Steam To Silicon: Comparing The Industrial Revolution And The AI Age
Some periods in our history are so transformative that they create a clear divide between the world before and after. We attribute the 18th and 19th centuries to such a period. Named the Industrial Revolution, this period ushered in an era of machines, mass production and urban expansion, forever altering how we live and work.
Today, as artificial intelligence (AI) begins to shape everything from how we communicate to how we create and make decisions, we find ourselves at a similar inflection point. Make no mistake: The AI Revolution has already begun.
Looking back at the sweeping changes of the industrial era, can we anticipate challenges and opportunities created by this new age of AI? History may not repeat itself exactly, but it often leaves us clues. Let's study our history in preparation for what is to come.
Impact Of The Industrial Revolution
There were a number of major changes introduced by the Industrial Revolution. The harnessing of steam and later electricity enabled labor automation, scaled production and reduced costs. This led to a migration from rural farms to industrial cities, creating the urban centers that still anchor our economies today. Transformative innovations in engineering, metallurgy, chemistry and transportation were developed, leading to a growth in national wealth and the emergence of a consumer culture as goods became more affordable and accessible.
Yet these gains also came with consequences: child labor, exploitative working conditions, environmental degradation and social dislocation. For example, one of the most difficult challenges of the Industrial Revolution was the widespread displacement of traditional labor. Skilled artisans saw their trades replaced by machines. Farmers lost their livelihoods as machines took over agricultural tasks. In the short term, resistance was fierce. Famously, the Luddites destroyed machinery in protest.
However, over time, societies responded by combining policy and progress. Public education expanded to prepare future workers for industrial jobs. Labor unions emerged to protect workers' rights and push for fair wages and safer conditions. Governments began to regulate factory practices and, eventually, invested in infrastructure projects that created new employment opportunities. The shift wasn't smooth or universally fair, but it laid the groundwork for a modern economy where adaptability became a survival trait.
Parallels With The AI Revolution
As we get deeper into the AI Revolution, I've noticed a number of similar traits. One is that when new industries emerge, old crafts often fade. Machines replaced muscle, and now AI is being used to replace decision-making and analysis, from chatbots and recommendation engines to autonomous vehicles and predictive modeling. Clerical jobs, coding, design and even art face disruption.
Yet AI also creates new demands, such as prompt engineering, AI ethics and human-in-the-loop systems. Cloud computing, 5G, edge computing and massive data centers could be considered the new railroads and factories. In both revolutions, labor laws, environmental protections and workplace standards have needed to evolve, often following public outcry that forced change.
However, while innovation can drive progress, it doesn't guarantee equity. In the Industrial Revolution, wealth became concentrated in the hands of industrial barons before eventually trickling down through reforms and systemic change. In a similar fashion, a number of today's tech giants wield disproportionate influence. These "data barons" may soon rival the steel magnates of yore.
Ultimately, economic growth and prosperity benefited most, but not all. With AI, efficiency gains and improved robotics will likely replace a number of tasks traditionally requiring human dexterity, and some products may become very cheap, resulting in an era of abundance. But it's important that we balance this by ensuring there is prosperity for the masses in order to ensure demand.
Where The Revolutions Differ
There are several notable differences between these two eras. Where the Industrial Revolution played out over decades and spread unevenly, AI is evolving at digital speed and has proliferated nearly instantly across many borders, enabled by a globally connected digital infrastructure and the new race for dominance. According to 2024 research by Epoch AI, the amount of compute used to train notable machine learning models has been growing at a rate of approximately 4.6 times per year since 2010.
And where industrialization redefined how we built and challenged social roles, AI challenges how we think. Some believe its trajectory could even eclipse human intelligence and border on consciousness, raising deeper philosophical and ethical questions about intelligence, creativity and what it means to be human.
Predictions: Where We Are Headed In The AI Era
I believe history suggests that revolutions come in four phases: disruption, adaptation, integration and, finally, normalization. Based on what we've seen in the past, here is what I believe we can anticipate in the future:
1. Massive Reskilling: Just as agrarian workers learned factory work, much of today's workforce will need AI fluency, for both using these tools and coexisting with them.
2. New Social Contracts: Debates about universal basic income, data ownership and algorithmic fairness may force new political and economic paradigms.
