The Impact of Sci-Fi on the Outlook of AI

Everyone loves a good science fiction story or movie for entertainment. However, as our real-world technology gets more and more advanced, these stories may be impacting how we view the future of AI. 

The Brookings Institution recently published a paper discussing the future of AI and how sci-fi has impacted our outlook on its future. In general, many people assume that AI will replace humans in many jobs and fear that this will lead to job shortages and increased unemployment. The paper released by the Brookings Institution discusses that the AI community was somewhat influenced by sci-fi and envisions AI as machines that act similarly to the human brain and will be more capable than humans. It will likely be cheaper than human labor, and so, people assume it will replace humans. This is how AI is portrayed in many sci-fi stories, and the authors of the paper suggest that this may not really be an accurate view of AI. The authors suggest that the reason the human replacement view of AI is so prevalent is that it matches up with “science fiction narratives.”

The paper then explains that the view which sees AI as a complement to humans is, in reality, much more likely. Science fiction is, in reality, just fiction, and AI may actually turn out to be a pro-worker force. To support this view, the authors provided a few historical examples. First, the job market will change in order to accommodate AI while still maintaining a need for human jobs. Research from 2024 shows that in 2018, six out of every ten workers were employed in jobs that did not exist in 1940. AI will change the job market in some ways and will require some adaptation, but it is unlikely to make human workers obsolete. 

The author also discussed how tech has enhanced many pre-existing jobs. The digital spreadsheet, for example, had a huge impact on accounting and finance jobs and helped them to become more efficient. The authors suggest that in the real world, AI has actually been making human workers more valuable by allowing them to be more productive. 

Finally, the authors point out that AI is ultimately under human control, so humans will continue to have valuable roles. The government may also step in at some point with changes in taxes to encourage the hiring of more workers if AI does become too much of an issue, in the same way that they have encouraged new technologies through spending and tax cuts.

 Overall, this paper explains that our outlook on the future of AI may be a bit more dramatic than reality. We have an underlying perception of AI replacing humans, which is heavily influenced by fiction. AI will likely not replace human workers, but the job force will need to adapt and will likely become more productive because of AI advancements. 

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/25/ai-chatgpt-jobs-market

https://apple.news/AAcK1f8DoSmeLf959GYXCFw

 

The Global M&A is Rolling into 2026, Sparked by AI

     The M&A (mergers and acquisitions) market is blowing up at the moment. This is because in 2025 companies spent almost $5 trillion on business deals and that momentum is carrying straight into 2026. A lot of this is being drive by AI and the battle to purchase the tech, data centers, and energy so companies can keep up with one another. There are already lot of huge deals going on costing over $5 billion in 2026. This is similar to 2025 where there was a total of 60 deals that topped the $10 billion mark, which is the most we've seen in years. Companies are basically playing a large-scale game of catch-up where big companies are merging to ensure they have the resources needed to keep AI running.

    The issue is even though everyone wants to make these moves, cash is actually getting really tight. Referred to as a "capital squeeze" is happening because building AI infrastructure is incredibly expensive. We will need almost more than double of our current data center capacity by 2030 to keep up with the advancement of AI. Due to this companies' money supplies are being drained. This is causing companies to be more selective in what they choose to invest in.

Below is a graph of some recent "Mega-deals" by year

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/global-ma-boom-surges-2026-ai-mega-deals-capital-squeeze-merger-and-acquisition.html

Are trading cards comparable to investments?

Last week, Logan Paul sold a Pokémon card to AJ Scaramucci, son of Anthony Scaramucci, for an astound $16.5 million. This marks the largest auction and selling of a Pokémon card in history. The card, which was made in 1998 and is estimated to be one of only a few dozen, was purchased by Paul 4 years prior for only $5.3 million, netting Paul a return of over 200%. Scaramucci claims that the purchase is "passion first, and kind of an investment second," meaning that the bid was not made entirely for monetary profit.

