Status Games: AI Has Entered the Chat
What will happen to the status of each of us as powerful AI intelligence emerges?
I have recently thought a lot about status. Sparked by the excellent article in the New York Times “One economic question that really matters in an election year: Are others doing better than you?”, I wondered what status really is, how it influences social dynamics over time and how it will be affected by advancements in AI. This is the first of a series of upcoming articles of the dadalogue - deeply inquisitive and change-positive content about a world that's getting crazier by the minute. In this post, I’ll investigate general status dynamics and how they change over time, dive into intelligence as one core driver for status and then use these examples to examine how powerful AI will impact intelligence as a driver of status going forward.
What is status?
One of my favourite thinkers, the investor Naval Ravikant describes status in simple terms: “Status is a very old game - status is your ranking in the social hierarchy. We’ve been playing it since monkey tribes. It’s hierarchical. Who’s number one? Who’s number two? Who’s number three? And for number three to move to number two, number two has to move out of that slot. So, status is a zero-sum game.”
Status appears in various forms and can change its nature over time. Let's examine a few examples of how status dynamics play out in various fields.
Status dynamic #1: Scarcity is the key driver of status
Status is one’s ranking in the social hierarchy. It's a zero-sum game driven by scarcity rather than abundance, as it centers on something highly desired by many but attainable by only a few. Consider today’s differences in status as exemplified by cars. Very nice cars aren’t widely accessible due to their cost - the scarcity of the ability to afford very nice cars hence signals higher status.
Status dynamic #2: The introduction of abundance leads to branding - scarcity in disguise
Today, in the Western world, clean drinking water is largely abundant, so much so that we flush our toilets with it. Given this abundance, clean drinking water is not a symbol of status anymore. Any remaining differentiation in status of water largely comes from branding - an artificial scarcity and desirability mechanism humans invented to reintroduce status into goods that would otherwise be quite exchangeable. Branding is scarcity in disguise. Yet, this branding difference is much weaker than the actual true scarcity distinction that also still exists: access to abundant clean water only being accessible for people who are better off, with people in many developing countries still struggling to get any access to sufficient amounts of clean drinking water.
A common mechanism for maintaining branded exclusivity across various domains is raising prices. As the desirability of a product or people’s buying power increase, substantial price hikes help preserve scarcity and, paradoxically, can make the product even more desirable—since fewer people can actually afford it. Luxury handbags and their significant price increases over recent years are a prime example of this effect.
Status dynamic #3: If branding isn’t possible, the introduction of abundance leads to diminished value of a status symbol
In the West, over the past decades, thinness meant effort: discipline of what you (can afford and are educated to) eat, as well as the discipline to exercise. Hence, thin bodies are associated with higher status. Many studies prove the strength of this phenomenon, e.g. thin women earning higher wages, independently of the quality of their work.
In 2017, Ozempic first hit the market. Thanks to it and similar medications, obesity rates in the US have been falling for the first time in decades in 2023. With weight loss drugs continuing to soar in popularity, slim bodies may soon become commoditised. So, how to maintain the status symbol of slim bodies? Unlike drinking water, which can be easily branded, branding thinness would be much tougher. This may lead to thinness no longer being a significant marker of status in the future.
Status example #4: Reintroducing scarcity through technology
Now consider digitally mediated relationships and behaviours. While the world was prematurely celebrating the arrival of the metaverse in 2021, NFTs represented an initial serious attempt to reintroduce scarcity into the digital realm. In a world where goods were suddenly infinitely accessible, NFTs reproduced (or some may critically say mimicked) the status dynamics we were so accustomed to in real life. This shows that abundance is not always a given if there is a possibility to technologically reintroduce scarcity into the system.
Status example #5: Status associations can be reversed
Status symbols are not a given; their meanings can change over time. In Europe, pale skin was historically a symbol of status. It signified that a person did not need to work outdoors, which was the domain of the working class. With the Industrial Revolution, more people worked indoors - pale skin became more abundant. Suntanned skin on the other hand eventually became associated with leisure and travel - something only the wealthy could afford. Today, a tan indicates the ability to spend time on vacations, reversing the original status association.
#Status example 6: Productive and unproductive status symbols
Last but not least, I’d argue there are productive and unproductive forms of status. Productive status symbols are those that require personal development, effort, or achievement. They often bring value to the individual and society by encouraging qualities or habits that contribute to self-improvement, societal advancement, or a healthier lifestyle. From the above examples, I would consider a healthy body weight or analytical skills and education to be productive status symbols. While there are underlying unalterable genetic conditions to these traits, they can also be influenced through hard work. Consequently, these status symbols tend to be more meritocratic - status is an incentive for humans to improve over time.
