Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy.
Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes.
The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled.
The conclusion is one sentence.
"At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand."
An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody.
Here is how you get there.
A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself.
Because the workers who were fired were also customers.
When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation.
The loop has no natural exit.
The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements.
Every single one failed in the model.
The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger.
No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it.
Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion."
Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem.
Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it.
Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place.
Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University ·
CLAUDE OPUS 4.6 IS NERFED.
BridgeBench just proved it.
Last week Claude Opus 4.6 ranked #2 on the Hallucination benchmark with an accuracy of 83.3%.
Today Claude Opus 4.6 was retested and it fell to #10 on the leaderboard with an accuracy of only 68.3%.
A 98% increase in hallucination.
https://t.co/ttnnwBYerW just confirmed that Claude Opus 4.6 has reduced reasoning levels and is nerfed.
Claude can make you more money than anything before.
So I built the Advanced Claude Mastery Course
• 80+ Chapters
• 1000+ New AI tools
• 2000+ New ClaudePrompts
100% FREE for the next 48hrs only
Just:
• Like
• Follow
• Repost
• Reply "Claude"
Must follow me to get DM. Free for 48 hours.
@WallStreetApes I’m sure this will outrage some losers. But none of those same people said anything when their selected president runs an unnecessary military operation against Iran, a non-aggressor, that cost north of a quarter BILLION dollars. Nope, just claps all around.
@TruthSeek01011@TheMaineWonk Many use Social Security Numbers of dead people or just any other person literally over funding the social security bucket. A guy that worked with a parent of mine, was crying about the taxes and child support coming out of his check as a result of lying about his SSN.
@BeatTheCult The Bible isn’t a moral book. God commands infanticide and the killing of children. The god commits mass genocide himself in the flood myth. He commands genocide stating to kill men, women and children unless they are virgin women apparently you get to keep those. And much more
Everybody thinks this is a magical question - who can beat Biden?! As if that's hard. He's deeply unpopular. Dozens of potential candidates could beat Biden. But if, as an example, you want the name of someone who would definitely beat him in a primary: Jon Stewart
@ThinkingAtheist I’m told things like:
“What you think your smarter than God”
“You think you know so much but you are just conceded” (more conceited than claiming to know the unknowable? Vs my rejection of a unsubstantiated premise.)
“Well you are the one that will burn for eternity, not me.”
@sleepnumber gives you one experience in the store and a different experience in your home. Then tells my wife with a painful neurological disability, to sleep uncomfortably on the $11,000 purchase for an extended period to "break it in" before they will return it and fee us. Thx