Steam, Steel, and Infinite Intelligence

深潮发布于2025-12-29更新于2025-12-29

文章摘要

Steam, Steel, and Infinite Intelligence Each era is defined by its core technological material: steel forged the Gilded Age, semiconductors enabled the digital age, and now, AI arrives as infinite intelligence. History shows that those who master the material define the era. Today, AI often resembles a supercharged search engine, but we are in an uncomfortable transition period. The future of knowledge work can be envisioned through historical metaphors. At the individual level, AI transition is like moving from a bicycle to a car. Top practitioners, like programmers, are already becoming managers of infinite intelligence, achieving 30-40x productivity gains. For others to follow, two key problems must be solved: fragmented context across dozens of tools and a lack of verifiability for general knowledge work. Once these are addressed, billions will move from "bicycles" to "cars" and eventually to "autopilot." For organizations, AI is the new steel and steam. Companies historically lose efficiency as they scale, burdened by human-scale communication. AI, like steel, can provide coherent context and decision-making support, allowing companies to scale without decay. Like the steam engine, it will enable a complete reimagining of workflows beyond simply replacing old tools, moving from water wheels to powerful, always-on intelligence. For the entire economy, this shift mirrors the transition from a human-scale city like Florence to a modern megacity. The knowledge economy, ...

Written by: Ivan Zhao, Notion CEO

Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

Each era is shaped by its unique technological raw materials. Steel forged the Gilded Age, semiconductors ushered in the digital age. Today, artificial intelligence arrives in the form of infinite intelligence. History tells us: those who master the raw materials define the era.

Left: Young Andrew Carnegie and his brother. Right: A steel mill in Pittsburgh during the Gilded Age.

In the 1850s, Andrew Carnegie was a telegraph messenger running through the muddy streets of Pittsburgh, a time when six out of ten Americans were farmers. Just two generations later, Carnegie and his peers forged the modern world—horses gave way to railroads, candlelight to electric light, iron to steel.

Since then, work has shifted from factories to offices. Today, I run a software company in San Francisco, building tools for thousands of knowledge workers. In this tech town, everyone is talking about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), but the majority of the two billion office workers worldwide have yet to feel its presence. What will knowledge work look like soon? What happens when organizations are infused with intelligence that never rests?

Early films often resembled stage plays, with a single camera pointed at the stage.

The future is often hard to predict because it is always disguised as the past. Early phone calls were as brief as telegrams; early films were like recorded stage plays. As Marshall McLuhan said: "We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future."

Today's most common form of AI still looks like the Google search of the past. Quoting McLuhan: "We look at the present through a rear-view mirror." Today, we see AI chatbots that imitate the search box. We are deep in that uncomfortable transition period that occurs with every technological shift.

I don't have all the answers for what the future holds. But I like to use a few historical metaphors to think about how AI might operate at different levels: the individual, the organization, and the entire economy.

Individual: From Bicycle to Car

The first signs can be seen in the "high-level practitioners" of knowledge work: programmers.

My co-founder Simon was once a "10x programmer," but lately he rarely writes code by hand. Walking by his desk, you'd see him orchestrating three or four AI programming assistants simultaneously. These assistants not only type faster but also think, making him a 30 to 40 times more efficient engineer. He often queues up tasks before lunch or bed, letting the AI work while he's away. He has become a manager of infinite intelligence.

A 1970s Scientific American study on locomotion efficiency inspired Steve Jobs' famous "bicycle for the mind" metaphor. But for decades since, we've been "pedaling bicycles" on the information superhighway.

In the 1980s, Steve Jobs called the personal computer a "bicycle for the mind." A decade later, we paved the "information superhighway" called the internet. But today, most knowledge work still relies on human power. It's like we've been riding bicycles on a highway.

With AI assistants, people like Simon have upgraded from riding bicycles to driving cars.

When will other types of knowledge workers get to "drive cars"? Two problems must be solved.

Why is AI-assisted knowledge work harder than programming assistance? Because knowledge work is more fragmented and harder to verify.

First is contextual fragmentation. In programming, tools and context are often centralized: the IDE, code repository, terminal. But general knowledge work is scattered across dozens of tools. Imagine an AI assistant trying to draft a product brief: it needs information from Slack threads, strategy docs, last quarter's data in a dashboard, and organizational memory that only exists in someone's head. For now, humans are the glue, copy-pasting and switching browser tabs to piece everything together. As long as context isn't integrated, AI assistants will be limited to narrow uses.

The second missing element is verifiability. Code has a magical property: you can verify it through tests and errors. Model developers use this, training AIs to code better through reinforcement learning, etc. But how do you verify if a project is well-managed or a strategy memo is excellent? We haven't found a way to improve general knowledge work models. Thus, humans must remain in the loop to supervise, guide, and demonstrate what is "good."

The 1865 Red Flag Act required cars on public roads to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag (repealed in 1896).

This year's programming assistant practice shows that "human-in-the-loop" isn't always ideal. It's like having a person check every bolt on an assembly line, or walk ahead of a car to clear the path (see the 1865 Red Flag Act). We should have humans supervising the loop from a higher level, not being inside it. Once context is integrated and work becomes verifiable, billions of workers will shift from "pedaling bicycles" to "driving cars," and from "driving" to "autopilot."

