Singularity AI Will Arrive, But Institutional Inertia Will Slow It Down

In recent years, predictions about the “end of the digital age” have become a popular topic in tech communities. Pessimistic comments about AI singularity often depict scenarios where technology will soon overhaul all aspects of human civilization. However, history teaches us a different lesson: major changes are always slower than feared, not because technology isn’t powerful enough, but because hidden forces of institutional inertia far surpass most observers’ imaginations.

This perspective isn’t pessimism about AI—in fact, it’s a more realistic optimism. Singularity may arrive, but it won’t happen overnight. The presence of systemic inertia, the poor quality of ongoing software development, and the enormous infrastructure needs will give us time to adapt, plan, and even grow.

Why Institutions Always Last Longer Than Expected

Over the past two decades, there have often been calls for the “end of big institutions.” In 2007, many analysts believed U.S. geopolitical dominance had peaked amid a global energy crisis. A year later, the dollar system seemed on the verge of collapse due to the financial crisis. In 2014, AMD and NVIDIA were believed to be in their sunset phase. When ChatGPT emerged, once again people declared that Google was “finished.”

But the reality is that institutions with deep inertia always prove otherwise. They are far more resilient, adaptable, and harder to defeat than critics imagine. This isn’t just coincidence—it’s a deeper law about how human systems operate.

A clear example is the real estate industry. For 20 years, people have claimed that real estate agents would become extinct, citing minimal information asymmetry between buyers and agents. Technologies like Zillow, Redfin, and Opendoor were supposed to revolutionize the market. Yet, in reality? Real estate agents remain very resilient, continuing to earn 5-6% commissions on each transaction, even though the actual work can now be completed in hours by buyers themselves using online guidance.

The author’s personal experience illustrates this well. When buying a house a few months ago, the transaction system forcibly required professional agent involvement, justified by noble-sounding reasons. The buyer’s agent earned about $50,000 for a job that actually took only about 10 hours—work that could clearly be done by the buyer with online resources.

What causes this phenomenon? The answer is a perfect blend of regulatory capture, deeply ingrained consumer habits, and market inertia. Yes, this market will eventually become more efficient, and labor costs will normalize, but the process will take years, not months. And this signal applies broadly: singularity may be approaching, but don’t underestimate the time it takes for institutions to truly change.

The author’s experience building and selling a company focused on transitioning insurance brokers from manual services to software-based solutions offers valuable insights. The main lesson is simple but powerful: the real human world is far more complex than scalable business models suggest, and everything always takes longer than expected—even when you account for the fact that everything takes a long time. This doesn’t mean the world won’t change; it means change will be more gradual, giving society time to respond and adapt.

Poor Software Creates Endless Demand for Labor

Recently, the software sector has experienced valuation shocks. Investors worry that backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, and Asana lack strong moats, making them easy to imitate. There are concerns that AI will homogenize the SaaS industry, reduce profitability, and ultimately eliminate thousands of jobs.

But there’s a fundamental point everyone overlooks: almost all existing software is low-quality junk.

The author has credibility to say this because they’ve invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in tools like Salesforce and Monday, only to face repeated disappointment. These “premium” products are riddled with bugs, confusing interfaces, and features that don’t work smoothly. Some software is so bad that it can’t be used at all—even for free. For example, over the past three years, Citibank’s online banking system has been unreliable for transfers. Most web apps fail to provide a seamless experience across desktop and mobile. Almost no product truly offers all the features users want.

Silicon Valley favorites like Stripe and Linear are praised mainly because they are less frustrating to use than competitors—not because they are perfect. Ask an experienced engineer: “Show me one piece of software that’s completely perfect,” and you’ll likely get silence and blank stares.

Here lies the paradox: as software singularity approaches, human demand for software labor is almost unlimited. The last 1% of product perfection usually requires the most effort and expense. Based on this, nearly every software product still has room for 100x improvements before reaching saturation in real demand.

Most comments claiming the software industry will soon collapse lack a fundamental understanding of software development. This industry has been around for 50 years, and despite major breakthroughs, it remains in a state of “not enough.” A programmer in 2026 will be as productive as hundreds of programmers in 1970—an incredible leverage—but there is still vast room for optimization.

