AI and the Next Civilization Cycle: What’s Coming by 2050

Economy, Philosophy, Society, Technology, Uncategorised |

Introduction: The Cyclical Dynamics of Civilization—A Lens on Past, Present, and Future

Human civilization unfolds as a rhythmic interplay between order and disorder, a cycle where power alternately consolidates into centralized structures and disperses into fragmented pieces. This pendulum swing—between centralization, where authority concentrates in the hands of a few, and fragmentation, where it scatters across many—offers a lens through which to view the arc of history and the trajectory of our future. Evidence from the earliest societies to the present suggests that this oscillation is not arbitrary but shaped by recurring forces: technological breakthroughs that enable unified systems, crises that fracture them, and the slow entropy that erodes control over time. Each swing marks a peak—moments when civilizations reach their most cohesive or their most divided—followed by shifts driven by innovation, collapse, or human agency.

As of March 2025, this cycle appears to approach a critical juncture. The past eight decades have seen a gradual unraveling of the centralized order that peaked after World War II, with financial inequality, political polarization, economic precarity, and cultural divergence straining modern societies. Amid this fragmentation, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a transformative force, carrying dual potentials—termed here as the twin dilemmas of Control versus Autonomy and Abundance versus Inequality—that could either deepen the current disarray or forge a new epoch of consolidation. Historical patterns, illuminated by frameworks such as Strauss and Howe’s Fourth Turning, suggest we are in a crisis phase, a period of upheaval poised to resolve into a redefined order. This essay explores that possibility, mapping the cycle across key moments in civilization’s past, contextualizing the present within this dynamic, and projecting how AI might shape what lies ahead.

The analysis proceeds in three parts. First, it charts the historical peaks of centralization and fragmentation, from prehistoric bands to industrial empires, identifying the drivers of each shift. Second, it examines the modern era’s trajectory, from the mid-20th century’s centralized height to today’s fractured state, framed by the Fourth Turning’s crisis lens. Finally, it considers AI’s role as a potential epoch-maker, analyzing how its dilemmas could push fragmentation to its limits and catalyze a return to centralization. Through this lens, the past clarifies the present, and the future comes into tentative focus—a cycle unbroken, yet ever evolving.

Section 1: Historical Peaks of Centralization and Fragmentation

The cycle of centralization and fragmentation has defined human civilization since its earliest forms, with each phase reaching distinct peaks of unity or disarray. These moments, driven by technological innovation, environmental pressures, or societal collapse, reveal a recurring dynamic across millennia. This section traces the cycle through three broad eras—prehistoric and early civilizations, Bronze and Iron Age empires to the medieval period, and medieval to early modern times—highlighting pivotal instances where power either consolidated or dispersed, supported by historical evidence and structural analysis.

Prehistoric and Early Civilizations

The earliest human societies operated in a state of near-complete fragmentation, a condition that persisted for millions of years until the advent of agriculture shifted the trajectory. Among hunter-gatherer bands, from approximately 2.5 million BCE to 10,000 BCE, power remained diffuse. Archaeological findings indicate small groups, typically 20 to 150 individuals, organized around immediate survival needs—hunting, foraging, and seasonal migration. Leadership, where present, was informal, based on skill or consensus rather than fixed hierarchy, reflecting a peak of fragmentation sustained by the absence of surplus resources or enabling technologies. The transition began with the Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 BCE, as evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük in modern Turkey shows settled communities leveraging agriculture to produce food surpluses, laying the groundwork for centralized authority.

By around 3000 BCE, this shift culminated in a peak of centralization across early civilizations. In Mesopotamia, city-states such as Uruk and Ur unified under rulers who harnessed writing—cuneiform tablets document taxation and trade—and irrigation to sustain growing populations. Sargon of Akkad’s empire (2334 BCE) exemplifies this, integrating disparate Sumerian polities into a centralized state, its scale evidenced by tribute records and military campaigns stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Similarly, Egypt’s Old Kingdom (2700 BCE – 2181 BCE) achieved a unified Nile Valley under pharaohs, their authority symbolized by the monumental pyramids of Giza, constructed through coordinated labor and resources. These instances mark a consolidation enabled by technological and administrative breakthroughs.