3. Rise Of Hybrid Work: I believe more and more humans will work in tandem with AI, using it to amplify human abilities rather than simply replacing them.
4. Digital Ethics As A New Frontier: Where labor laws once reined in factory abuse, tomorrow's rules should center on algorithmic transparency, surveillance boundaries and bias mitigation.
5. Cultural Renaissance Or Crisis: AI-generated content challenges originality, copyright and artistic identity. Will it usher in a new golden age or dilute human expression?
Conclusion: Stewarding This Revolution
The steam engine changed the world, but not without disruption. As we build the capabilities of the AI age, we should reflect on the balance between progress and purpose, innovation and humanity. The future is not only what we invent; it's also what we accept, resist and reform.
The past doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. If we heed the lessons of the Industrial Revolution, I believe we can not only navigate the age of AI but also guide it wisely.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
5 days ago
- Business Insider
The end of the mega-employer
In June, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had a blunt message for his 350,000 corporate employees: There were going to be fewer of them in the near future, thanks to the "efficiency gains" he expected from AI. The proclamation generated big headlines and an uproar from staff. But it struck me as merely honest. He was acknowledging something that pretty much every CEO who sits atop a large white-collar workforce is quietly hoping to achieve sooner or later. After all, Jassy hasn't been the only executive to hint at a future of lower headcount. The head of JPMorgan's consumer and community business predicted in May that AI will reduce the number of employees in its operations division by 10%. That same month, the CEO of Klarna said that the company's investments in AI has already driven the company's headcount to shrink by 40%. And the CEO of Ford — a company that employs tens of thousands of white-collar professionals — declared that AI will wipe out "literally half" of all white-collar jobs. Meanwhile, Kian Katanforoosh, the CEO and founder of the software startup Workera, tells me that he never wants to have much more than the 80 or so employees he has today, no matter how successful his business ends up becoming. "I truly believe we can go super super far without growing more," he says. "I'm an engineer. I don't want to have to manage so many people if I don't need to." It's not like CEOs ever enjoyed shelling out for the salaries or navigating the personnel headaches that come with the sprawling bureaucracies they employ. But for more than a century, armies of office workers were a necessary cost of doing business. To grow from tiny upstarts into titans of industry, companies needed an ever-multiplying number of HR reps, accountants, marketers, engineers, analysts, and project managers. In recent months, that 100-year-trend is starting to come undone. Everywhere you look, AI appears to be helping leaner teams take on work that used to require more people. And executives are talking about their large workforces — once their greatest competitive advantage — as if they're an unfortunate holdover from a bygone, bloated era. If today's corporate giants shrink their ranks, and if tomorrow's giants never need to bulk up in the first place, we may well be witnessing the end of a defining feature of corporate America: the mega-employer. That could give rise to a whole new generation of nimble companies that innovate faster — but also leave workers navigating a world of diminished career paths and fewer jobs. Before the Industrial Revolution, most Americans worked for themselves as farmers or craftsmen. And those who didn't worked for very small operations — say, a few journeymen training under a master shoemaker. The resulting economy was a patchwork of all these tiny businesses. That started to change with the advent of capital-intensive industries like textile manufacturing, which required organizing larger groups of people under a single employer. Then came railroads in the late 19th century. With projects that took many years to realize and stretched over thousands of miles, vast numbers of workers needed to be on the same page. "If you mess it up, there's a big explosion," says Louis Hyman, a historian of work and business at Cornell. "You needed to really coordinate your mechanisms and make sure that people are doing things exactly the same way." As mass production developed, Hyman says, many of the most consequential innovations during this time weren't so much technical breakthroughs: They were social inventions to coordinate the labor of all the people it took to get the most out of the new machines. The assembly line broke down complicated work into simple, repeatable, standardized tasks; scientific management emphasized the importance of monitoring, measuring, and optimizing everyone's performance; and the M-form corporate structure created a blueprint to manage sprawling bureaucracies through a clear chain of command. In the 1930s, about a tenth of the labor force worked for businesses that employed at least 10,000 people. By the end of World War II, that share had surged to about a third. By the 