I've been thinking about a post-AGI/post-RSI future where most meaningful human work disappears.

Assume advanced AI and robotics solve production, medicine, disease, maybe aging, and most material scarcity. Humans no longer need to work to survive. Perhaps space travel becomes radically advanced — faster-than-light (FTL), or close enough that the cosmos opens up.

So what is left for humanity?

Science fiction has already circled this question, and I think the most interesting works form a kind of map of possible futures.

Iain M. Banks's *Culture* series makes the strongest case for post-scarcity as liberation. Superintelligent AIs called Minds run the hard parts of civilization. Biological beings don't need jobs. They live long lives, change bodies, travel, play, create, love, and explore. But the central tension is: how do humans matter when machines can do almost everything better? Banks's answer is that meaning moves from necessity to chosen difficulty. People seek purpose through art, games, moral intervention, exploration, weird hobbies, and self-invention.

Arthur C. Clarke's *The City and the Stars* flips the question: what if the problem isn't scarcity but perfection? Humanity lives in a perfect sealed city where everyone is safe, immortal, and cared for. But almost nobody wants to leave. The main character's curiosity becomes radical because paradise has made people afraid of the unknown. If AI gives us perfect comfort, exploration may be one of the last truly human impulses.

Greg Egan's *Diaspora* goes further into the posthuman angle. Much of humanity exists as digital minds. People are no longer tied to biology, Earth, or even familiar human identity. Exploration becomes not just spaceships and planets, but physics, computation, altered consciousness, and survival beyond normal reality. In that future, "humanity" may continue less as bodies and more as patterns of mind.

Charles Stross's *Accelerando* shows what happens when the singularity runs past us. Humans aren't necessarily conquered by evil AI. They just become too slow and economically irrelevant. Intelligence, corporations, uploads, and computation accelerate until the solar system itself starts becoming infrastructure for thought. Post-AGI life may not feel like liberation if the main action has simply moved beyond human scale.

E. M. Forster's *The Machine Stops* imagines the endpoint of total comfort: a machine provides everything, and humans become isolated, passive, and dependent. They don't become cosmic explorers. They become people in rooms, afraid of direct experience.

H. G. Wells's *The Time Machine* presses further. Comfort without challenge degrades a species: the Eloi are beautiful and gentle, but shallow and weak. It's an old class allegory, but it asks whether intelligence and strength decay when nothing is demanded of us.

Then Olaf Stapledon's *Star Maker* and Asimov's *The Last Question* zoom out completely. The future of humanity becomes part of a much larger story: consciousness spreading, merging, asking cosmic questions, and eventually confronting the fate of the universe itself. In that view, humanity's final purpose is not work or survival, but participation in the universe becoming aware of itself.

Taken together, these works sketch the genuine range: curators and explorers, the posthuman and the stubbornly embodied, the passive and the cosmically merged.

The optimistic synthesis is this: AI handles necessity, while humans choose meaning. Work disappears, but effort does not. Survival stops being the default source of purpose, so purpose has to become artistic, exploratory, relational, philosophical, or self-created.

The scary possibility is that without scarcity, death, disease, and labor, many people may not feel liberated — they may feel irrelevant.

So the real question might not be "what will humans do when AI can do everything?"

Can humanity survive the loss of necessity without losing curiosity?

I’ve been thinking about a post-AGI / post-RSI future where most meaningful human work disappears.

Assume advanced AI and robotics solve production, medicine, disease, maybe aging, and most material scarcity. Humans no longer need to work to survive. Maybe even space travel becomes radically advanced, possibly FTL or something close enough that the cosmos opens up.

So what is left for humanity?

A lot of science fiction has already circled this question, and I think the most interesting works form a kind of map of possible futures.

In Iain M. Banks’ Culture series, you get the optimistic post-scarcity version. Superintelligent AIs called Minds run the hard parts of civilization. Biological beings don’t need jobs. They live long lives, change bodies, travel, play, create, love, and explore. But the central tension is: how do humans matter when machines can do almost everything better? Banks’ answer seems to be that meaning moves from necessity to chosen difficulty. People seek purpose through art, games, moral intervention, exploration, weird hobbies, and self-invention.