This centralization, however, proved unstable. Around 2200 BCE, both regions reached a peak of fragmentation. Egypt’s First Intermediate Period (2181 BCE – 2055 BCE) saw the Old Kingdom fracture under climatic stress—droughts reduced Nile floods—and weakened rulers, allowing nomarchs to assert regional control, as lamentations like the Admonitions of Ipuwer attest. In Mesopotamia, the Akkadian Empire collapsed (2230 BCE) amid Gutian invasions and internal revolts, splintering into independent city-states and tribal zones, with scant records signaling a chaotic interlude. The shift back to centralization came with figures like Mentuhotep II in Egypt (2055 BCE) and the Third Dynasty of Ur (2100 BCE), who restored order through military and administrative means.

Bronze and Iron Age Empires to Medieval Period

The cycle repeated with greater scale in the Bronze and Iron Ages. By approximately 100 CE, the Roman Empire and China’s Han Dynasty represented a peak of centralization. Rome, unified under Augustus (~27 BCE), extended control from Britain to North Africa, its roads and legions—evidenced by milestones and fort remains—binding a diverse empire. The Han, peaking around the same time, governed through a Confucian bureaucracy, with census records showing a population of nearly 60 million under centralized taxation and law. Military technology, organizational discipline, and infrastructure enabled these vast consolidations, concentrating power in imperial capitals.

This peak unraveled by 500 CE, marking a profound fragmentation. Western Rome fell in 476 CE to barbarian incursions and economic decline, dissolving into a patchwork of feudal domains—local lords ruled, as seen in fragmented land charters. In China, the Han collapsed into the Three Kingdoms (220 CE), a period of warring states documented in historical chronicles like the Records of the Three Kingdoms. Power dispersed to regional warlords and petty kings, a peak of disarray that stretched centuries in Europe’s Dark Ages. The shift back began unevenly: the Byzantine Empire preserved some centralization in the East, while China’s Tang Dynasty (618 CE) and the Islamic Caliphates (~800 CE) reconsolidated power through trade networks (e.g., the Silk Road) and unifying ideologies, evidenced by Tang examination systems and Abbasid administrative records.

Medieval to Early Modern Times

The medieval and early modern eras saw the cycle accelerate with new mechanisms of control. Around 1300 CE, the Mongol Empire achieved a fleeting peak of centralization, unifying much of Eurasia under Genghis Khan and his successors. Their military prowess—mounted archers, rapid mobility—enabled a domain stretching from China to Eastern Europe, with tribute lists and chronicles like the Secret History of the Mongols attesting to its scope. Fragmentation followed by 1368 CE, as the empire splintered into khanates—the Ilkhanate, Golden Horde—marking a peak of disarray evidenced by fragmented diplomatic records. In Europe, the late medieval period saw a different path. William the Conqueror’s victory at Hastings in 1066 CE introduced a feudal system to England that centralized power under a single ruler, binding local lords through land grants and oaths of fealty, as recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086. This model, blending localized control with a hierarchical apex, spread across Europe—evident in France under the Capetians and Germany’s Holy Roman Empire—laying foundations for later nation-states.

By the early modern period (1600 CE), this feudal framework evolved into broader centralization. Monarchs like Louis XIV of France and Japan’s Tokugawa shoguns leveraged gunpowder weaponry and taxation systems—documented in tax rolls and castle fortifications—to consolidate power, reducing feudal autonomy. The Reformation (1500s) and wars like the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), however, marked a counterpoint of fragmentation, shattering religious and political unity across Europe, as parish records and treaty texts reflect. The shift to renewed centralization came with industrial and colonial powers—Spain, Britain, and later the United States—whose advances in navigation and manufacturing enabled global consolidation by the 18th and 19th centuries, setting the stage for the modern era.

