• As generative AI reshapes information systems, a core question is whether it will expand opportunity or entrench existing power. But technology is neither good, nor bad, nor neutral; it’s what we collectively do with it.
• Entrepreneurs are entering markets shaped by algorithmic asymmetry, even as AI clearly accelerates solo creators, AI-augmented developers, nontechnical founders and immigrant and rural entrepreneurs.
• Because AI is a social-contract story as much as a productivity story, state governments should pair AI policy with safety-net modernization, so systems support people who want to build something new instead of only those who already run the show.
This summer marked 10 years since Hitchbot’s decapitation.
The cheerful, solar-powered, talking bucket on legs had been built by Canadian researchers to explore one question: Can robots trust humans? Hitchbot hitchhiked safely across Canada, danced through the Netherlands, charmed Germany, and made it two weeks in the United States. Then it reached Philadelphia. Destroyed. Decapitated. Head never found.
At the time, Philadelphians reveled in the headlines reinforcing the city’s tough reputation. A decade later, amid widespread automation anxiety, the moment looks more like a prophecy.
Before the tech-lash and mainstream AI-ethics debates, emerging technology still felt whimsical. Cute, even. Hitchbot’s destruction wasn’t only vandalism; it was a primal reaction to something deeper. Like the 19th-century Luddites smashing textile machines, the anonymous Philadelphian who dismantled that talking bucket was expressing a truth many hadn’t yet faced: Technology is neither good, nor bad, nor neutral.
As Kranzberg’s first law reminds us (and as Technical.ly’s own AI ethics principles articulate) it’s not what the technology is; it’s what we collectively do with it. Hitchbot wasn’t a victim of cruelty. It was a warning.
And now, as generative AI reshapes nearly every information system, the question for entrepreneurs, ecosystem builders and economic development leaders is a simple one:
Will AI expand opportunity, or entrench incumbents?
Deja vu: The rise of the internet
Not every technology hits society with equal force. In his 2024 book “On Edge,” celebrity-statistician Nate Silver introduced his Technological Richter Scale, rating inventions from 0 to 10 based on their disruptive power. VCRs are a 6; credit cards and social media are a 7. Electricity is an 8. Fire and the wheel are a 9. His only perfect 10 was humans becoming the dominant species.
Silver argues AI is already at a 7, a tremor no one sleeps through, with room to intensify.
That framing matters because we’ve seen this movie before.
The early commercial internet looked like a paradise for small upstarts. A web browser and a $10 hosting account could get you global distribution. Message boards, blogs and early social platforms created a burst of creative destruction.
Then consolidation arrived. Search and social narrowed into a handful of platforms that set the terms for everyone else.
The internet and social media undeniably created far more jobs and higher wages than they destroyed. But they also coincided with historic economic concentration. And today, the Buffett Indicator, which measures the value of publicly traded US firms relative to GDP, is at its all-time high.
AI is on the same trajectory — only faster.
For the first time in history, according to AI-monitoring firm Graphite, in November 2024, more online articles were generated by AI than by humans. When marginal content costs drop toward zero and distribution is controlled by giants, the economic logic is brutal: The players with the most data, compute and capital will capture most of the upside.
Left alone, AI naturally reinforces incumbency. So if you care about entrepreneurship, and especially local entrepreneurship, the question isn’t whether to be “pro-AI” or “anti-AI.”
The question is whether we can bend this technology toward people who want to build something new.
Ultra-accessible tools, controlled by the few
In a recent episode of Builders Live, Technically’s monthly podcast about entrepreneurial ecosystems, my co-hosts and I were split on AI’s trajectory.
“A very inexpensive tool gives them access to an incredible amount of data, decision-smarts, you name it,” investor Brian Brackeen said of entrepreneurs. “That could only be a good thing because that person deserves every shot that she can get to be successful.”
He believes intense competition among today’s AI giants is pushing tools so cheap and capable that everyday entrepreneurs will flourish.
Right to Start founder Victor Hwang countered with structural skepticism: “We have a system that’s designed to be easy to consume and hard to create. You can sit at home and you can read anything, buy anything, eat anything and have it shipped to your couch. How do we create a world where it’s just as easy to create as it is to consume?”
AI tools lower some barriers, but platform economics raise others.