This is the “Jevons Paradox”: increasing efficiency doesn’t reduce total demand but causes a surge in new demand. While some jobs will shift, the industry’s capacity to absorb and create new work far exceeds our expectations, and saturation will be very slow—slow enough to allow us to manage the transition calmly.

Singularity Is Not a Disaster: Reindustrialization as a Way Out

It’s true that job shifts will occur across various sectors. Professions like long-haul drivers will face real disruption. Many white-collar jobs will be affected by AI. For jobs that have already lost substantial value and only persist due to market habits—like real estate agents—AI might be the “last straw” that topples the outdated system.

But the U.S. has a trump card often forgotten: an almost unlimited need for reindustrialization.

You may have heard of “reshoring manufacturing,” but the reality is much deeper. The U.S. has nearly lost the capability to produce the basic building blocks of modern life: high-quality batteries, efficient motors, precision semiconductors. The entire electrical supply chain depends almost entirely on imports. What happens if geopolitical conflicts or supply chain disruptions occur? Even more alarming, China produces 90% of the world’s synthetic ammonia. If supply is cut off, the country cannot produce fertilizer at any scale, risking famine for its population.

When you look at the physical world clearly, job opportunities seem almost limitless. There is an urgent need for infrastructure projects that benefit the nation—creating thousands of jobs—and these projects are supported across political parties. Economic and political trends are shifting in this direction—discussions about manufacturing renaissance, deep industrial tech, and “restoring America’s vitality” are now mainstream.

As AI begins to disrupt office workers, the least politically contentious path is large-scale funding for reindustrialization. With this momentum, millions of new jobs will be created through “massive infrastructure projects”—building seawater desalination plants to combat California’s 25-year drought, repairing aging bridges, establishing domestic semiconductor factories, and many other construction initiatives.

Fortunately, the physical world has no “singularity”—it is subject to friction, material limits, and human expertise. These projects must be built and maintained with precision and long-term sustainability. Many senior Salesforce product managers earning $180,000 annually might find new purposeful careers in the physical infrastructure sector, contributing to real national transformation.

From Scarcity to Abundance in the Era of Singularity

The ultimate point of large-scale industrial transformation is material abundance. When singularity matures, the U.S. will achieve self-sufficiency in production and be able to generate essential goods at unprecedented low costs. Overcoming scarcity hinges on strong physical infrastructure and efficient manufacturing.

Even if most office jobs are lost to AI, the economy must sustain high living standards for the broader population. The good news is that AI will push profit margins toward zero, making consumer goods extremely affordable. Thus, material prosperity will be achieved organically—not through intervention, but through simple market laws.

Different economic sectors will “take off” at varying speeds. Transformation across nearly all fields will be much slower than the most optimistic futurists predict. Singularity will arrive, but in waves, not as an instant tsunami.

Time: The Greatest Gift for Preparation

The author is highly optimistic about AI’s future and confidently predicts that one day, their own job will become obsolete. But this transformation requires time—and time is the most valuable gift society can receive. Time allows us to formulate good strategies, adjust education systems, and build resilient social infrastructure.

At this point, preventing the scenario of market collapse envisioned by doom prophets isn’t as difficult as it seems. The U.S. government’s response during the pandemic crisis proved that when necessary, the country can act swiftly and decisively against existential threats. If the future demands it, large-scale stimulus and investment will be quickly mobilized.

While acknowledging bureaucratic inefficiencies may be uncomfortable, that’s not the main point. The core goal is to ensure material prosperity for the people—an overall well-being that legitimizes the state and sustains the social contract. The focus isn’t on clinging to outdated economic dogmas but on adapting to the evolving technological reality.

By remaining vigilant and responsive to these slow but inevitable technological changes, we can stay safe. Singularity will arrive, but on a timeline that gives us the chance to grow with it. And that’s what truly matters: not the speed of change, but our ability to adapt, innovate, and ensure that the benefits of technology are shared fairly across society.