Reflections on the Pattern

Across these eras, peaks of centralization—Mesopotamia/Egypt, Rome/Han, Mongols/nation-states—emerged when breakthroughs (writing, military tech, industry) aligned with capable unifiers, concentrating power over vast scales. Peaks of fragmentation—First Intermediate/Post-Sargon, Dark Ages, post-Mongol—followed when crises (climate, invasions) or entropy (overreach, diffusion) broke those systems, dispersing authority to local levels. The shifts between them, whether rapid (Mentuhotep’s unification) or gradual (medieval recovery), hinged on new tools or stabilizing forces. This pattern, evidenced by archaeological, textual, and structural records, frames civilization as a pendulum, swinging with predictable rhythm yet variable tempo—a dynamic that continues into the present.

Section 2: The Modern Cycle—From Industrial Peak to Fragmentation

The modern era encapsulates a distinct arc within the broader cycle of centralization and fragmentation, transitioning from a peak of consolidated power in the mid-20th century to a state of pronounced disarray by 2025. This shift, spanning roughly eight decades, reflects the interplay of technological diffusion, societal transformation, and systemic strain. Drawing on historical data and the generational framework of Strauss and Howe’s Fourth Turning, this section examines the industrial age’s zenith around 1945, the subsequent slide into fragmentation through the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and the current moment as a critical phase of unraveling poised for resolution.

Peak Centralization: Industrial Age (~1945)

The mid-20th century marked a pinnacle of centralization, driven by the technological and organizational breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution. By 1945, the conclusion of World War II solidified a global order dominated by a handful of powers, most notably the United States and the Soviet Union, alongside lingering colonial empires such as Britain’s. Industrial advancements—steam engines, steel production, and mechanized warfare—enabled unprecedented control over resources and populations. The United States, with a GDP surpassing $1.5 trillion in today’s dollars by war’s end, emerged as an economic and military hegemon, its nuclear arsenal and industrial output dwarfing competitors. The Soviet Union mirrored this consolidation, centralizing vast territories under a planned economy, while Britain still governed a quarter of the world’s landmass, as colonial maps from the era illustrate.

This peak extended beyond nation-states to international systems. The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and the Bretton Woods agreements—fixing currencies to the U.S. dollar and creating the IMF and World Bank—reflected a centralized framework for global governance and finance. Power concentrated in a few capitals, supported by industrial infrastructure like transatlantic shipping and mass production, which aligned economies and, to an extent, cultures under a shared postwar vision. This moment, evidenced by the scale of military alliances (e.g., NATO’s formation in 1949) and economic dominance of the victors, represents a high point of centralized authority, where technological capacity and political will converged to unify disparate regions under a cohesive order.

Slide to Fragmentation (~1945-2025)

The centralized order of 1945 began to erode almost immediately, giving way to a prolonged fragmentation that has intensified over decades. The initial fracture came with decolonization, as former colonies—India in 1947, much of Africa by the 1960s—gained independence, swelling the United Nations’ membership from 51 to over 190 by the late 20th century. This dispersal of political power weakened imperial cores, shifting authority to a multiplicity of new states. Concurrently, the 1960s saw cultural and social upheavals—civil rights movements, anti-war protests, and countercultural shifts—eroding the postwar consensus, particularly in Western societies. These changes, documented in rising protest records and shifting demographic patterns, marked the beginning of a divergence in values and identities.

Economic and technological developments furthered this trend. Globalization, accelerating in the 1980s, dispersed industrial production—manufacturing shifted to East Asia and Latin America, evidenced by trade data showing China’s export surge from negligible in 1970 to over $2 trillion by 2010. Within nations, labor markets fragmented; by 2025, approximately 40% of U.S. workers engage in gig or freelance work, per labor statistics, reflecting a decline in stable, centralized employment structures. Political polarization intensified alongside these shifts—trust in institutions plummeted, with surveys like Pew Research indicating only 20% of Americans trust their government in 2024, a stark drop from 77% in the 1960s. Culturally, multiculturalism and digital media have fostered distinct subcultures, from urban enclaves to online echo chambers, fragmenting shared narratives.

By March 2025, this fragmentation peaks. Economic inequality—where the top 1% hold nearly 30% of U.S. wealth—coexists with political gridlock, as seen in legislative stalemates, and cultural sharding, where linguistic and ideological divides deepen within borders. The diffusion of technology, including early AI applications, amplifies this, enabling disparate groups to operate independently of central systems, further straining the cohesion of the mid-20th century order.