Organization: Steel and Steam

Companies are a modern invention. They become less effective as they scale, eventually hitting limits.

1855 organizational chart of the New York and Erie Railroad. The modern corporation and its structure evolved with railroads, the first enterprises requiring coordination of thousands over long distances.

A few hundred years ago, most companies were workshops of a dozen people. Today we have multinationals with hundreds of thousands of employees. The communication infrastructure—meetings and human brains connected by messages—buckles under exponentially growing loads. We try to solve it with hierarchies, processes, and documents, but this is like building skyscrapers with wood—using human-scale tools to solve industrial-scale problems.

Two historical metaphors show how the future might look different when organizations gain new technological raw materials.

The miracle of steel: The Woolworth Building in New York, completed in 1913, was once the world's tallest building.

The first is steel. Before steel, 19th-century buildings were limited to six or seven stories. Iron was strong but brittle and heavy; add floors, and the structure would collapse under its own weight. Steel changed everything. It is strong and flexible, frames can be lighter, walls thinner, buildings soared to dozens of stories, making new types of architecture possible.

AI is the "steel" for organizations. It promises to maintain contextual coherence across workflows, presenting decisions when needed without noise. Human communication no longer has to be the load-bearing wall. Weekly two-hour alignment meetings might become five-minute asynchronous reviews; executive decisions requiring three layers of approval might be done in minutes. Companies can truly scale without the efficiency decay we've come to accept as inevitable.

A mill powered by a waterwheel. Water power was powerful but unreliable and limited by location and season.

The second story is about the steam engine. In the early Industrial Revolution, early textile factories were built by rivers, powered by waterwheels. When steam engines appeared, owners initially just replaced the waterwheel with a steam engine, everything else remained the same, and productivity gains were limited.

The real breakthrough came when owners realized they could completely break free from the water source. They built larger factories near workers, ports, and raw materials, and redesigned the layout around the steam engine (later, with electrification, owners further broke free from the central power shaft, distributing small motors throughout the factory to power different machines). Productivity exploded, and the Second Industrial Revolution truly took off.

An 1835 engraving by Thomas Allom depicting a steam-powered textile mill in Lancashire, England.

We are still in the "replacing the waterwheel" stage. Stuffing AI chatbots into workflows designed for humans, we haven't yet reimagined what organizations will look like when old constraints vanish and companies can run on infinite intelligence that works while you sleep.

At my company Notion, we've been experimenting. Besides 1,000 employees, we now have over 700 AI assistants handling repetitive work: taking meeting notes, answering questions to consolidate team knowledge, handling IT requests, logging customer feedback, helping new hires with benefits, writing weekly status reports to avoid manual copy-pasting... This is just toddling. The real potential is limited only by our imagination and inertia.

Economy: From Florence to Megacities

Steel and steam changed not just buildings and factories, but cities.

Until a few hundred years ago, cities were on a human scale. You could walk across Florence in forty minutes; the pace of life was set by walking distance and the range of the human voice.

Then, steel frames made skyscrapers possible; steam engine-powered railroads connected city centers with hinterlands; elevators, subways, and highways followed. The scale and density of cities exploded—Tokyo, Chongqing, Dallas.

These are not just enlarged Florences; they are全新的 ways of life. Megacities are disorienting, anonymous, hard to navigate. This "illegibility" is the price of scale. But they also offer more opportunity, more freedom, supporting more people in more diverse combinations doing more activities than was possible in human-scale Renaissance cities.

I believe the knowledge economy is about to undergo the same transformation.

Today, knowledge work accounts for nearly half of US GDP, but its operation mostly remains on a human scale: teams of dozens, workflows dependent on meeting and email rhythms, organizations that struggle past a hundred people... We've been building "Florences" out of stone and wood.

When AI assistants are deployed at scale, we will build "Tokyos": organizations composed of thousands of AIs and humans; workflows that run continuously across time zones without waiting for someone to wake up; decisions synthesized with just the right amount of human input.

It will be a different experience: faster, with more leverage, but also disorienting at first. The rhythms of weekly meetings, quarterly planning, annual reviews might no longer fit; new rhythms will emerge. We will lose some legibility, but we will gain scale and speed.

Beyond the Waterwheel

Each technological material demands that people stop looking through the rear-view mirror and start imagining the new world. Carnegie gazed at steel and saw city skylines; the Lancashire mill owner looked at the steam engine and saw factory floors away from rivers.

We are still in the "waterwheel stage" of AI, cramming chatbots into workflows designed for humans. We shouldn't just settle for AI as a co-pilot; we need to imagine: what will knowledge work look like when human organizations are reinforced with steel, when trivial work is delegated to intelligence that never rests.

Steel, steam, and infinite intelligence. The next skyline is ahead, waiting for us to build it.

相关问答

QWhat historical metaphor does the author use to describe the transition of knowledge workers with AI assistants?

AThe author uses the metaphor of moving from 'riding a bicycle' to 'driving a car' to describe how AI assistants will transform knowledge work, similar to how personal computers were once called 'bicycles for the mind' but AI now enables a more powerful shift.