1970s, some of that bigger-is-better ideology started to change. A new management philosophy set in, normalizing layoffs that took aim at bloat. And as robots automated many blue-collar jobs, IBM mainframes and word processors eliminated a whole set of white-collar clerical roles as well. Still, there was plenty of work that technology couldn't automate, which meant that companies needed large teams of college-educated professionals to keep them going. Even the most tech-forward companies saw their people — especially their coders — as mission-critical to their success. "Hiring great people — especially engineers — is one of the biggest challenges that any technology company has," Mark Zuckerberg lamented in 2013. "Our country doesn't produce the volume of engineers that the companies would want to hire." Tech giants often hired more than they needed to make sure they had a steady supply of talent, and to attract and retain the best of the best, they treated their employees like gods. If you were to pinpoint one moment the gods turned mortal, it would probably be November 9, 2022 — the day Meta laid off more than 11,000 employees. From there, virtually every tech company followed suit, with employers across other industries close behind. At first, the cuts were chalked up to overhiring in the pandemic. But two and a half years later, the layoffs haven't stopped and hiring is still down. More and more, AI appears to be driving those austerity measures. In an industry that once hoarded talent like gold, the shift is striking. CEOs no longer seem to view the bulk of their workforce as indispensable, and they say as much: A common refrain among tech leaders from Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk to Dara Khosrowshahi now is some version of "If you don't like it here, you should leave." Companies like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Salesforce had reliably increased their headcounts year after year. Now, according to the workforce analytics provider Live Data, all of them employ fewer people than they did at their 2022 peak. J. Scott Hamilton, Live Data's CEO, says this is probably just the beginning. To gauge how much deeper the cuts could go, his team recently analyzed the detailed responsibilities of most roles at Microsoft to estimate the share of tasks that could, in theory, be done by AI. Their conclusion: If Microsoft were to offload all of those automatable tasks to AI, it would eliminate 36% of the work currently done by employees. That would mean the company could lay off some 80,000 employees. On the one hand, that's an aggressive scenario: Companies are rarely able to overhaul their workflows to take full advantage of a new automation technology's capabilities. If they do, that transition takes a very long time. And besides, some work is simply too high-stakes to entrust to error-prone AI — even if it's technically possible. On the other, the estimate may prove conservative: Live Data's predictions assume that AI will remain at 2025-level capabilities. Given how much better the leading large language models have become over the last two years, the best tools will almost certainly be able to handle more than what they can today. "The optimists are saying that the good companies will simply redeploy the assets elsewhere now that they can be more efficient," Hamilton says. "But I think an equal argument can be made that they'll just say, 'We're going to do the same amount with fewer people.'" If Microsoft offloaded all automatable tasks to AI, it could eliminate some 80,000 jobs, Live Data found. If that sounds like a far-off hypothetical future, consider what's already happening today at startups. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says he's making bets with his friends on when we'll get the first "one-person billion-dollar company." And Arthur Kaneko, a general partner at Coreline Ventures, tells me he's noticed that early-stage founders are raising their initial rounds of funding with fewer employees than they would have had in the past — among the AI-fluent founders, perhaps with less than half. "The way companies are being built is just fundamentally changing right now because of AI," Kaneko says. "Through the use of AI coding, AI marketing, AI sales, people are able to do a lot more work with way fewer people." And he thinks these startups will stay lean as they scale into successful businesses. "They just won't hire the people that Meta and Microsoft had to hire to get to where they are," he says. "I do think per-company headcount will permanently be depressed in startups." There are reasons to be hopeful about a new era of smaller employers. If AI makes it cheaper and easier to launch companies, we'll probably see more of them — and that would be great for the long-term health of the economy in all kinds of ways. New businesses tend to employ people with less experience and fewer credentials who get passed up by the bigger companies. They're more willing to try new things, which drives innovation. And they create more competition for the established giants, which is good for consumers. Smaller companies may also be good for the workers inside them. There's a lot that people hate about working at big organizations: the constant turf wars, the endless layers of approval, the meetings