Fourth Turning Context

The trajectory from 1945 to 2025 aligns with the generational cycle proposed by William Strauss and Neil Howe in their Fourth Turning framework, which posits history unfolds in roughly 80-100 year saecula, each comprising four phases. The postwar era (1940s-1960s) corresponds to a High—a period of centralized stability and optimism following the crisis of the Great Depression and World War II. The Awakening (1960s-1980s) introduced cultural and social questioning, initiating fragmentation. The Unraveling (~1980s-2000s) saw institutions weaken and individualism rise, deepening the divide, as evidenced by deregulation policies and cultural polarization.

Since 2008, marked by the global financial crisis, the cycle has entered a Crisis phase—the Fourth Turning—projected to resolve by the late 2020s or early 2030s. As of 2025, 17 years into this period, mounting tensions are apparent: economic instability persists post-2008, political upheavals like Brexit (2016) and populist surges (e.g., 2016 U.S. election) reflect distrust, and global shocks—COVID-19, the Ukraine conflict (2022)—compound the strain. This framework positions the current fragmentation as a precursor to a transformative resolution, where systemic pressures reach a breaking point, setting the stage for a potential return to centralization driven by emerging forces such as AI.

Reflections on the Modern Shift

The modern cycle illustrates the pendulum’s swing with clarity: the industrial peak of 1945 concentrated power through technological and geopolitical dominance, only to fragment as those tools diffused and societal cohesion eroded. Decolonization, globalization, and cultural divergence have dispersed authority, while economic and political indicators underscore a peak of disarray in 2025. The Fourth Turning lens suggests this fragmentation is not an endpoint but a phase, with historical parallels—such as Rome’s fall or the Warring States—indicating that crisis often precedes renewal. The question remains: what force will catalyze the next swing?

Section 3: AI’s Twin Dilemmas and the Next Epoch

Artificial intelligence (AI) stands as a transformative force in the unfolding cycle of centralization and fragmentation, poised to reshape economic structures and societal dynamics in the coming decades. As of March 2025, AI’s integration into production, services, and governance accelerates, amplifying the fragmentation evident in the modern era while simultaneously offering the potential for a new centralized order. This section examines AI’s economic disruptions, defines its twin dilemmas—Control versus Autonomy and Abundance versus Inequality—and explores their implications for the cycle, projecting a trajectory from peak fragmentation to a possible epochal shift. Historical patterns and the Fourth Turning framework provide context for understanding AI as both a breaker of current systems and a builder of what may follow.

AI’s Economic Disruption

AI’s rapid advancement is reconfiguring economic foundations, with effects that ripple across industries and labor markets. By 2025, automation driven by AI has already displaced segments of traditional work—robotic systems manage warehouses, as seen in Amazon’s logistics network, while AI diagnostics in healthcare outperform human accuracy in specific domains, per studies from institutions like Stanford. Projections from McKinsey suggest that up to 30% of global jobs—spanning trucking (3.5 million U.S. drivers), retail (4.6 million workers), and even legal analysis—could be automated by 2030. This shift reduces labor costs but erodes employment stability, amplifying the economic fragmentation initiated by globalization and gig work.

Simultaneously, AI enhances production capacity, pushing toward an era of potential abundance. Manufacturing, powered by AI-optimized robotics, can produce goods at near-zero marginal cost—evidenced by declining prices in electronics over recent decades. Agricultural innovations, such as AI-driven vertical farming, promise similar efficiencies, with pilot projects in Japan and the Netherlands cutting food production costs. Data emerges as a new form of capital; companies like Google and Tencent amass vast datasets, fueling AI’s predictive and generative capabilities. Yet, this abundance hinges on energy—training models like GPT-4 consumes approximately 50 gigawatt-hours, per industry estimates—posing a bottleneck unless breakthroughs like fusion power materialize by 2040. Economically, AI thus presents a dual edge: it fragments labor markets while laying the groundwork for surplus, setting the stage for broader societal impacts.

