Debunking the "2028 Economic Collapse Theory": AI Will Make You Unemployed, But Also Make Everything Nearly Free

This is not just a crisis; it’s an aggressive evolution toward a “post-human economy.”

Author: David Mattin

Translation: Deep潮 TechFlow

Deep潮 Guide: While the entire industry is panicking over Citrini Research’s depiction of a “Global Economic Collapse Triggered by AI in 2028,” technology thinker David Mattin offers a completely different interpretation. He believes we are in a “global intelligent transformation,” where traditional economic indicators (like GDP, unemployment rate) are losing their relevance. This article explores how, as intelligence becomes as cheap and abundant as air, income may suffer, but costs will collapse even faster, ushering in a new era driven by “intelligence output per unit energy.” This is not just a crisis; it’s a radical evolution toward a “post-human economy.”

Full Text:

Everyone is talking about Citrini Research’s paper, “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis.” It’s a fascinating thought experiment: a speculative report from June 2028 imagining a chain reaction of economic collapse triggered by AI.

The following is a response to that paper. You can see it as a creation aligned with the spirit of Citrini’s original—an imaginative “counter-scenario.” It’s an exploration of new ways of observing, not a claim to have all the answers (no one does). This piece draws on years of research and analysis I’ve published with Raoul Pal in Global Macro Investor and our joint tech-focused research service, The Exponentialist.

Citrini Research’s paper has garnered significant attention—and rightly so. It’s a clever thought experiment: a speculative briefing from June 2028, prefiguring a chain reaction of economic meltdown caused by AI. The scenario predicts a 38% drop in the S&P 500, a 10.2% unemployment rate, a collapse of high-quality mortgage markets, and a breakdown of private credit complexes fueled by bets on white-collar productivity growth.

Logically consistent and detailed in its financial mechanisms, its core argument—that abundant intelligence destroys the consumption economy it should bolster—is provocative. Some parts may indeed prove prescient. Real turbulence, even extreme hardship, is ahead. The transition to an era of abundant intelligence will not be smooth.

For over five years, I’ve been immersed in this line of thinking. I’ve been building frameworks to understand what happens when intelligence becomes plentiful, when the AI-energy flywheel starts spinning, and when we shift from a human-centered economy to something entirely new. In my writings, I’ve described this as a transformation toward a fundamentally new economic system: a “Post-human Economics.” From this perspective, I want to offer a thoughtful response to Citrini’s thesis—based on my years of analysis—and arrive at a very different conclusion.

Citrini argues that abundant intelligence destroys the income side of the economy—wages, jobs, consumer spending—triggering a financial crisis. My view is that abundant intelligence also destroys the cost side of the economy—and perhaps even faster. When prices for goods and services collapse alongside wages, you’re not facing a crisis. You’re transitioning into a completely new system; in this system, all old norms, rules, and metrics become incoherent.

So, what is the core mistake in Citrini’s article? They’re measuring a “post-human economy” with the tools of a “human economy.” Then, they mistake the chaotic readings of these instruments for system collapse.

No one has a crystal ball; no one has all the answers. We’re piecing together a seven-dimensional puzzle that no one can fully understand. But I believe Citrini’s article, despite its sophistication, may be making a profound and instructive error. And my own work points to this.

My timeframe is longer than Citrini’s. Their scenario unfolds over two years; I’m looking at a span of ten to twenty years. I acknowledge serious turbulence ahead: a “Fourth Turning” style chaos, social upheaval, and institutional collapse. A version of their scenario may indeed come to pass. But I argue that the broader forces of AI and the “Exponential Age” will ultimately lead us into a new, functioning economy—one that operates better in many ways than anything we’ve known before.

The Wrong Metrics

This is the core of what I want to argue; if I’m right, it will reshape everything.

Every data point Citrini uses—10.2% unemployment, 38% drop in the S&P 500, surging mortgage delinquencies in San Francisco, stagnating money velocity—is based on old-system metrics. Each indicator originates from the economy we’ve always inhabited: one built around human labor, material scarcity, and GDP as the scoreboard.