before the meetings, the sense that you're just one tiny inconsequential cog in a giant machine. Smaller bureaucracies would minimize that, which is one reason why people often feel more motivated in leaner workplaces. According to Gallup, employees at small companies report the highest engagement, with scores dropping below the national average once organizations hit 500 employees. On the same stage where Altman made his one-person unicorn prediction, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian raved about the benefits of this possibility. "CEOs and founders are going to be so excited to get up and go to work with much smaller, much more performant, much more culturally strong teams," he said. But a world of shrunken employers could also rob workers of something essential: the long-term career paths that big companies used to offer. With so many roles under one roof, big companies made it possible for workers to try new things, move up, and build careers. Smaller firms don't offer the same range of opportunities, which means people will likely need to switch companies a lot more in the future. Smaller firms are also less likely to invest in on-the-job training — a shift that would hit early-career professionals hard, just as their roles face the greatest risk from AI. The big question is what this all means for college-educated workers. If enough startups emerge, they might create new jobs to offset the ones disappearing from big companies. But that would require an unprecedented boom in entrepreneurship — one enormous enough to make up for the retrenchment of the giants. In 2022, 29% of the American workforce worked for an organization that employed at least 10,000 people. Meanwhile, the country's education system is churning out ever more college grads, who studied hard with the expectation of a stable future in white-collar work. If big companies hire less, and small companies also hire less, where will they all go? The usual reassurance is that AI, like every disruptive technology before it, will eventually create more jobs than it destroys. That glosses over an important detail, according to Carl Benedikt Frey, an economist at Oxford. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, most innovations simply made existing work faster and cheaper — like the loom, which automated the work of skilled weavers but still produced more or less the same fabric. That made a handful of industrialists very rich, but for the average worker, wages barely budged for the first 80 or so years of industrialization. It was only later — with inventions like electricity and the automobile that gave rise to entirely novel industries — that economic growth surged and better, high-paying jobs emerged. Had that second wave never arrived, we'd remember the Industrial Revolution very differently. "Most productivity gains over the long run," Frey says, "come from doing new and previously inconceivable things." Right now, corporate America seems stuck in that first phase. So many executives are laser-focused on using AI to do the same work with fewer people, rather than applying it to problems we couldn't solve before — the kind of breakthroughs that would open up new lines of business and generate more demand for labor, not less. "A real risk is that we're getting leaner organizations, but they're not really creating that much new," Frey says. "That would be a bleak future, and I do worry we're moving in that direction."
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
LHX- A "Triple Beat" Earnings Play in the Defense Sector
While equity markets have staged a strong rebound from the April bottom, earnings estimates look to have just begun forming a bottom as the Q2 2025 earnings season unfolds. Meanwhile, L3Harris Technologies Inc. (LHX) delivered a triple play (beat, beat, raise) this quarter, observes Nancy Tengler, CIO at Laffer Tengler Investments. To get more articles and chart analysis from MoneyShow, subscribe to our .) The question we ask ourselves every day is 'What are we missing? Where is the puck going?' because that is where we want to be focused. Though we remain bullish on technology and the AI revolution, we are also always scanning the horizon for new opportunities. (Editor's Note: Nancy will be speaking at the 2025 MoneyShow Masters Symposium Sarasota, scheduled for Dec. 1-3. Click HERE to register.) In our previous bulletin, we highlighted the equity market price and fundamental resilience over the past 12 months amid significant structural changes, including shifts in monetary policy, political regimes, foreign trade policies, and a technological revolution. Shifting our focus to the latter half of 2025 and where equity prices could go, a key question emerges as to the trajectory of fundamentals: Have the downward revisions in S&P 500 EPS estimates reached a bottom, signaling the onset of stabilization, or even an upward inflection? L3Harris Technologies Inc. (LHX) At LHX, revenues were up 2% year-on-year (+6% organically), driven by higher volumes, new program ramps, and increased international demand. This looks to be the inflection point we've been waiting for. See also: NJR: A Higher-Yielding Nat Gas Utility Stock The company is well ahead of its cost savings goals. There is strong demand across the portfolio. And management confirmed that negative Estimates At Completion (EACs) are through. Moreover, with increased international defense spending, the company is finding that it is replacing many indigenous players – a trend we expect will continue. Recommended Action: Buy LHX. More From With Services Flat-Lining, Can the Economy Hold Up? EXK: Why the Silver Miner is Primed to Catch Up to its Peers Market Minute 8/8/25: Gold Flirts with Fresh Highs Amid Tariff Turmoil Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