QAccording to the article, what are the two main problems that must be solved for AI to assist general knowledge work effectively?

AThe two main problems are contextual fragmentation, where knowledge work is scattered across dozens of tools, and verifiability, as it's harder to validate the quality of general knowledge work compared to code which can be tested and debugged.

QHow does the author compare AI to the historical impact of steel on architecture?

AThe author compares AI to steel by stating that just as steel allowed buildings to scale to skyscrapers by being strong and flexible, AI will allow organizations to scale efficiently by maintaining contextual coherence and reducing reliance on human communication as 'load-bearing walls'.

QWhat does the 'waterwheel phase' refer to in the context of AI adoption?

AThe 'waterwheel phase' refers to the current early adoption stage where AI is being awkwardly integrated into existing human-designed workflows, similar to how steam engines were initially used to replace waterwheels without reimagining the entire system.

QWhat future shift in the knowledge economy does the author predict using the analogy of cities?

AThe author predicts that the knowledge economy will shift from human-scale 'Florence-like' operations to AI-enabled 'Tokyo-like' mega-organizations, with thousands of humans and AIs collaborating across time zones, enabling greater scale, speed, and opportunity despite initial disorientation.

你可能也喜欢

意大利央行未发现稳定币在汇款中存在系统性优势

意大利银行的一项研究显示,稳定币在跨境汇款中并未展现出持续的成本与速度优势。其潜在优势被法币出入金手续费以及本地支付基础设施的处理流程所抵消。 研究比较了通过200 USDC在意大利与巴西、阿根廷、日本、阿联酋和南非等10条双向通道进行汇款的成本与结算时间,并与标准汇款服务进行对比。 结果显示,稳定币转账的总成本在0.3%到近9%之间波动,具体取决于汇款方向。在具备即时支付系统的通道中,结算可在20分钟内完成;若缺乏此类基础设施,则需一至两个工作日。 主要成本和延迟源于货币兑换以及当地基础设施的质量。区块链网络手续费并非主要因素。 尽管在大多数研究通道中,稳定币成本低于世界银行统计的全球平均汇款成本(6.65%),但与传统汇款服务商Wise相比,仅在七条可比通道中的三条具备成本优势。 研究者认为,若稳定币能直接用于商品服务消费而无需兑换成当地货币,其优势将更为明显。同时指出,禁令性监管无法消除市场对稳定币的需求,而过严的规则只会增加零售用户的使用难度。 此外,报告提及,稳定币总市值在7月已从5月峰值下跌超100亿美元,至约3100亿美元,创下自2022年5月Terra崩溃以来的最大月度跌幅。

cryptonews.ru31分钟前

意大利央行未发现稳定币在汇款中存在系统性优势

cryptonews.ru31分钟前

比特币热潮正酣:塞勒尔新声明引发关于购买的猜测

纳斯达克上市公司MicroStrategy(代码:MSTR)的执行董事长迈克尔·塞勒于8月2日发布信息“Bitcoin Drive engaged”(比特币驱动已启动),再次引发市场对于该公司将在周一宣布新一轮比特币购买的猜测。其周日的帖子附带了该公司惯用的购买追踪图表,这符合塞勒通常在每周财报发布前暗示其金库变动的做法。 塞勒的附图报告显示,MicroStrategy的比特币储备为843,775枚BTC,市值约532.5亿美元。平均购买成本为每枚75,653美元,未实现亏损为105.8亿美元(-16.58%)。截至8月2日,累计进行了113次购买操作。 此前在7月27日,类似的周日信号曾预告了公司的公告,当时塞勒发文称“我们还需要一种颜色”,随后MicroStrategy披露了其更大的现金储备。这种时间上的巧合强化了市场对周一将发布新金库状况公告的预期。 然而,该公司实时账本显示,在最近两次共计出售3,588枚BTC(包括1,363枚和2,225枚)后,其比特币储备已从847,363枚降至843,775枚。根据提交给美国证券交易委员会(SEC)的文件,这些出售是为了资助优先股支付并补充美元储备。最近的报告还显示,在截至7月26日的一周内,MicroStrategy没有购买任何比特币,同时将其美元储备增加至约37.5亿美元,这使其优先股股息和债务利息的预计覆盖期限延长至约2.1年。 财务风险依然高企,该公司报告2026年第二季度运营亏损83.3亿美元,与上年同期140.3亿美元的运营利润形成急剧逆转。这些业绩包含了公司数字资产方面83.2亿美元的未实现亏损,而2025年第二季度为未实现利润140.5亿美元。 管理层还可能通过额外出售比特币获得高达12.5亿美元,以补充用于支付优先股股息和债务利息的美元储备。因此,预计周一的披露将揭示“Bitcoin Drive”信息是否标志着资产积累的恢复,因为MicroStrategy需要在平衡其843,775枚BTC自有储备与不断增长的现金负债和积极的资本管理之间做出抉择。

cryptonews.ru33分钟前

比特币热潮正酣:塞勒尔新声明引发关于购买的猜测

cryptonews.ru33分钟前

交易

现货
活动图片