Techstars investment associate Rae’mah Henderson captured Gen Z’s declining confidence in the American system. “I just think capitalism might fail us here,” she said. “I don’t think we trust the powers that be to be in control, or their history.”
She added: “It’s just the right to be able to live a good life. And maybe that’s just a different way of saying the American dream.”
These three views — (1) optimism about tools, (2) frustration with extraction, and (3) mistrust of incumbents — form the emotional backdrop for AI’s entrepreneurial future.
Incumbents benefit. Who else might?
AI is not inherently centralizing or decentralizing. But in practice, without intervention, the benefits skew toward incumbents. Two simple realities explain why.
- AI runs on data, and incumbents have the most of it. Startups can be clever, but they cannot conjure proprietary datasets out of thin air.
- AI runs on compute, and compute requires enormous capital. Cloud infrastructure is increasingly dominated by a handful of hyperscalers.
This is showing up in consumer markets already. Consider dynamic pricing and the quiet disappearance of the price tag. The companies with the deepest data advantage win. AI sharpened the blade.
Entrepreneurs don’t get to opt out of this shift. They are entering markets shaped by algorithmic asymmetry. So the question becomes: What kind of entrepreneur thrives in an AI world?
AI clearly accelerates certain founders, including:
- Solo creators
- Developers with AI-augmented workflows
- Nontechnical founders accessing capabilities once locked behind engineering talent
- Immigrant and rural entrepreneurs now able to navigate thanks to AI-driven translation, search and support
It also accelerates certain ecosystems:
- Regions that treat AI as public infrastructure
- States that make it easier to start a business than to comply with regulations
Cities that adopt AI navigation tools, per Hwang, like Slingshot or Startup Space to match founders with local resources
But AI can just as easily erode entrepreneurial dynamism if policymakers create barriers — intentional or not.
How state and local leaders can approach AI to support entrepreneurs
Here are three priorities to ensure AI becomes a catalyst for creation, not consolidation.
1. Make it easier to start and grow a business than to doom-scroll
Cities and states should support AI tools that lower the friction to entrepreneurship, not just those that enhance consumption. This includes:
- AI-powered resource navigation
- AI-assisted permitting (see New Jersey, for example)
- AI-supported local procurement
- AI-assisted grant matching
These systems should be treated as digital public infrastructure, not afterthoughts.
2. Use AI to widen the funnel, not pick winners
When governments adopt AI consumer-service systems, like Michigan’s new MI Funding Hub for federal grants or Virginia Beach’s AI-driven flood-monitoring, the right question is: Who now gets to participate that previously could not?
On Builders Live, Brackeen raised a provocative point: If more people shift into self-employment and gig work — which AI tends to accelerate — their political preferences will eventually demand portable benefits, publicly supported retraining, and healthcare not tied to employers.
AI isn’t just a productivity story; it’s a social-contract story. Entrepreneurship grows when risk falls. As documented in a recent national analysis by the Nasdaq Entrepreneurial Center, states should treat AI policy and safety-net modernization as interdependent.
3. Let states lead, but don’t let them hide
Brackeen, a longtime skeptic of regulation, surprised me by saying, “States have a responsibility to their people.”
He argued some state-level guardrails are necessary, especially around children and identity protection. This echoes a broader reality: If a state declares itself an AI sandbox, it must also declare how that sandbox will be governed, audited and corrected when it fails.
Entrepreneurs need clarity, not vibes.
A lesson from Hitchbot
AI will not be the last technology to provoke anxiety. Nor should fear dictate policy. The Michigan Municipal League describes AI as a toolset that can:
- Improve government efficiency
- Expand community well-being
- Help leaders make data-informed decisions
But it also warns that cities “often lack the resources and guidance” to use AI safely and effectively. That’s not far from most entrepreneurial ecosystems.
AI can help a solo founder in Dothan, Alabama, where there is a new forestry-startup accelerator, reach customers globally. AI can also help megaplatforms extract more value from that same founder.
Where we land depends on the choices we make now. We don’t destroy technology because it’s evil. We destroy it, or resist it, when it’s unfamiliar, untrusted or uncontrolled.
Hitchbot’s fate wasn’t inevitable. Neither is AI’s.
The question is whether we build systems that support the people who want to build something new — or the ones who already run the show.
The future of entrepreneurship depends on making the right choice.