08-08-2025
- Yahoo
Analysts Love This Hidden-Gem Generative AI Stock
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is creating a new wave of winners in the tech sector, and analysts are racing to identify the next big beneficiaries. While the spotlight usually shines on giants like Nvidia (NVDA) and Microsoft (MSFT), Wall Street is also falling in love with some quieter players powering the AI revolution behind the scenes. One stock earning that attention is MongoDB (MDB). Analysts at BMO Capital Markets just launched coverage with an 'Outperform' rating and a $280 price target, highlighting MongoDB's growing role in generative AI workloads. The firm points to the company's vector search technology and potential to capture new AI-driven database demand as key growth catalysts. More News from Barchart Supermicro's Earnings Selloff Explained: Should You Buy SMCI Stock Now? Amazon's $36M Bet on Quantum Computing: What Investors Need to Know Palantir's Free Cash Flow Margins and Forecasts Rise - Where This Leaves PLTR Stock Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. For investors seeking a hidden AI gem with analyst backing, MongoDB's expanding footprint in the database market positions it as a stock worth watching closely. About MongoDB Stock Headquartered in New York, MongoDB is a leading data platform company founded in 2007. The company is widely recognized for its innovative general-purpose database platform, which enables developers worldwide to build, transform, and modernize applications by leveraging the power of software and data. The company is actively positioning itself for the artificial intelligence era. Earlier this year, MongoDB acquired Voyage AI, a startup specializing in vector-based search models, and launched a public preview of its Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Coupled with the release of the Voyage 3.5 retrieval models and enhanced vector database capabilities, these initiatives allow developers to use natural language to query data and create AI-powered applications more efficiently. MongoDB carries a market capitalization of $18.6 billion. Year-to-date, shares have climbed roughly 0.4%, still trading well below their late-2024 highs. The pullback reflects broader caution toward high-growth tech valuations. MDB trades at an enterprise value-sales ratio of 7.1x and a trailing price-earnings ratio of 55x, significantly above sector medians of 2.9x and 22.9x, highlighting a premium valuation even as analysts point to solid fundamentals and long-term AI-driven growth potential. MongoDB Beats Q1 Earnings Estimates On June 5, MongoDB reported its Q1 results for fiscal 2026, which topped estimates on both lines. The company posted $549 million in revenue, up 22% year over year and comfortably ahead of Wall Street's $528 million estimate. The Atlas cloud service, which grew 26%, remained the primary growth driver. Profitability also improved. Non-GAAP net income was $86.3 million, or roughly $1.00 per share. Free cash flow jumped 74% year over year to $105.9 million, giving the company room to invest and return capital to shareholders. The balance sheet remains a standout. MongoDB ended the quarter with $2.5 billion in cash and investments, virtually no long-term debt, and a new $1.0 billion share buyback program. With strong liquidity and growing AI-focused initiatives, the company appears well-positioned to keep scaling while rewarding investors. Management also lifted its full-year revenue outlook by $10 million at the midpoint, even as some renewal timing could weigh on near-term results. For Q2, MongoDB expects $548 million to $553 million in revenue and $0.62 to $0.66 in non-GAAP EPS, roughly flat sequentially. Why BMO Is Bullish On July 31, BMO Capital Markets initiated coverage of MongoDB with an 'Outperform' rating led by analyst Keith Bachman. Bachman said that as more AI workloads move into production, database market growth should be sustained or improved, and he expects MongoDB to emerge as one of the GenAI database winners. He highlighted the company's focus on enhancing vector search capabilities, partly through M&A, as a key driver for capturing new workloads. Bachman forecasts low- to mid-20% revenue growth through fiscal 2026 and mid- to high-teens growth in fiscal 2027. He added that catalysts include earnings reports exceeding guidance, product launches or strategic acquisitions, and overall expansion of the database market. Wall Street sentiment broadly aligns with BMO's view. Among 38 analysts tracked by Barchart, MongoDB holds a 'Strong Buy' consensus rating, with a mean price target of $279.89, implying roughly 19% upside from current levels. On the date of publication, Nauman Khan did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Sign in to access your portfolio
