Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI), despite its immense potential, could become a tool for stagnation rather than progress. Drawing on the arguments of Carl Benedikt Frey, it is essential to understand that this technology possesses no inherent teleology. This article analyzes the mechanics driving innovation and the forces that can effectively stifle it. You will discover why progress is not an automatic process and how institutions shape our technological future by balancing control and creative freedom.
Technological Progress: An Institutional Choice, Not an Automaton
Progress is not a natural phenomenon; it is the result of a specific alignment of forces. If we view it as automatic, we fail to see the mechanisms that condition it.
Exploration vs. Exploitation: The Dilemma of Structural Development
Systems oscillate between exploitation (maximizing known gains) and exploration (risky testing of the new). An excessive focus on the former leads to innovation sclerosis.
Centralization: Scale of Implementation at the Expense of Diversity
Centralization facilitates the mass deployment of solutions but drastically limits the space for "cognitive heresies" that form the foundation of breakthroughs.
LLM Models: Knowledge Recycling as a Barrier to Novelty
Large Language Models are civilizational "librarians." By statistically matching patterns from the past, they may reinforce existing paradigms instead of challenging them.
The Dictator’s Dilemma: Political Control Inhibits Innovation
Autocrats crave modernity but live in fear of decentralization. Innovation requires freedom, which poses an existential threat to closed systems.
AI-tocracy: Algorithms in Service of System Stabilization
Modern AI-tocracy is a symbiosis of innovation and the surveillance apparatus. The state purchases control technologies, which stimulates the market but locks it into a path dependent on repression.
The Needham Paradox: The Trap of Early Dominance
History teaches that even powerful civilizations lose momentum when power structures perceive independent thought as a threat to stability.
The European Model: Regulations Stifling Cognitive Risk
In Europe, stagnation arrives in a "compliance suit." Regulations like GDPR or the AI Act, while well-intentioned, become barriers to entry for smaller, innovative players.
Rent-Seeking: Lobbying Paralyzes American Progress
In the US, market concentration favors lobbying that, under the guise of safety, builds barriers against new competition to protect the profits of incumbents.
Law as Shield and Gate: A New Architecture of Access
The law must protect against catastrophe (shield) but must not block the path for new ideas (gate). Without this balance, the market becomes the sole domain of the strongest.
LLM Limitations: Epistemic Barriers of Digital Memory
The Reversal Curse phenomenon proves that AI models often fail to understand logical relationships, relying instead on the statistical proximity of words, which limits their role in science.
Creative Destruction: A Mechanism to Prevent Sclerosis
According to Schumpeter, progress requires the destruction of old structures. If the law forbids "destruction," it effectively prevents the creation of anything authentically new.
Safety vs. Risk: The Boundaries of Cognition in the AI Era
A system must tolerate the controlled chaos of experimentation. Excessive standardization ensures we only receive what fits within the bounds of procedure.
Entry Costs: Capital Barriers Destroy Pluralism
The astronomical costs of computing power mean that the technological frontier is decided by a handful of players, making pluralism merely a facade.
Rational Stagnation: Stability Over Innovation
Stagnation is often the result of rational decisions by elites who value predictability and the protection of their own positions over the uncertain gains of a breakthrough.
Summary
In the era of ubiquitous artificial intelligence, will we witness a flourish of innovation or a hidden stagnation under the guise of optimization? Will we manage to maintain the fragile balance between safety and exploration, or will we surrender to algorithms that define the boundaries of our cognition? Or perhaps, paradoxically, it is in the confrontation with this new form of intelligence that we will rediscover the forgotten values of human creativity and independent thought?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF