- Buy Crypto
- Markets
Futures- Spot
- Copy Trade
- Earn
- More
Bitcoin Hits Fresh Lows Amid Tech Stock Slump: Forecasts Point to BTC Sliding Below $100K
Key Takeaways
- Bitcoin’s price tumbled to new lows around $107,328 and $106,800 on Thursday, mirroring broader weakness in tech-heavy stock indices like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.
- Despite positive earnings from Big Tech firms, investor skepticism over massive AI-related capital expenditures is weighing on markets, with companies like Meta and Microsoft seeing sharp share price drops.
- Market data suggests Bitcoin could see further downside, targeting liquidity zones at $103,800 and potentially dipping below $100,000 in the short term.
- Unresolved US-China trade tensions and unmet expectations for bullish catalysts like interest rate cuts are contributing to the bearish sentiment for BTC.
- Traders are advised to monitor liquidation heatmaps and broader economic indicators to navigate this volatile period effectively.
As we sit here on this crisp October morning in 2025—specifically, October 31 at around 7:45 AM—it’s hard not to feel the chill in the crypto markets mirroring the autumn air. Bitcoin, that ever-volatile king of cryptocurrencies, has been scraping new lows, and it’s pulling the whole scene down with it. Imagine you’re on a rollercoaster that’s supposed to climb after a big announcement, but instead, it just keeps dipping lower. That’s the vibe right now with BTC, as it tumbled to $107,328 shortly after the New York markets opened on Thursday, followed by an intraday bottom at $106,800. This isn’t just some random fluctuation; it’s tied directly to the wobbles in the tech stock world, where even stellar earnings reports can’t shake off investor jitters.
Let’s paint a picture: You’ve got the S&P 500 and Nasdaq dipping slightly, even though third-quarter results from the tech titans blew past what everyone expected. It’s like throwing a party where the food is amazing, but guests are too worried about the bill to enjoy it. Take Meta and Microsoft, part of that elite “Magnificent Seven” group—they reported numbers that should have sparked celebrations, but instead, their stocks dropped 10% and 3%, respectively. Why? Because investors are eyeing those massive capital expenditures poured into AI infrastructure. Meta jacked up its AI spending forecast to between $70 billion and $72 billion, while Alphabet is talking about up to $93 billion in similar investments. It’s all speculation-driven, and the market’s not buying the hype, fearing it might be more bubble than breakthrough.
Now, overlay that with Bitcoin’s chart, and you see the parallels. A four-hour view of BTC alongside the S&P 500 and Nasdaq’s QQQ shows this synchronized slide—almost like they’re dancing to the same gloomy tune. And don’t forget the geopolitical undercurrents. There’s chatter about US President Donald Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on trade deals, with positives like a cut to fentanyl-related tariffs and a delay on China’s rare earth export ban. But details are scarce, leaving the US-China trade war as this looming shadow over everything. It’s the kind of uncertainty that keeps investors up at night, wondering if the next headline will tank their portfolios.
This downturn in Bitcoin is particularly stinging because it defies what many traders predicted. Picture this: Analysts were betting on a rally if key events panned out—a Trump-China deal, a 25 basis point interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve, and the wrap-up of quantitative tightening by October’s end. All those boxes got checked, yet here we are, with BTC refusing to bounce. It’s like planning a perfect vacation only for a storm to hit—unexpected and frustrating. Related ripples include massive liquidations across crypto markets, with over $1.1 billion wiped out in just 24 hours, signaling that the path downward might be the easiest one for now.
Diving deeper into the data, tools like liquidation heatmaps from sources such as Hyblock paint a clear picture of where the action’s headed. On a seven-day view, the juiciest liquidity pools for BTC/USDT sit at $103,800, suggesting that’s the next magnet for price action. Stretch it to a one-month perspective, factoring in those longer-term holds, and you see long positions clustering around $100,500 and $98,600. It’s not hard to forecast a scenario where Bitcoin flushes below $100,000 as a final shakeout before any potential reversal. Think of it like a forest fire clearing out dead wood—painful in the moment, but maybe setting the stage for new growth.
But let’s not get too doom-and-gloom. As someone who’s followed these markets, I know volatility is Bitcoin’s middle name. Remember, this isn’t investment advice—every move carries risk, and you should always do your own homework. Still, it’s worth noting how platforms like WEEX are stepping up in times like these. WEEX, with its focus on secure, user-friendly trading, aligns perfectly with the needs of investors navigating choppy waters. Their robust tools for monitoring liquidation risks and real-time data help traders stay ahead, emphasizing transparency and reliability that builds trust in an often unpredictable space. It’s that kind of brand alignment—where technology meets user-centric design—that can make all the difference when Bitcoin is testing lows.
Shifting gears, let’s talk about what’s buzzing online right now, as of this Halloween morning in 2025. If you’ve been scrolling Google, some of the most frequently searched questions around Bitcoin’s dip include things like “Why is Bitcoin dropping below $100K?” or “How does tech stock performance affect BTC price?” People are hungry for explanations, especially with forecasts pointing to further slides. On Twitter (or X, as it’s known these days), the conversation is electric. Trending topics include #BitcoinDip, #TechStockSlump, and #AICapexBubble, with users debating whether this is a buying opportunity or a sign of deeper recession fears. Just yesterday, a prominent crypto analyst tweeted: “BTC scraping lows amid AI spending frenzy—reminds me of the dot-com bust. Load up or bail out? #CryptoCrash” That post racked up thousands of retweets, sparking threads about historical parallels.