Twin Dilemmas Defined

AI’s trajectory introduces two critical dilemmas that will shape its role in the centralization-fragmentation cycle. The first, Control versus Autonomy, centers on governance. As of 2025, AI development is partially decentralized—open-source models like those from Meta enable widespread access, while state actors, such as China’s integration of AI into its social credit system, exert tight control. Autonomy risks amplifying fragmentation: independent entities—corporations, hackers, or local governments—could deploy AI for divergent ends, from market manipulation to tailored propaganda, as seen in early instances of AI-generated misinformation on platforms like X. Conversely, centralized control, evidenced by regulatory efforts like the U.S. AI executive order of 2023, could consolidate power in a few hands—states or tech giants—capable of harnessing AI’s full scope.

The second dilemma, Abundance versus Inequality, addresses distribution. AI’s capacity to produce goods and services cheaply could usher in a post-scarcity economy—food, housing, and healthcare costs might plummet by 2040, as pilot projects like universal basic income (UBI) trials in Stockton, California, hint at scalable redistribution. However, ownership remains contested. If AI’s benefits concentrate among a few—tech firms or nations like the U.S. and China—the wealth gap, already stark with the top 1% holding nearly 30% of U.S. wealth in 2025, could widen dramatically, potentially to 70% or more, per economic modeling. Alternatively, widespread access—via open-source AI or global pacts—could democratize abundance, though historical trends suggest centralized entities often monopolize such breakthroughs. These dilemmas frame AI as both a fragmenting force and a potential unifier, depending on their resolution.

Cycle Impact

AI’s twin dilemmas intersect with the current peak of fragmentation, projecting a trajectory that aligns with historical cycles and the Fourth Turning’s crisis phase. By 2030-2040, the Control versus Autonomy dilemma could drive fragmentation to its limit. An uncontrolled proliferation of AI—evidenced by potential cyber-attacks or economic sabotage, as speculated in cybersecurity analyses—might collapse financial systems, with AI-driven market crashes overwhelming regulatory capacity. Political legitimacy could erode further as states fail to govern autonomous tech, fragmenting into regional or ideological blocs, while cultural sharding deepens through algorithmically reinforced subcultures. This scenario mirrors past peaks—Rome’s fall to barbarian shards or the Warring States’ chaos—pushing societal cohesion to a breaking point within the Fourth Turning’s projected climax (~2030s).

The shift emerges as the Abundance versus Inequality dilemma resolves, likely between 2040 and 2050. A crisis—economic collapse from mass unemployment, unrest over inequality, or a tech-fueled conflict—could force a resolution. Historical parallels suggest centralization follows such tipping points: the Qin Dynasty unified post-Warring States chaos with standardized systems, much as industrial powers consolidated post-19th-century upheavals. If control consolidates—perhaps through a dominant state (e.g., China’s AI governance model) or a coalition managing AI’s output—abundance could be channeled into a new order. UBI or AI-driven governance might stabilize economies and societies, evidenced by growing policy discussions in 2025. Alternatively, persistent inequality could yield a neo-feudal structure, with fragmented enclaves under centralized tech overlords.

By 2050-2100, a peak of centralization could emerge—an AI-driven epoch akin to the industrial age’s High. Post-scarcity conditions, enabled by AI and energy breakthroughs, might unify global systems under a single authority or aligned bloc, as postwar institutions did in 1945. Cultural cohesion could follow, either enforced or negotiated, reflecting past transitions like Rome’s imperial standardization. The Fourth Turning’s timeline—resolution by the 2030s—suggests this swing could begin sooner, accelerated by AI’s rapid pace, though historical cycles allow for a broader 50-200 year window from 1945’s peak. AI thus stands as the epochal breakthrough, breaking current fragmentation and rebuilding centralized power.

Reflections on AI’s Role

AI’s economic disruptions and twin dilemmas position it as a dual-force within the cycle—intensifying fragmentation in the near term while offering the tools for centralization in the long term. The 2030s-2040s loom as a hinge, where autonomy could shatter systems and abundance could reforge them, echoing the crises and recoveries of prior eras. Whether this resolution favors broad unification or concentrated power remains contingent, but the pattern suggests a pendulum swing is imminent, driven by AI’s unprecedented scale and speed.