The authors see these numbers and see disaster, which is understandable. But what if these indicators aren’t recording the death of the economy? What if they’re recording the death of a “measurement framework” that can no longer describe what’s happening?

Look at it differently. Citrini’s core concept has a powerful insight: “Ghost GDP”—output appearing in national accounts but never circulating in the real economy. They see it as evidence of dysfunction. But I would flip that perspective entirely. Ghost GDP isn’t a bug; it’s a signal. It’s telling us that GDP itself, as a meaningful measure of the current state, is collapsing. The instrument is failing, and Citrini mistakes the failing readings for the patient’s true condition.

In my research on the post-human economy, I’ve argued that as we transition to an economy built on automation and extreme abundance, GDP becomes incoherent. It can’t capture an economy where many goods and services’ costs are approaching zero—despite uneven speeds and different domains. It can’t measure the enormous uplift in human well-being when intelligence is hyper-abundant and nearly free. It can’t measure the emergence of “Autonomous Economic Activity”—AI trading with AI—completely disconnected from human labor markets.

In a post-human economy, GDP isn’t a coherent measure of anything. So, what should we look at instead?

Intelligence Output per Unit Energy

This is my answer; it’s at the core of my thinking about the future post-human economy.

In the coming economy, the most coherent measure of prosperity will be intelligence output per unit energy. How efficiently does our civilization convert energy into useful intelligence?

This is the key metric that resolves the paradox in Citrini’s scenario. Because, even as their scenario shows GDP shrinking, the S&P plunging, and unemployment soaring, the intelligence output per unit energy is skyrocketing.

Think about what’s driving the crisis they envision. AI models are getting stronger, compute costs are plummeting, inference costs are crashing through the floor. AI-managed energy systems are becoming more efficient. Every force—those destroying old economic indicators—is simultaneously propelling “intelligence output per unit energy” upward.

This is the crucial insight: on the chart, there are two lines. One—GDP, employment, consumer spending—is declining. The other—intelligence output per unit energy—is rising exponentially. Citrini’s article focuses only on the declining line and concludes we’re in crisis. But I argue that the rising line is the real signal; the declining line is just noise from the death of the old system.

In a world of hyper-abundant intelligence, everything downstream is better and more plentiful. Scientific breakthroughs, new materials, advanced medicine, cheaper energy, better infrastructure, more efficient manufacturing—all stem from the relentless improvement in our ability to convert energy into intelligence.

Citrini’s article imagines a negative feedback loop: AI destroys jobs → unemployment reduces consumer spending → companies buy more AI → repeat, with no natural brake.

But there’s also a parallel, equally powerful positive feedback loop: AI gets smarter → energy gets cheaper → intelligence output per unit energy rises → downstream costs of everything fall → even if nominal GDP shrinks, material living conditions improve.

Which loop will dominate? That’s the question. I believe the positive loop is supported by physical laws. It’s driven by exponential improvements in energy-to-intelligence conversion—this curve has steepened over years with no sign of slowing. In contrast, the negative loop is driven by institutional and political inertia: slow-moving mortgage markets, fiscal policies, labor adjustments. These are real and cause real pain, but they’re not immutable natural laws. They’re human-made, and humans can change them.

AI and Robots Are Part of Demographics

Another point Citrini’s article completely overlooks—and it’s one of the most powerful macro forces of our era.

Demographics.

Developed countries are shrinking their labor forces. The working-age population in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and China is declining rapidly. This is what I’ve called the “demographic death spiral.” Fewer babies, longer lifespans, unprecedented population pyramid shapes.

As Raoul has long emphasized, the golden rule is: GDP growth = population growth + productivity growth + debt growth. Population growth has vanished. It’s been gone for some time. That means the only way to keep the GDP game going is by increasing debt—borrowing tomorrow’s money to fund today’s party.