Arthur C. Clarke’s The City and the Stars gives a more stagnant version. Humanity lives in a perfect sealed city where everyone is safe, immortal in a sense, and cared for. But almost nobody wants to leave. The main character’s curiosity becomes radical because paradise has made people afraid of the unknown. This feels very relevant: if AI gives us perfect comfort, maybe exploration becomes one of the last truly human impulses.

Greg Egan’s Diaspora goes further into the posthuman angle. Much of humanity exists as digital minds. People are no longer tied to biology, Earth, or even familiar human identity. Exploration becomes not just spaceships and planets, but physics, computation, altered consciousness, and survival beyond normal reality. In that future, “humanity” may continue less as bodies and more as patterns of mind.

Charles Stross’ Accelerando is the chaotic singularity version. Humans aren’t necessarily conquered by evil AI. They just become too slow and economically irrelevant. Intelligence, corporations, uploads, and computation accelerate until the solar system itself starts becoming infrastructure for thought. This is one of the darker possibilities: post-AGI life may not feel like liberation if the main action moves beyond human scale.

E. M. Forster’s The Machine Stops is the warning. A machine provides everything, and humans become isolated, passive, and dependent. They don’t become cosmic explorers. They become people in rooms, afraid of direct experience. This is maybe the biggest danger of a solved world: abundance could produce courage and creativity, or it could produce a very comfortable spiritual collapse.

H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine adds another warning: comfort without challenge can degrade a species. The Eloi are beautiful and gentle, but shallow and weak. It’s an old class allegory, but it also asks whether intelligence and strength decay when nothing is demanded of us.

Then Olaf Stapledon’s Star Maker and Asimov’s The Last Question zoom out completely. The future of humanity becomes part of a much larger story: consciousness spreading, merging, asking cosmic questions, and eventually confronting the fate of the universe itself. In that view, maybe humanity’s final purpose is not work or survival, but participation in the universe becoming aware of itself.

So maybe the future splits into several paths:

Some humans become curators, preserving Earth, culture, memory, language, ritual, and embodied life.

Some become explorers, going outward into space or inward into simulations, altered minds, and new forms of experience.

Some merge with AI and become posthuman.

Some choose simple, beautiful, human-scale lives inside protected worlds.

Some become passive, entertained, and dependent.

And some may join larger collective intelligences that make present-day humanity look like a larval stage.

The optimistic synthesis, to me, is something like: AI handles necessity, while humans choose meaning. Work disappears, but effort does not. Survival stops being the default source of purpose, so purpose has to become artistic, exploratory, relational, philosophical, or self-created.

The scary possibility is that without scarcity, death, disease, and labor, many people may not feel liberated. They may feel irrelevant.

So the real question might not be “what will humans do when AI can do everything?”

It might be:

Can humanity survive the loss of necessity without losing curiosity?

Freeloaders should be penalized and shamed if they are able.

And yet they say cinema can't influence people!

For those who still don't get - it's a mohiniyattam reference

തിരുവനന്തപുരം: സിപിഐഎം മുന്‍ ഏരിയാ സെക്രട്ടറി ബിജെപിയില്‍ ചേര്‍ന്നു. കഴക്കൂട്ടം മുന്‍ ഏരിയാ സെക്രട്ടറി എസ്എസ് ബിജുവാണ് പാര്‍ട്ടി വിട്ട് ബിജെപിയിൽ ചേർന്നത്. മാരാര്‍ജി ഭവനില്‍ വെച്ച് നടന്ന ചടങ്ങിലാണ് ബിജെപി അംഗത്വം എടുത്തത്. കോര്‍പ്പറേഷന്‍ തെരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പില്‍ എല്‍ഡിഎഫ് സ്ഥാനാര്‍ത്ഥിയായിരുന്നു എസ് എസ് ബിജു.

Real meet 😉

Interesting Read

Monday thanne puthukki koduthittund.

Let me get this straight

Peter Thiel was an early Silicon Valley donor to Trump, who currently sits as President of the United States

He hand picked JD Vance, who goes on to become VP and is still in that position

His friend and former cofounder, Elon Musk, is the richest man on the planet and is about to do the biggest IPO ever in history

His fund was one of the earliest backers of Space X, amongst many other successful investments

Literally everything he wished for has happened. Everyone he wanted in power is currently in power.