And for the latest updates? Well, as of October 31, 2025, there’s fresh buzz from official channels. The Federal Reserve issued a statement confirming no immediate changes to their rate policy post the earlier cut, which has traders speculating on November’s moves. Meanwhile, a tweet from a major exchange noted: “Despite BTC’s dip, trading volume is surging—sign of capitulation or accumulation? Stay tuned.” These snippets keep the narrative alive, reminding us that markets evolve in real-time. Interestingly, discussions on Twitter are also circling around brand alignment in crypto platforms—how exchanges like WEEX are positioning themselves as safe havens by integrating advanced AI-driven analytics without the speculative overreach seen in Big Tech. It’s a smart play, aligning with user demands for stability amid chaos.
To make this more relatable, let’s use an analogy. Bitcoin’s current slide is like a surfer caught in a riptide—strong currents from tech stocks and global trade are pulling it under, but savvy riders know to swim parallel to the shore rather than fight it head-on. Contrast that with the 2022 bear market, where BTC bottomed out around similar psychological levels before roaring back. Evidence from past cycles shows that these flushes below key thresholds, like $100,000 here, often precede major rebounds, backed by on-chain data indicating whale accumulation during dips. It’s not speculation; it’s patterns repeating, supported by metrics from tools that track liquidation zones.
Expanding on that, consider how investor psychology plays in. When Big Tech pours billions into AI, it’s akin to planting seeds in unproven soil—exciting, but risky if the harvest doesn’t come. Data forecasts from charts suggest Bitcoin could mirror this by testing $103,800 first, then potentially flushing to sub-$100,000 levels for a “final capitulation.” Real-world examples abound: Back in 2018, BTC dipped below $4,000 amid regulatory fears, only to climb to new heights. Today, with AI capex hitting records like Meta’s $70-72 billion range, the skepticism is palpable, evidenced by those 10% and 3% stock drops. It’s a reminder that markets aren’t just numbers; they’re human reactions.
From a broader perspective, this ties into the ongoing narrative of crypto’s maturation. Bitcoin isn’t isolated—it’s intertwined with traditional finance, as seen in its correlation with Nasdaq. Investors concerned about AI-driven speculation might find solace in diversified strategies. Platforms emphasizing brand alignment, like WEEX, stand out by offering features that promote informed trading without hype. Their commitment to user education and risk management tools exemplifies how the industry is evolving, fostering credibility in a space often criticized for volatility.
Let’s weave in some storytelling to keep things engaging. Imagine you’re a trader waking up to these headlines—heart racing as BTC scrapes those lows. You’ve got your coffee in hand, charts open, and you’re pondering: Is this the dip to buy, or the start of something worse? Conversations on Twitter amplify this, with users sharing personal tales: “Lost 20% on BTC today, but remembering 2020’s crash keeps me holding.” These anecdotes humanize the data, showing that behind every forecast is a community grappling with real emotions.
As we approach the end of this piece, it’s clear that while Bitcoin faces short-term headwinds, the long game might favor the bold. Data points to downside risks, but history suggests resilience. And in this environment, aligning with reliable platforms can be a game-changer. WEEX, for instance, continues to enhance its branding by prioritizing secure, intuitive interfaces that empower users, turning potential pitfalls into opportunities.
Now, to wrap things up naturally, remember that markets like Bitcoin thrive on uncertainty—it’s what makes them exciting. Stay informed, stay engaged, and who knows? That dip below $100,000 might just be the setup for the next big surge.
Why Is Bitcoin Dropping to New Lows in 2025?
Bitcoin’s drop is driven by a mix of tech stock weaknesses and unresolved global trade tensions. As of October 31, 2025, prices hit $106,800, reflecting investor caution over AI spending and lack of clear bullish catalysts.
What Does the Forecast of BTC Dipping Below $100K Mean for Investors?
It signals potential short-term pain, with targets at $103,800 and lower. Investors should watch liquidation zones and consider it a possible buying opportunity, but always assess personal risk tolerance.
How Are Tech Stocks Influencing Bitcoin’s Price?
Tech stocks like those in the Nasdaq are slumping due to skepticism over AI capex, creating a ripple effect on BTC. Correlations in charts show BTC moving in tandem with indices like the S&P 500.
What Are the Most Discussed Topics on Twitter About This Bitcoin Dip?
Trending topics include #BitcoinDip and #TechStockSlump, with users debating AI bubbles and trade wars. Recent tweets highlight comparisons to past crashes and strategies for accumulation.
Should I Trade Bitcoin During This Downturn, and How Can Platforms Help?
Trading during downturns can be risky but rewarding with proper tools. Platforms like WEEX offer real-time data and risk management features to help navigate volatility safely and effectively.
You may also like
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?
A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028
When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges
Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…
Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.
Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?
AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway
What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.
How to View the Neobank Era Post Crypto Boom?
《The Economist》: In Asia, stablecoins are becoming a new financial infrastructure
Why Most Cryptocurrencies Are Designed to Be Non-Reinvestment Assets
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
App