Now, consider what happens when AI and humanoid robots enter this environment. Citrini describes AI’s arrival as an invasion of a healthy labor market—millions of workers displaced.

But that’s only one side of the coin. The other is an emerging economy on the other side of the “Singularity”: one where AI and robots fill the millions of jobs vacated by labor shortages. And humans, although suffering, supported by social safety nets, are migrating—perhaps to the emerging economies I’ll describe next.

Human Residue

Because this is something Citrini’s article never considers. As the old economy shrinks, a new economy is self-activating from the ground up.

I’ve written about the rise of independent entrepreneurs. Sam Altman has spoken about this billion-dollar company. In some fields, AI tools and agents enable a single high-productivity individual to produce what previously required hundreds of employees. We will see millions of such new economic actors—independent operators and small teams managing large numbers of AI agents—creating enormous value in ways the old framework can’t foresee.

Anthropic’s research on how people use Claude sketches this future: software development, consulting, finance, marketing, content creation. In each domain, highly capable individuals with AI are becoming solo enterprises. This is a new form of economic activity, largely outside the structures Citrini monitors.

But a deeper transformation is underway. As machine intelligence takes over all cognitive work—coding, legal documents, financial analysis, data processing—economic value migrates up Maslow’s hierarchy, reaching levels only humans can provide.

I call this “Human Residue.” It’s the role of human involvement in value creation that requires genuine human qualities—empathy, recognition, authentic connection. It’s art and storytelling from real, lived experience. It’s the therapist helping you through stress, the guide helping you navigate life crises, the community builder creating a sense of belonging.

When AI handles all paperwork, what becomes scarce? Emotions. Connection. Meaning. Around these irreplaceable human outputs, a vast new economy will form—one of immense value, but not captured by GDP or the metrics Citrini tracks.

This is the other side of the Singularity: not a dead zone of mass unemployment, but a world where the old economy is composted to nourish a new, strange, and richer one.

Systemic Transition

Let’s synthesize all this.

Citrini’s core question: What happens when scarce inputs (intelligence) become abundant?

It’s a very valid question. In all of modern economic history, human intelligence has been a scarce, premium input. They believe this premium is vanishing—and that’s true. Increasingly, machine intelligence is a competent, rapidly evolving substitute for human intelligence in many tasks. I agree.

But Citrini’s conclusion is that the disappearance of human intelligence premium equals “crisis.” I see it as “transformation.” They’re fixated on the cocoon dissolving, screaming that the organism is dying. In some sense, they’re not wrong—cocoons do die. But inside, something else is forming.

It’s a post-human economy. In this economy, intelligence is no longer scarce but as abundant as air. Knowledge work and many material production costs will approach zero—not overnight, not evenly across all sectors, but relentlessly. The fundamental measure of prosperity won’t be how much nominal output we produce, but how efficiently we convert energy into intelligence. And the value exchanged among humans will shift from mental labor to deeper qualities: empathy, meaning, connection, creativity, and the pure experience of living with other conscious beings.

We’re not heading toward a “global intelligence crisis.” We’re moving into a “global intelligent transformation.” We’re entering a new economic system—one we’re all trying to understand. Yes, the transition will be turbulent, even chaotic. There will be disorder, pain, political upheaval. The “Fourth Turning” is very likely real. Some scenarios Citrini describes—mass unemployment, SaaS industry collapse, frictionless markets—may indeed arrive, and faster than most expect.

But from a longer-term perspective—over ten or twenty years, not two—those conclusions start to look less certain. A downturn comparable to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), with a 57% drop and no natural brakes? That depends entirely on whether those old metrics still reflect the true system.

I don’t believe they do. There will be real pain, but that pain is part of the transformation, not evidence that the destination is disaster.

On the chart, there are two lines:

• GDP is declining.
• Intelligence output per unit energy is rising.

One is a true signal; the other is just noise from a dying measurement system.

To understand what’s happening around us, we need to watch both.