On the other hand, unproductive status symbols also exist. Unproductive status symbols are often linked to qualities that do not require personal effort to maintain and provide limited intrinsic value to society. In the above examples, pale skin would be such a status symbol. Other examples are inherited titles or purely genetic physical traits like blonde hair or freckles.
Intelligence and Status
As we have seen from the many previous examples, there are several predictors of status and for a long time, wealth was the primary engine of status. However, over time,
“ “Status markers changed. In 1967, the sociologist Daniel Bell noted that the leadership in the emerging social order was coming from “the intellectual institutions.” “Social prestige and social status,” he foresaw, “will be rooted in the intellectual and scientific communities.” ” (The Atlantic, 2024)
Various studies have established links between intelligence and different forms of status, such as socioeconomic status, occupational status, and social mobility. For example, higher intelligence is linked to higher educational success, which tends to lead to higher occupational status in society. Reinforced by standardised admissions tests to funnel demand into competitive Ivy League institutions, this “Age of the Cognitive Elite” (The Atlantic, 2024) has been around for decades.
Backed by several studies, the authors of the New York Times article argue that a shift towards the right, especially among male voters, mainly stems from their loss of status over time, showing that changes in status can have immense societal effects. Over the past decades, education and gender equality have been key drivers of this status reshuffling in society. “In the reordering of the U.S. economy since 1980, white men without a degree have been surpassed in income by college-educated women.”
Now, with the advent of powerful AI, we may face yet another status upheaval in society, and potentially a much more drastic one. What if - in the face of a very powerful AI - none of the differences in human intelligence matter anymore? What if in the face of very powerful AI intelligence, even the smartest human is quite dumb?
Today’s intelligence bar:
Tomorrow’s intelligence bar:
In the face of a very powerful AI intelligence, even large differences in human IQ may become almost meaningless, since we’d all be much less intelligent than the technology we have created. I am not talking about today’s level of AI intelligence, but about a more powerful AI intelligence that we could see in 5-20 years from now. As always in history, there is disagreement about the exact time when this technological advancement will happen, but there has also never been stronger consensus among many influential AI scientists (among them Sam Altman, Geoffrey Hinton, Shane Legg, Ilya Sutskever and Dario Amodei) that we are talking about a time span of under 20 years. Without getting into the narrow details of current barriers to scaling AI further or whether we would call this intelligence artificial general intelligence yet, such powerful AI would know everything by heart, could calculate complex equations within split seconds, and recognise patterns between different domains with the ability to solve a broad range of complex problems. It would constantly improve and get better, not needing food or rest. Even the smartest humans could not keep up.
Yet, it is unlikely that powerful AI would just exist next to us, without any interference between humanity and technology. As is already happening today, we will find ways to use powerful AI tools, thus increasing our own intelligence capabilities. While human IQ remains the same (at least until we start planting chips into our brains, but that’s another story), we’ll be enhancing our overall intelligence capabilities through AI tools. As the saying goes - AI won’t replace humans - humans using AI will replace humans.
Tomorrow’s intelligence bar:
What would this mean for how differences in human intelligence - and thereby status - play out with AI? Let’s consider that today, 68% of humans have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only around 2% of humans have an IQ above 130.
If powerful AI-enhanced intelligence isn’t scarce, but widely accessible to most humans, we may end up all becoming roughly equally intelligent, no matter the original differences in human IQ. This is of course a simplistic assumption. There may of course still be differences, as highly intelligent humans may be able to leverage AI intelligence more effectively than others. Yet, as AI intelligence grows in power over time, these differences are likely to decrease, especially for the average levels of intelligence that most humans have - and possibly disappear completely over time. Think about a simple example: the advantage of speed and multitasking. While it takes even the smartest humans at least some time to calculate complex equations, read ancient scripts, or generate creative output, powerful AI could do this within the fraction of a second - and all at the same time. When following this example, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that the main difference in future intelligence performance would mainly stem from the power of AI technology, rather than the power of our human intelligence.
So, if we would all become roughly equally intelligent in the face of powerful AI, what then happens to intelligence as a driver of societal status?
The impact of AI on intelligence as a driver of status - two scenarios
If powerful AI-enhanced intelligence becomes a tool in the world, the previous status examples indicate that there are two main possible scenarios, depending on:
Whether powerful AI-enhanced intelligence is scarce or abundant
The ability to brand powerful AI-enhanced intelligence
The unproductive scenario: Scarcity prevails
The first important question is whether AI-enhanced intelligence would be abundant or scarce. As the open source movement will provide a positive driver of powerful AI intelligence access for all, this abundance would likely mean the loss of intelligence as a status symbol altogether. Yet, there is some strong evidence that humans do not seem to readily want to give up the status they enjoy in society - “Every man is a king so long as he has someone to look down on.” (Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here). It is hence likely that humans will get creative and consider a few options to keep powerful AI intelligence scarce.
