Jan Kulveit

Sometimes this involves venturing outside of the core of econ-thinking and bringing in political economy, evolution, computational complexity or even physics and philosophy.

or maybe just look at other parts of economic thinking, which may be unexpectedly relevant.

This essay is not a literature review.

I'm not claiming that no economist has ever thought about these issues, just that the most common approach is wrong.

On a bit of a personal note…

I would love it if there were more than five to ten economists working on the post-AGI question seriously and engaging with the debate seriously.

If you are an economist, I do understand that you are used to interacting with the often ignorant public, worried about jobs and not familiar with all the standard arguments and effects like Bormel, Jevons, lump of labour fallacy, gains from trade, etc.

Fair enough, but the critique here is different.

You're assuming answers to questions you haven't asked.

If you are modeling the future using econ tools, I would like to know your answers to assumptions about our AI's agents.

How are you modeling AI consumption in your model?

Do AI's own capital?

Or what is the system of governance compatible with the economic system you are picturing?

Thanks to Marek Hudik, Duncan McClements and David Juvenor for helpful comments on a draft version of this text.

Mistakes and views are my own.

Also thanks to Claude Opus for Point 5 for extensive help with the text.

This article was narrated by Type 3 Audio for Less Wrong.

It was published on February 4, 2026.

The original text contained 10 footnotes which were omitted from the narration.