“Where’d you get the pistol?” – No Country for Old Men
Birthdays are healthy. Studies show that people who have more of them live longer.
If you have the tallest man on Earth and add him to a group of 99 random people, the average height might move upwards a quarter of an inch, at most. But if you have the richest man in the world and add him to a group of 99 random people, on average, everyone has about 80 billion dollars depending on the day and the price of SpaceX®.
Elon Musk is roughly 14,000,000 times richer than the average person on Earth.
Height follows a normal distribution, what we would call a classic bell curve. The tallest man might tower over the rest, but he’s not 2,651.5 miles tall. Hmm, I should stop now before I give Elon ideas.
Wealth does not follow a normal distribution. At the extremes it follows a Pareto distribution. A very small slice of people command the overwhelming share of resources, and there’s no natural ceiling.
Wealth concentrates, it does not equalize.
I hate Stephen King’s novels. Too many Maine characters.
Back when armor was the ultimate status symbol and battlefield insurance, only the wealthy could afford a full suit of plate. A knight on horseback was a walking fortress. Then came the longbow at places like Agincourt. English yeomen, common men with years of training, unleashed volleys that turned French heavy cavalry into pin cushions. Arrows punched through armor and the French knights dropped their baguettes and cigarettes.
The expensive advantage of the mounted noble evaporated in the mud and guns finished the job. A peasant with a musket could drop a lord in plate armor from a hundred yards with a few weeks of training. Rifles and pistols made personal defense cheap and portable. The playing field for violence flattened dramatically.
God made men. Sam Colt made them equal. And that equality made governments think twice before pushing too hard. Warfare tells the same story on a larger scale.
World War II was industrial attrition on an insane level. The Soviets threw bodies at the problem to sponge up German bullets. The Americans threw factories, ships, tanks, and aircraft at it until the Axis ran out of everything else.
Soviet fighter planes were ineffective: they couldn’t stop Stalin.
The U.S. and Soviets spent the Cold War trying to outproduce each other in the old game. America won that contest so thoroughly that the rules changed. Ukraine, and then Iran’s proxies, show how much the game had shifted. Precision munitions, satellite targeting, real-time communications, and swarms of cheap drones turned expensive armor and aircraft into expensive liabilities rather than decisive weapons.
A few thousand dollars in drone parts plus some clever targeting can take out a multi-million-dollar tank or ship. The battlefield is being equalized again by access to information and cheap, smart munitions. Technology handed smaller players and irregular forces new leverage.
The pattern repeats across history and across domains. Some tools compress advantages. Others stretch them.
I saw a newsletter yesterday where the author declared war on the very idea of merit. His working definition of merit is talent plus effort.
He hates it. Talent, in his view, is unearned, an accident of birth or genes. He was honest enough to admit talent isn’t evenly distributed. Talent follows the same normal curve as height or I.Q.
No one walks around with a 14-million I.Q.
I have a pimp gnome in my front yard. He keeps a tight leash on my garden hoes.
Luck plays a role too. To reach the absolute pinnacle usually requires talent, effort, and luck. For most people with average talent and average luck. Effort is the variable that actually moves the needle.
The writer seemed personally offended that some people could be smarter or more disciplined and therefore succeed more. He celebrated A.I. because it might let anyone churn out a business plan that once required years of education and experience. That will knock the smart kids down a peg!
He’s half right about A.I.’s impact. It is already replacing or augmenting large chunks of cognitive work.
Roughly 21% of American adults are functionally illiterate, and 54% read below a sixth-grade level.
Hand those folks a powerful AI and they can produce a decent business plan. Whether they can understand or execute on it is another question entirely since it’s like giving an orangutan the equations for orbital mechanics.
A spelling error cost my friend his marriage: “Having a wonderful time, wish you were her.”
For someone with a 100+ I.Q., A.I. is different.
It removes drudgery and raises the floor on what one person can accomplish. It lets a competent individual punch above his weight.
A.I. will not be distributed evenly, however.
The versions available to the wealthy won’t look at all like what will be available to the masses. They’ll use it to design new products, optimize supply chains, and compound advantages. Teens will use a simpler version to make cat pictures.
This is the recurring story of transformative technology. The printing press took knowledge out of the hands of a tiny literate elite and scattered it across Europe. Ideas that once required a monastery or a university could spread in weeks. Books got cheap. Literacy rose.
The printing press was an enormous equalizer.
Yet the biggest winners built printing empires, publishing houses, and networks of distribution and could control mass media. The tool rewarded those who could organize capital and talent around it.
The donut baker retired in Modern Mayberry. He got tired of the hole business.
The same pattern appeared with electricity. It lit homes, powered factories, and created entirely new industries. Living standards rose across the board. But the big utilities and manufacturers built vast fortunes and influence.
The automobile obliterated distance in a way no king could have done. It reshaped cities, commerce, and daily life. Henry Ford’s moving assembly line made cars affordable.
Equalizer, but the companies and supply chains that scaled the technology created concentrated wealth and power that still echoes today.
Personal computers and the early internet followed suit. A motivated individual could reach a global audience or start a business with almost nothing but time and ingenuity.
Barriers collapsed.
Then the platforms that captured attention and data became trillion-dollar businesses that could control commerce and shut off channels to those with controversial opinions.
Technology does not care about fairness.
It amplifies existing differences in talent, effort, discipline, and capital allocation. It lowers some barriers and erects new ones built around mastery of the new tools themselves.
Any pizza is a personal pizza.
The commie newsletter writer wanted the talented and hardworking punished for their advantages. He wanted A.I. to act as a great leveler downward.
But effort still compounds and preparation still matters. The distribution of outcomes stays wide. The bell curve isn’t going anywhere.
Is A.I. an equalizer, then?
No. It will act like wealth. It won’t be equally distributed. Carlos from the Jiffy-Lube® will only have the free tier of ChatGPT©. Elon will have versions of weapons-grade A.I. available to him.
Probably figuring out how to make himself 2,651.5 miles tall.
(all as-found)