First off, branding: Can we brand AI intelligence and thereby preserve status signalling? Similarly to thin body weight, branding AI-intelligence may prove difficult given the broad and bodiless nature of intelligence. However, certificates (similar to a university degree) that are referenceable as a proof of one’s powerful AI intelligence may provide some relief. In addition, in an effort to maintain their position at the top of the status ladder, some people with control over AI technology may try and limit how widely it becomes available in the first place. Through excessive pricing or other access mechanisms (similar to limited membership in an elite club) powerful AI-enhanced intelligence could then stay restricted to the few, while the many would be stuck in dumb human-only land. Despite the boom and bust, NFTs are an example of how technology can be used to brand and restrict access to something that could otherwise theoretically be infinitely accessible. If access to AI-enhanced intelligence tools is highly unequal, it may exacerbate the status and stigma already associated with intelligence today.
This unequal access could make intelligence a less productive status symbol. Right now, people can improve their intelligence by working hard, gaining a better education, and using resources like the Internet to learn. But with AI, most of the intelligence advantage would come from the technology itself rather than human effort. For those without access to advanced AI, there would be little incentive to try to outperform it. As a result, AI-powered intelligence as a status symbol would likely reflect and even reinforce existing inequalities of a world where people start life with very different opportunities. In the future, status differences would then likely be shaped primarily by wealth, geography, or other existing inequalities, rather than actual human capability and effort. Intelligence would become similar to Europe’s status symbol of pale skin hundreds of years ago - you either have it, or you don’t.
The productive scenario: Abundance and new status frontiers
Yet, this is just one dark scenario. Now, let us assume that the abundance movement succeeds and powerful AI intelligence becomes accessible to all. In this case, intelligence would likely cease to be a significant status symbol. What other scarce things might become the status drivers of tomorrow?
One possibility could be that humans seek out traits and behaviours that are more difficult to augment with or replace through AI. One example could be in real life (IRL) human connection that requires the actual work of IRL human connecting and can therefore only happen without much use of digital interfaces. In the future, high status may be linked to activities like community work, gardening, church service, arts and crafts, or outdoor excursions and people’s respective leadership in these areas. Imagine today’s modestly popular girl and boy scouts movement - but taken to the extreme. This scenario is optimistic not only because intelligence would be accessible to everyone, but also because activities that people see as hobbies or personal passions today could become important status symbols in the future. This shift would motivate people to excel in these areas and, unlike today, they might receive vastly more recognition and competitive compensation for their efforts.
In this scenario of the future, the world may flourish in an abundance of community care. Interestingly, this could also indicate a reversal in status symbols over time. In the past, the world moved away from the status that community work had long held. Traditionally, positions as teachers, mothers, or pastors enjoyed high social recognition and status. Over the past century, the definition of the workplace as a place outside the home, a place instead often defined by desktop computers and college degrees that emphasised IQ over EQ, led to a decrease in the status of work done inside the home and our communities, a place which emphasised EQ over IQ. Today’s emphasis of IQ work over EQ work may again become yesterday’s emphasis of pale skin over tanned skin. But unlike pale skin, EQ work could turn into a highly productive status symbol. As effort and care can positively impact the quality of EQ work over time, it may provide a powerful positive motor for advancing overall society.
Last but not least, it’s important to again highlight that intelligence and status are positively linked, but intelligence is by far not the only driver of status. “If you rely on intelligence as the central proxy for ability, you will miss 70 percent of what you want to know about a person. You will also leach some of the humanity from the society in which you live.” (The Atlantic, 2024). The above examples show how crucial it is that access to AI-enhanced intelligence is actually available to all humans, not just the wealthy and powerful. Otherwise, we risk intelligence becoming an unproductive status symbol, as well as not capturing the societal upside of new productive status symbols like EQ work. I’m excited about a future where everyone has powerful intelligence capabilities, making the IQ we once took pride in less important. Not only because of the opportunities this would give all people, but also because of the chance to focus on new and productive pursuits together.
If you enjoyed this read, as part of dadalogue, I’ll be writing more content like this over the coming months - subscribe to my Substack and Instagram to follow for more!
Articles that inspired me:
The Atlantic, 2024: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/
The Economist, 2024: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/10/24/the-economics-of-thinness-ozempic-edition
The New York Times, 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/26/upshot/census-relative-income.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
👏👏👏