Conclusion

The history of civilization reveals a persistent cycle of centralization and fragmentation, a pendulum swinging between concentrated power and dispersed authority across millennia. From the diffuse bands of prehistory to the unified empires of Rome and Han, and from the feudal shards of the Dark Ages to the industrial peak of 1945, this dynamic recurs with striking consistency. Technological breakthroughs—agriculture, writing, industry—drive centralization by enabling surplus and control, while crises and entropy—climatic shifts, invasions, overreach—fracture those systems into fragmented states. Each peak, whether of order or disarray, gives way to a shift, propelled by innovation or necessity, as evidenced by unifiers like Mentuhotep II, William the Conqueror, and the architects of the postwar order.

In March 2025, this cycle positions humanity at a peak of fragmentation—economic inequality, political distrust, and cultural divergence strain the cohesion of the modern era. Artificial intelligence, with its twin dilemmas of control and abundance, emerges as the next pivotal force, capable of pushing this disarray to its limits and catalyzing a return to centralization. Historical patterns and the Fourth Turning framework suggest a crisis looms, with resolution possible by the 2030s or beyond. Whether AI unifies or further divides remains contingent, but the pendulum’s rhythm endures—a lens illuminating both our past and the uncertain horizon ahead.

References

Historical Sources and General Knowledge

  • Adams, R. M. (1981). Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. University of Chicago Press.
    • Basis for Mesopotamian city-state centralization (e.g., Uruk, Sargon’s empire).
  • Allen, R. C. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
    • Context for industrial peak centralization (~1945) and economic shifts.
  • Barnes, G. L. (1999). The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. Thames & Hudson.
    • Reference for Han Dynasty and Tang centralization, Neolithic transitions.
  • Davies, N. (1996). Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
    • General overview for Roman Empire, Dark Ages, feudalism (William the Conqueror), and Reformation fragmentation.
  • Faulkner, N. (2000). The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain. Tempus Publishing.
    • Evidence for Roman fragmentation (~500 CE).
  • Mann, M. (1986). The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge University Press.
    • Theoretical framing for power cycles across civilizations (e.g., Egypt, Mongols).
  • McNeill, W. H. (1963). The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. University of Chicago Press.
    • Broad historical patterns (e.g., Caliphates, early modern centralization).
  • Trigger, B. G. (2003). Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press.
    • Insights into Old Kingdom Egypt, First Intermediate Period, and early centralization.

Modern Data and Trends (2025 Context)

  • International Monetary Fund. (2024). World Economic Outlook Database.
    • GDP and economic inequality stats for 1945 peak and 2025 fragmentation.
  • McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation.
    • Projections for AI job displacement (30% by 2030).
  • Pew Research Center. (2024). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024.
    • Data on declining trust in institutions (20% in 2024).
  • United Nations. (2023). Member States Growth: 1945-2023.
    • Evidence for decolonization’s impact on fragmentation (51 to 190+ members).
  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). Employment Projections: Gig Economy Trends.
    • Stats on gig/freelance work (40% of U.S. workforce in 2025).
  • World Bank. (2024). Global Trade and Wealth Distribution Indicators.
    • Data on globalization’s economic sharding and wealth concentration (top 1% at 30%).

Theoretical Frameworks and AI Context

  • Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W.W. Norton & Company.
    • Background for AI’s economic disruption and abundance potential.
  • O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown Publishing.
    • Insights into AI’s inequality risks (Abundance vs. Inequality dilemma).
  • Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. Broadway Books.
    • Core framework for High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis phases (1945-2025).
  • Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Knopf.
    • Reference for AI’s Control vs. Autonomy dilemma and future projections.

Additional Notes

  • Archaeological and textual evidence (e.g., Domesday Book, Secret History of the Mongols, Admonitions of Ipuwer) drawn from general historical consensus rather than specific editions, reflecting broad academic understanding.
  • Energy consumption estimates for AI (e.g., GPT-4 at 50 GWh) derived from industry reports and public tech analyses circa 2023-2025.