ability to make change in our own minds or in our own lives. The choice of no longer choosing does.
Powerful framing. The Odysseus parallel maps directly to the physical AI deployment challenge: the Sirens are the allure of fully autonomous systems that promise to remove humans entirely, while the real path forward -- like Odysseus lashing himself to the mast -- is human-in-the-loop edge AI governance. In IoT fleet management, the most successful deployments aren't fully autonomous, they're orchestrated systems with eSIM-based connectivity, OTA model governance, and deterministic human override capabilities. Post-scarcity doesn't mean post-agency -- it means building infrastructure that amplifies human judgment rather than replacing it.
💯
Reading your articles feels like a breath of fresh air, especially amid all the fog and noise around us
Glad it resonated. Please share with others. 🙏💡
Alvin, I always love your writings. I found your piece clarifying, calling out that sometimes we build something that can outmatch us in the very faculties we rely on to steer ourselves or to help us create who we are. In the moments where *external* things anticipate, flatter, and finish our *internal* work, the slow processes where our character is formed, the struggles that (in part) define us... the enduring question is not how to transcend the temptation to use these resources (because that's simply not going to be realistic) but instead to think about what kind of self we are creating when convenience and instant gratification becomes our constant companion. And I say this as someone who uses AI every day in my work, and as someone who has fallen more than once into the trap of "easy". What I want to add, speaking as both a mom and a mentor who is very focused on human development and workforce development, is the moral asymmetry of these moments. Children and young adults are encountering synthetic persuasion, synthetic belonging, and even a synthetic competence at exactly the age when they are supposed to be building their value systems, boundaries and approaches to life. Many of them have not had enough life experience to tell the difference between real knowledge/growth versus the optimized experience and gratification of having the answer at their fingertips (literally). They also have not had enough time in the ordinary struggles of life, work, friendship, conflict, wanting, embarrassment, repair, etc. to understand why struggle is not an error in a system but instead a formative teacher. I'm so thankful for my struggles and for the things that have not come easy to me, because those things have helped me shape resilience, optimism, fortitude and grit, and I'm grounded in a view of humanity that treats life experiences as things you earn, and then you share with others. Those of us who understand the perils and *promise* of these AI systems have a duty of mentoring/leading those who don't yet fully understand the tradeoffs. And I don't mean the tech tradeoffs, or time, or even ethics, but more fundamental than that... how our daily experiences and choices/agency help shape who we are as a person. In my latest podcast we briefly discussed parents making sure their children understand how AI is being used to influence them, not simply entertain them. I believe a 9-11 year old can be taught the concept of algos and how AI can be both compelling and manipulative. Stewardship means we need to somehow preserve the *productive * friction of learning. We need to help our children and mentees understand the systems and constructs that are starting to shape their identity. If we get this wrong, we will not simply have a generation that can use smarter tools. We will raise them in a way where they are less practiced in becoming fully human. Beautifully made, but imperfect and scarred.... intelligent and privileged with their access, but knowing the difference in the impact to our *souls* when we choose easy over struggle, and what happens when we are more focused on being right (or being right *quickly*) over developing the skill of learning...
💯 So true. I just had a long talk with a friend that’s struggling with this exact issue. His daughter goes to an ivy but doesn’t read full books and lacks basic understanding of history, philosophy, politics etc. …sadly all her friends were the same. 😔 We’ve failed to educate our children by offloading it to schools.
And also by not raising them to have a hunger for learning, a curiosity ... instead often pressuring them to get As and get into the great schools by learning to the tests versus learning to understand. And sometimes along with intelligence comes difficulty in learning how to learn. (This is very prevalent in Massachusetts given its emphasis on education.) School came very easy to me, and I had to learn how to learn later in life. Had I not been inspired to learn, and had I not been curious, it would've been very easy to just coast. As we raised our family, we instead focused on how to learn... frameworks, mind-maps, note-taking, asking questions, building relationships with teachers, and going deeper than the curriculum using outside resources were all key. Making the journey of learning a great experience, I believe, is more important than getting the answer exactly right, or getting it done quickly. Only in arithmetic is there only one correct approach. The joy of learning is in the gray and sometimes it's even in the debate. My friend's brother in law is an ivy league teacher, and he told her that students no longer come to open office hours, instead choosing to use AI for any questions they have. When any question can be answered with a prompt, many lose sight that a broad, general knowledge can be the basis of understanding into more complex concepts. Without philosophy, how does one form their ethos? Without a knowledge of history, how does one understand and appreciate culture? Without knowledge of politics, or at least civics, how does one participate in their community and take action? These answers aren't found on our phones. AI can't determine our values for us, although it may indeed try!
Can’t agree more. Parents setup the child’s working model in the first few years of their life. It’s a responsibility most don’t appreciate enough.
Powerful framing. The Odysseus parallel maps directly to the physical AI deployment challenge: the Sirens are the allure of fully autonomous systems that promise to remove humans entirely, while the real path forward -- like Odysseus lashing himself to the mast -- is human-in-the-loop edge AI governance. In IoT fleet management, we see this constantly: the most successful deployments aren't fully autonomous, they're orchestrated systems with eSIM-based connectivity, OTA model governance, and deterministic human override capabilities. Post-scarcity doesn't mean post-agency -- it means building infrastructure that amplifies human judgment rather than replacing it.
This misses the structural shift.
The point isn’t whether this resembles Iraq, Cold War interventions, or fascist war-making.
It’s that legitimacy itself is no longer being invoked. Power is being exercised without narrative closure, legal justification, or institutional continuity.
That’s a different regime entirely.
Very solid. I’d add one structural layer: agency collapses fastest not when choice disappears, but when leverage does.
Closure is corrosive because it removes veto power, the ability to impose cost, delay, or refusal.
Without that, even self-binding risks becoming symbolic rather than effective.
Structural flaws may limit an individual's ability to act on the external world, but it doesn't limit our ability to make change in our own minds or in our own lives. The choice of no longer choosing does.
100! Glad to hear the ideas are resonating with you! Please share it with others who might find it valuable.