Steam, Steel, and Infinite Intelligence

深潮發佈於 2025-12-29更新於 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.

相關問答

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.

你可能也喜歡

如何让自己变得让人工智能永远也无法取代

面对人工智能的冲击,许多人担心工作被取代。然而,真正的威胁在于个人对他人和系统的依赖,以及由此产生的“薪资奴役”——即为生存而从事无意义、枯燥的工作。摆脱这种困境的关键,不是抵制技术,而是成为拥有高自主性的“不可受雇”个体。 文章提出了成功抵御AI替代的五个核心要素:自主性(主动行动的能力)、品味(判断事物价值的经验)、说服力(让他人关注你工作的能力)、毅力(坚持并从错误中学习)和迭代(根据反馈持续改进)。这些能力无法仅通过理论学习获得,必须通过实践来培养。 要启动转变,首先要彻底改变环境,重塑身份认同。其次,应选择一个能获得真实、快速反馈的实践领域,例如创业。在众多技能中,内容创作(媒体)比编写代码更具优势,因为其价值是主观的,需要独特的审美和判断力,这正是AI目前难以完全复制的。 具体行动上,可以从三个步骤开始: 1. **挖掘原始素材**:反思自己长期痴迷的知识领域、轻松解决的难题或童年被压抑的兴趣,找到独特的个人经验。 2. **确立反向思考主轴**:找出你坚信但主流观点错误的地方,或行业内普遍忽视的“皇帝新衣”,形成独特的批判性视角。 3. **立即发布**:将前两步的思考融合,撰写并发布第一个核心内容(如帖子、视频),勇敢接受真实世界的反馈,并在此基础上持续学习和迭代。 最终,抵御AI的关键在于构建一份与自身身份深度契合的毕生事业,通过持续的内容创作和真实互动,建立无法被自动化取代的独特价值和影响力。行动,从今天发布第一个想法开始。

marsbit1 小時前

如何让自己变得让人工智能永远也无法取代

marsbit1 小時前

通过掷骰子离线保管比特币密钥:并非人人愿意为之

文章探讨了通过投掷骰子生成比特币钱包种子短语的安全方法及其现实挑战。核心观点如下: **1. 骰子提供物理熵源** 骰子结果由众多微小变量决定,理论上虽可预测,但实践中无法被攻击者复制或计算,从而提供高质量的随机性。每个六面骰子投掷约产生2.585比特熵,50次投掷即可满足典型12词助记词(128比特熵)的安全需求。 **2. Coldcard漏洞事件凸显手工熵源的价值** 近期Coldcard硬件钱包因固件漏洞导致其内部随机数生成器存在缺陷,致使约1128枚比特币被盗。但那些**完全**通过足量骰子投掷生成种子短语的用户未受此漏洞影响,因为他们的主密钥未使用有缺陷的生成器。 **3. 重要警示:手工种子并非万能保护** 安全研究员指出,即使用户使用骰子生成了安全的种子,若他们使用了Coldcard的其他功能(如生成纸钱包、克隆密钥、共享签名密钥、密码等),这些**衍生密钥**仍可能调用有漏洞的随机数生成器,从而存在风险。安全种子不保证设备生成的所有秘密都安全。 **4. 手工生成熵源的现实局限性** 尽管数学上可靠,但该方法对大多数用户并不友好: * **过程繁琐易错**:需投掷50-99次,精确记录,任何输入错误都会导致钱包完全不同。 * **引入新风险**:用户可能在记录、转换过程中泄露信息,或使用有偏的骰子/投掷方式。 * **用户体验差**:难以想象大规模推广需要用户手动投掷近百次骰子。安全措施需适应现实生活场景和普通用户的知识水平。 **5. 给用户的建议** 受影响的Coldcard用户应: * 更新固件至最新版。 * 检查是否使用过有漏洞的功能生成了次级密钥或密码,如有则需立即更换。 * 考虑采用多签方案,使用不同厂商的设备分散风险。 **结论**:手工投掷骰子生成熵源是技术娴熟用户的一个有效安全选项,但其过程复杂、容易出错,不适合作为主流用户的默认方法。长远目标是依赖安全、透明且无需专业知识的硬件/软件随机数生成方案。

cryptonews.ru4 小時前

通过掷骰子离线保管比特币密钥:并非人人愿意为之

cryptonews.ru4 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片