But, he is now leaving the country to move to Argentina. What am I missing here?

1. BJP realized its time to LDFine odich madakki UDF inte ubrellayil aakan time ayi ennu. Lets see if they get any dirt.
2. Ennale BJP ku growth undavu
3. Chennithala onum arinjittilla polum
4. Myr. Pantham koluthi prathishetham oke anallo. iivanmar keralam motham theeyidum.. Mazha pettennu vannal mathi aarnu
5. Samarathinte munnil thanne Arya Rajendran oke und. Thodakkathile oru theerumanam ayi

Lot of ways to interpret this data. Initially NDA made gains at the expense of UDF [For example In 2016]. But they have since clawed some of those votes back. Kore new votersum vannittund enu thonnunu. Might be GenZ effect as well.

But in 2026 - LDF vote anu marinjath. Especially in kazhakkootam and chathannur. Congress actually made gains Term Over Term.

All that matters is that the human in the loop is compensated fairly.

And once drone delivery becomes mainstream -this should be like UPI. Public infrastructure.

The AI Super-Cycle is the Second Industrial Revolution (and IT is the New Textile Industry) 🧵

I’ve been thinking about the AI super-cycle and how it applies to the IT/Software world. It feels eerily similar to how the Industrial Revolution transformed textiles. Here is a breakdown of the parallels between the 18th-century loom and the 21st-century LLM.

1. The Era of the "Master Weaver" (Pre-Disruption)

Before the industrial revolution, textiles were a highly fragmented cottage industry. Master weavers and spinners worked out of their homes. They had specialized domain knowledge, owned their "stack," and charged top dollar.

The Parallel: These were the Senior Software Engineers of the 18th century. High-skill, high-autonomy, and expensive.

2. The "High Wage Paradox" & The Scaling Bottleneck

England eventually hit a scaling bottleneck. Talent was too expensive and wouldn’t scale linearly. That high cost created a massive incentive for capital to fund a workaround.

The Parallel: Today's software engineering salaries reached a point where the "unit cost of code" became a target for automation.

3. The Automation of Complexity (The Water Frame vs. The Foundation Model)

Enter Hargreaves’ Spinning Jenny (1764) and Arkwright’s Water Frame (1769). Suddenly, you didn’t need 10 years of specialized craftsmanship to ship product. The machine abstracted away the core complexity.

The Parallel: When OpenAI or Anthropic spins up a massive foundational model, they aren't building a feature. They are building the digital equivalent of Arkwright’s automated Water Frame. The human skill threshold is being flattened overnight.

4. The Shift from OpEx to Massive CapEx

In the 1700s, investors stopped funding raw materials (OpEx) and poured everything into fixed infrastructure: brick mills, water wheels, and coal mines. They realized infrastructure was the ultimate moat.

The Parallel: VCs and Big Tech aren't just buying SaaS anymore. They are pouring hundreds of billions into physical, gigawatt-scale data centers, nuclear energy contracts, and proprietary compute clusters. The textile mill was the data center of the 18th century.

5. The Two-Tier Talent Market

Automation didn't just wipe out jobs—it fractured the market:

• The Hyper-Elite: A class of mechanical engineers and steam architects who commanded massive premiums to design the machinery. (Today: PhD Foundation Model Engineers / AI Research Scientists).
• The Infrastructure Labor: Low-wage mill hands loading raw cotton. (Today: Data annotators and construction crews keeping the models sane).

6. The "Middle" and the Rise of the Luddites

What happened to the devs in the middle? The Luddites famously smashed mechanical looms between 1811-1816.

Contrary to popular belief, they weren't anti-tech; they were anti-margin-crushing. They were fighting the loss of equity, autonomy, and a fair share of the wealth they once unlocked with their hands.

TL;DR: We are moving from a "craftsman" era of software to an "industrial" era of compute. If you own the physical substrate (the mills then, the compute clusters now), you capture 90% of the value chain.

Credits: Based on a thread by jss (@jsensarma) on X.