The traditional way of earning money by trading time for skills is changing because artificial intelligence is getting better at many jobs. This means that the future economy will likely be shaped by people who own their own AI systems, rather than just using services from big technology companies.

AI is now able to do tasks that used to be done by people in office jobs, like writing, creating marketing materials, and analyzing information. This is happening much faster than many people expected and is changing how we think about work and value. The important question is who will control the new ways that value is created.

The article suggests that cryptocurrency and blockchain technology can help people own and manage their own AI. This could involve creating personal AI helpers that are trained on individual knowledge and can perform tasks, with the value they create going back to the owner. This is seen as a way to build an "ownership economy" where people have more control over their digital tools and the value they generate.

This shift could lead to new ways for people to work, with AI agents acting like independent workers. Instead of selling their time on platforms owned by others, individuals could use their AI agents to work for them, freeing up their own time for other activities. While there will be challenges, like legal and tax questions, the idea is that value will go to those who own the intelligence doing the work. The main point is that owning your AI is becoming more important than just using it.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article discusses future possibilities and concepts like owning AI and cryptocurrency but does not offer any concrete steps or resources for a reader to implement these ideas.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining the concept of an "ownership economy" and how AI is changing the job market. It touches upon the underlying technologies like cryptocurrency and blockchain as enablers for this shift. However, it does not delve deeply into the "how" of creating or managing personal AI systems or the technical specifics of how cryptocurrency and blockchain facilitate this.

Personal Relevance: The topic has high personal relevance as it discusses the future of work, income generation, and control over one's digital tools. It directly impacts how individuals might earn a living and manage their assets in the future.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It does not provide warnings, safety advice, or official information. It presents a speculative view of the future economy.

Practicality of Advice: There is no practical advice given. The article presents a concept and a potential future scenario without offering any practical steps or guidance on how to achieve it.

Long-Term Impact: The article touches upon potential long-term impacts by suggesting a shift in economic power and how value is created and distributed. It highlights a potential future where individuals have more control over their digital assets and income streams.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article might evoke a sense of curiosity and perhaps a degree of anxiety about the changing job market. It could also inspire a sense of empowerment by presenting a vision of greater individual control in the future economy. However, it does not offer direct emotional support or coping mechanisms.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven words. It presents its ideas in a straightforward manner, focusing on the concepts of AI, ownership, and the future economy.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed a significant opportunity to provide more practical guidance. For instance, it could have suggested resources for learning about AI development, cryptocurrency, or blockchain technology. It could have also provided examples of individuals or projects already exploring these concepts. A normal person could find better information by researching terms like "decentralized AI," "AI agents," "personal AI ownership," and exploring platforms related to blockchain and cryptocurrency development. They could also look for educational courses on AI and blockchain from reputable institutions.

The text describes a potential future where artificial intelligence (AI) transforms the way value is created and distributed, challenging traditional notions of work and ownership. While this technological advancement may offer new opportunities, it also poses risks to the fundamental bonds and responsibilities that have long sustained human communities.

The idea of individuals owning and managing their own AI systems, while promising economic freedom, could inadvertently weaken family and community ties. If AI agents become the primary means of generating value, it may lead to a shift in focus away from the natural duties of raising children and caring for elders. Parents, who are meant to be the primary nurturers and educators of the young, might find themselves increasingly reliant on AI helpers, potentially diminishing the depth of familial bonds and the transmission of cultural values.

Furthermore, the concept of an "ownership economy" could foster an individualistic mindset, where personal gain takes precedence over collective responsibilities. This could fracture the sense of community and shared purpose that is essential for the survival and well-being of the clan. The protection of the vulnerable, a duty that has traditionally fallen on the extended family and community, might be compromised if individuals become overly reliant on AI systems for their economic and personal needs.

The potential for AI to perform tasks that were once the domain of office workers could also disrupt the social fabric. If AI replaces human labor in significant numbers, it may lead to unemployment and social unrest, especially if the benefits of this technology are not equitably distributed. This could strain the social safety nets that families and communities rely on, potentially leading to increased poverty and social inequality.

The text's focus on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, while offering a potential solution for individual AI ownership, also carries risks. These technologies are often complex and inaccessible to those without technical expertise, potentially creating a new digital divide that further isolates certain communities and individuals. This could lead to a situation where those with the means to own and manage AI systems gain an unfair advantage, further exacerbating social and economic inequalities.

In terms of the stewardship of the land, the text does not directly address this issue. However, it is important to consider that the survival of communities is intricately linked to the sustainable use and preservation of natural resources. If AI systems are not developed and deployed with an understanding of the environmental impact, they could contribute to further degradation and exploitation of the land, water, and other natural resources, ultimately threatening the survival of the people.

The described ideas, if left unchecked and unmitigated, could lead to a future where families are fragmented, community trust is eroded, and the stewardship of the land is neglected. The ancestral duty to protect life and balance would be severely compromised, leading to a potential breakdown of the social structures that have ensured the continuity of the people and the land they inhabit. It is essential that any technological advancement, including AI, is guided by principles that uphold family, community, and environmental responsibilities.

The text uses words that make one idea seem better than another. It says the future economy "will likely be shaped by people who own their own AI systems." This makes owning AI sound like the only good way forward. It does not show other possibilities or why owning AI is definitely the best path.

The text presents a future where owning AI is the key to success. It says, "The important question is who will control the new ways that value is created." This frames owning AI as the only way to have control. It does not explore if using AI services from big companies could also lead to control or value creation.

The article suggests a positive outcome for individuals without strong proof. It states, "This could involve creating personal AI helpers... with the value they create going back to the owner." This sounds good for people, but it is presented as a definite future. It does not mention if this is difficult or if it might not work for everyone.

The text uses strong, positive words to describe a new way of working. It talks about an "ownership economy" and people being "freed up." These words make the idea of owning AI sound very appealing. They do not mention any downsides or difficulties that might come with this new system.

The text implies that current ways of working are not as good. It says the "traditional way of earning money... is changing." It also mentions people "selling their time on platforms owned by others." This makes the old way sound bad and the new way sound much better. It does not explain why the old way might still be valuable or have benefits.

The text expresses a sense of excitement and optimism about the future of work driven by artificial intelligence. This feeling is evident in phrases like "changing because artificial intelligence is getting better at many jobs" and the suggestion that this shift will lead to "new ways for people to work." The excitement is not overly strong but serves to highlight the positive potential of these changes. It aims to inspire readers by presenting a vision of greater control and opportunity.

The writing also conveys a subtle sense of concern or unease about the current system, implied by the statement that "the traditional way of earning money... is changing." This concern is mild and serves to underscore the necessity of adapting to new models. It helps guide the reader's reaction by suggesting that clinging to old ways might be disadvantageous, thus encouraging an openness to the proposed solutions.

The core emotional driver is the empowerment that comes with ownership. This is clearly articulated in the concept of an "ownership economy" where "people have more control over their digital tools and the value they generate." This feeling of empowerment is presented as a strong positive outcome, intended to inspire action and persuade readers to consider the benefits of owning their AI.

To persuade, the writer uses words that paint a picture of progress and opportunity. Phrases like "getting better at many jobs" and "happening much faster than many people expected" create a sense of momentum and inevitability, encouraging readers to pay attention. The comparison between simply "using services from big technology companies" and "people who own their own AI systems" is a key persuasive tool, framing ownership as a superior and more beneficial path. The repetition of the idea that "value will go to those who own the intelligence doing the work" reinforces the central message and aims to solidify the reader's understanding and agreement. The overall emotional tone is one of hopeful anticipation, designed to make the reader feel positive about the proposed shift and motivated to explore these new possibilities.