The "Pokémon Index," a measure of the value of  Pokémon cards, is currently up 145% in the past year. Compare this to S&P 500 which is only up 15.2% the past year, and the choice of where to invest seems obvious. However, Pokémon cards are a very risky asset, if even an asset at all. Their value comes from scarcity and collector's perceptions of how "rare" they think certain cards are. This causes many to view them as an unstable and unreliable form of investment.

Using collectibles as a form of wealth building is incredibly interesting to me. Their value can change quickly as more cards are brought into and taken out of circulation. A card that is worth a million to one person may be seen as worthless to another, so viewing them as an "investment" is entirely subjective. Having a few cards myself I can definitely say I have only ever viewed them as fun and have never thought about what their worth would be in future years, but maybe I should go back and see if any of them have gained value.

Article: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/pokmon-card-winner-scaramucci-says-collectibles-are-asset-class.html

Has the labor market grown stagnant and where will this lead?

During the years of the covid pandemic there was a period known as the "great resignation" where job movements were volatile. The rate of hiring, firing, and quitting was extremely rapid during that time. This was due to large numbers of people quitting their jobs, leaving many vacancies, and ultimately forcing businesses to create incentives, such as signing bonuses and increased salaries, to fill up those positions. 

Now we are in a time that some are calling the "big stay", which reflects the idea that we are in a period of very little firing and very little hiring. This is due to people "hoarding" their jobs out of fear of returning to the extreme volatility of the Covid years and not being able to retain jobs/employees.

This has caused the labor market to move like a pendulum. During the pandemic it swung so far to one side that for every worker out of work two job openings were available. It has now swung too far to the other side, which has resulted in not much movement in the job market. This stagnation could be seen as a sign of stability, but it may lead to increased unemployment.

This "big stay" could result in unemployment numbers rising because as more people enter the labor force, they are having a hard time finding jobs due to the lack of openings. Ultimately, this may end up harming the economy due to stagnant movement, decreased competition, and increased unemployment. It would be ideal for the labor market to stop swinging as drastically and return to a less volatile movement. Overall, it can be seen that the labor market has grown stagnant after a period of extreme volatility. 

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/life-after-the-great-resignation-incentives-are-dimming-for-workers-to-change-jobs.html

How AI is Changing Policy's

 On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Lisa Cook, the governor of the Federal Reserve, suggested that AI could be the reason the central bank will have to make difficult decisions between keeping interest rates elevated to slow inflation from rising or lowering interest rates to address lower employment. Cook explains that AI has been driving productivity, and if this continues, even if firms stop using AI, the labor market will lead to an increase in unemployment. Cook builds on this by saying that because of the AI transition, the new policies the FED is contemplating could have a profound effect on monetary policy.  She also discusses that Rate cuts may not be a good solution for this problem, and they may not be able to sole for the increase in unemployment. There, for normal demand-side monetary policy my not be able to solve for unemployment caused by AI.  So policymakers such as Cook will be facing a trade-off between unemployment and inflation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-governor-lisa-cook-says-ai-could-leave-fed-with-hard-choice-fight-inflation-or-boost-employment-172553175.html

Climate Change = Inflation? The Truth Behind it. - Justin Beekman

         Climate change is one of the most controversial things out there. Most of the time, when discussing climate change, you think about ice melting or hurricanes. The truth is, climate change is also affecting us on a small scale and fiscally hurting us. Some connections to our economic lives is the extreme heat to our electricity bills or extreme cold in the winter. 

    Our food supply is not safe either. Extreme weather has affected crop production, which then, in turn, slows down meat production and ultimately slows down the whole food sector. As simple economics states, less supply, higher price. Commonly used shipping routes like rivers are also having a harder time, due to low water levels. The trade routes being backed up can also cause a rise in prices.

    Going back to when I first mentioned it, but energy prices are also affected. Extreme weather causes fluctuations in energy uses which can add up over time for a family that is sticking to a tight budget. Smaller countries that have less excess money are also struggling by having to replace infrastructure due to extreme storms and anomalies. 

