Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Langue: | anglais |
| Publié: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19049464 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866901687670669312 |
|---|---|
| author | Kyungae, Ahn |
| author_facet | Kyungae, Ahn |
| contents | <p>What people want has not changed in five thousand years. Security. Recognition. Belonging. A sense that the future is not entirely opaque. When new instruments arrive, people use them to pursue what they have always pursued. The instruments change. What drives their use does not. This paper argues that the current AI transition follows the same structural pattern as every previous instrumental expansion: capacity broadens, the premium shifts from execution to judgment, and the newly capable are absorbed into existing institutional structures rather than displacing them. Drawing on Tilly's five-century analysis of state formation, Weber's distinction between technical competence and the authority of office, Gurr's framework for revolutionary mobilization, and Hirschman's analysis of institutional loyalty, the paper identifies a stabilizing mechanism: when the gap between what people want and what they can achieve narrows, investment in the conditions that sustain achievement increases. The paper further argues that integration with the world -- the removal of delivery bottlenecks between human judgment and the need for it -- produces genuine mutual gain at scale, not zero-sum displacement. Transaction costs approach zero (North, 1990), and the market for human judgment expands rather than contracts. The risk is not transformation beyond recognition but the adaptation interval between the old instrument's decline and the new instrument's integration. That interval closes. Companion paper: The Decalogy on Artificial Intelligence (SSRN Preprint, doi:10.2139/ssrn.6399740).</p> <p> </p> <p>Revision Note (v2):</p> <p>This revision softens two claims. (1) The Gurr-derived cohesion prediction is reframed from a declarative claim to a conditional one: whether instruments are increasing perceived access broadly enough to produce the stabilizing effect is noted as an empirical question that remains open. (2) The competitive framing is revised to acknowledge that some actors have moved faster and built real structural advantages, while reframing the nature of the emerging contest. Reference formatting updated: book and journal titles italicized throughout.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_19049464 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | The Stability Thesis: On What Does Not Change When the Instruments Do Kyungae, Ahn AI transition institutional stability instrumental change human judgment transaction costs <p>What people want has not changed in five thousand years. Security. Recognition. Belonging. A sense that the future is not entirely opaque. When new instruments arrive, people use them to pursue what they have always pursued. The instruments change. What drives their use does not. This paper argues that the current AI transition follows the same structural pattern as every previous instrumental expansion: capacity broadens, the premium shifts from execution to judgment, and the newly capable are absorbed into existing institutional structures rather than displacing them. Drawing on Tilly's five-century analysis of state formation, Weber's distinction between technical competence and the authority of office, Gurr's framework for revolutionary mobilization, and Hirschman's analysis of institutional loyalty, the paper identifies a stabilizing mechanism: when the gap between what people want and what they can achieve narrows, investment in the conditions that sustain achievement increases. The paper further argues that integration with the world -- the removal of delivery bottlenecks between human judgment and the need for it -- produces genuine mutual gain at scale, not zero-sum displacement. Transaction costs approach zero (North, 1990), and the market for human judgment expands rather than contracts. The risk is not transformation beyond recognition but the adaptation interval between the old instrument's decline and the new instrument's integration. That interval closes. Companion paper: The Decalogy on Artificial Intelligence (SSRN Preprint, doi:10.2139/ssrn.6399740).</p> <p> </p> <p>Revision Note (v2):</p> <p>This revision softens two claims. (1) The Gurr-derived cohesion prediction is reframed from a declarative claim to a conditional one: whether instruments are increasing perceived access broadly enough to produce the stabilizing effect is noted as an empirical question that remains open. (2) The competitive framing is revised to acknowledge that some actors have moved faster and built real structural advantages, while reframing the nature of the emerging contest. Reference formatting updated: book and journal titles italicized throughout.</p> |
| title | The Stability Thesis: On What Does Not Change When the Instruments Do |
| topic | AI transition institutional stability instrumental change human judgment transaction costs |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19049464 |