Lastly, one of the most hard hitting price hikes, is insurance. Families are being pressured to insure things for more and more things every year. California families are paying for wildfire coverage, and Texas families are paying to cover ice damage. The climate is causing families all around to pay more. 

    The climate affects more than just our yearly camping trips. Families around the world are feeling the hits of Mother Nature daily. Whether it's rain or snow Mother Nature has its hand in our pockets. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/climate/climate-change-prices-inflation.html 

Why American Express Plunged Today

     Credit card giant American Express saw its stock plummet 7.5% today, which is a rarity for such a large and established company. The downturn in AMEX stock is predicated largely on a post from a user on X called “Citrini” who laid out a plausible scenario where a recession can happen in mid-2028 due to artificial intelligence taking a large amount of white collar labor. Citrini claims that the potential recession could see unemployment of up to 10%. In addition to the claims on X, Fed Governor Chris Waller stated that a potential positive February job report could be used as potential rationale behind the Fed keeping interest rates steady. 

    The combination of the two aforementioned pieces of information led to a sizable downturn in AMEX stock due to investors wanting to “de-risk” their portfolios and avoid being hit with a bigger loss down the line, especially with how hot stocks have been running. It’s certainly interesting to see how impactful mere reports can be, especially from a user on X having the ability to have large influence on the behavior of investors. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-american-express-plunged-today-190948259.html

10-year Treasury yields rise after high court rebukes Trump’s tariffs

After the Supreme Court ruled against Trumps tariffs. The 10-year yield increased as investors were concerned that the loss of tariff revenue could worsen the fiscal deficit and hurt the demand for U.S debt. This was after Trump decided to announce a new 10% global tariff. Economist believe that since tariffs contributed somewhat to last years inflation, the decision to rule against them could make inflation related issues easier to solve and also make Federal Chairman Kevin Warsh's job easier.

With this court ruling how is the process of recovering the tariff revenue going to work? Many businesses and corporations were affected by these illegal tariffs. So along with them increasing bond yields, they also affected the amount of spending by organizations. Since tariff revenue contributed partly to inflation in 2025, hopefully this ruling as the article suggest can help solve inflationary related issues in the economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/20/us-treasury-yields-key-inflation-data-release.html

New home sales hit a 4 year high at the end of 2025

    The U.S. housing market showed surprising strength at the end of 2025, as new home sales jumped to near four-year highs. Data from the US Census show that sales rose sharply in November and remained high in December, indicating strong demand despite high prices and borrowing costs. While some regions like the Midwest and West saw growth, others, such as the Northeast, experienced declines, showing that local economic conditions still play a big role in housing activity.

    From an economic perspective, this trend reflects a classic supply-and-demand issue. Lower mortgage rates have made more households eligible to buy homes, but the limited housing supply continues to push prices upward. According to the National Association of Realtors, if more buyers enter the market without an increase in construction, affordability could worsen. Overall, the recent surge in sales suggests improving demand, but long-term stability will depend on increasing housing supply.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/business/us-new-home-sales-hit-near-4-year-high-in-november-2025-post-5988385?welcomeuser=1 

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on former President Trump’s tariff policy based on the latest reporting

 The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to former President Donald Trump’s trade agenda on February 20, 2026, by ruling that his sweeping global tariffs were unlawful because he lacked statutory authority to impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that tariffs are the exclusive domain of Congress, not the executive branch, and that IEEPA does not clearly authorize such broad tariff powers for a president. The ruling not only invalidates many of the tariffs put in place over the past year but also raises complex questions about whether companies that paid those duties will be entitled to refunds.

In response, Trump sharply criticized the decision and promptly moved to impose a new 15 % global tariff under a different statutory authority, illustrating that trade policy uncertainty will persist despite the court’s check on executive power. The ruling underscores the constitutional balance between branches of government, signals limits on unilateral presidential action in economic affairs, and has sparked reactions from international partners like the European Union urging the U.S. to honor existing trade commitments. Businesses and markets are now watching closely as the legal and economic repercussions unfold.