Written by: jiayi AI has changed our lifestyles; that's a fact. We use AI to write emails, create PowerPoint presentations, search for information, and even writeWritten by: jiayi AI has changed our lifestyles; that's a fact. We use AI to write emails, create PowerPoint presentations, search for information, and even write

The AI ​​era is creating a polarization: the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.

2026/03/27 08:02
8 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

Written by: jiayi

AI has changed our lifestyles; that's a fact.

The AI ​​era is creating a polarization: the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.

We use AI to write emails, create PowerPoint presentations, search for information, and even write our WeChat Moments posts. We've become as accustomed to AI as we are to WiFi.

But few people stop to think about this question: Is the AI ​​you use the same thing as the AI ​​others use?

"Fairness" in the AI ​​era is the biggest illusion.

Silicon Valley likes to tell a story: AI gives everyone a super assistant, knowledge is no longer the privilege of a few, and everyone is equal.

It sounds appealing. But the truth is—AI is fundamentally unfair; it's a competition of financial resources.

From chips to computing power, from model training to token consumption, every aspect of AI is a money-burning endeavor.

An NVIDIA H100 chip costs over $25,000. Training a GPT-4 level model costs over $100 million. Every question you ask AI is burning tokens behind the scenes—and tokens have a price.

Claude Opus costs $5 per million tokens input and $25 per million tokens output. ChatGPT Pro costs $200 per month. Add to that Perplexity, Cursor, Midjourney... and a heavy AI user's monthly tool costs can easily exceed $500.

Some people spend $5,000 a month using AI to build competitive barriers, while others use the free version of ChatGPT and feel they have already kept up with the times.

This isn't the same track. It's not even the same game.

At the national level: Structural disparities are irreversible.

This logic becomes even more brutal when applied to the national level.

The AI ​​arms race requires three things: chips, computing power, and talent. All three require enormous amounts of capital.

The United States controls over 70% of the world's AI computing power. China is catching up, but the chip ban is holding it back. As for most developing countries—in 46 emerging market countries, entry-level broadband costs account for 40% of monthly income.

When even stable internet access is a luxury for a young Nigerian, how can we talk about "AI equality"?

In high-income countries, 94% of people have internet access, compared to only 23% in low-income countries. 84% of high-income countries have 5G coverage, compared to only 4% in low-income countries.

Third World countries are not just lagging behind at the starting line of the AI ​​era; they are simply not even qualified to participate.

This structural gap cannot be bridged by hard work alone.

On an individual level: Your ceiling is being redefined by AI.

The logic at the national level also applies to each individual.

A quote I wrote on my Twitter bio: An individual's ceiling = values ​​+ cognition + practical ability.

What did AI do in these three things?

▶️First, AI has solved a large number of practical efficiency problems.

Previously, creating an industry report took a week; now it can be done in a day. Previously, writing code involved starting from scratch; now AI provides the framework. In terms of efficiency, AI is indeed leveling the playing field.

▶️Secondly, AI is greatly amplifying the cognitive gap.

With the same AI tool, what you ask, how you ask, and whether you can judge whether the AI's answer is right or wrong—all of this depends entirely on your existing level of knowledge.

A person with deep cognitive abilities using Claude for research knows what questions to ask, how to follow up with follow-up questions, and which answers have flaws and need verification. AI saves him 80% of the execution time, which he can then use for deeper thinking.

And what about someone with limited cognitive abilities? They throw problems at AI, and use whatever AI gives them. They simply discard their own thoughts and deliver directly. Over time, they stop thinking. AI doesn't make them smarter; it makes them lazy and stupid.

▶️Third, the gap in delivery quality will continue to widen.

When you ask AI questions based on your existing knowledge, the difference in depth, accuracy, and real-time performance between the AI ​​and the output is exponential. Using Claude Opus, one person produces profound insights, while another produces seemingly plausible but ultimately meaningless drivel.

A study from the University of Aalto in Finland is particularly interesting: the more people use AI, the more likely they are to overestimate their own abilities. AI makes you "feel" better—your output looks professional and fluent. But if you can't distinguish between good and bad, you're just producing "refined mediocrity."

Therefore, the gaps in values, cognition, and practical ability—these three dimensions—are magnified infinitely in the AI ​​era.

The intelligent become even more intelligent, the knowledgeable gain deeper insights, and the wealthy use better tools to widen the gap. Meanwhile, those at the other end of the spectrum, with the "help" of AI, become lazier, more superficial, and poorer.

Cost × Perception: A Double Gap Exacerbated

Here is a logical chain that many people haven't figured out:

Money determines the level of AI you can use → The level of AI determines the quality and depth of information you acquire → The quality of information determines your cognitive boundaries → Cognitive boundaries determine the quality of your decisions → The quality of your decisions determines how much money you can earn.

This is a closed loop. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.

The free version of ChatGPT has a hallucination rate of nearly 40%. That means if you ask it 10 questions, 4 of the answers will be fabricated. The paid version of GPT-4 has a hallucination rate of 28%, and the latest version has dropped to 45%.

The decisions you make using the free version and the decisions you make using Opus will, in the long run, result in two completely different life trajectories.

The world will always have a huge information gap. AI has not eliminated the information gap; instead, it has turned it into a paywall.

Those who use VPNs and those who don't are already living in two different worlds.

Let me share a personal observation that has left me feeling quite disheartened.

You are likely seeing this article now because you can access it via a VPN and browse Twitter.

But think back—how many people around you don't know how to bypass internet restrictions? When you talk to them, don't you clearly feel that you're not on the same level of understanding?

This is not a difference in IQ. It is a long-term cognitive divergence caused by the information environment.

One person is exposed to the world's most cutting-edge information, in-depth discussions, and top-quality content creators every day. The other person sees short videos fed by algorithms and filtered information streams every day.

Over five or ten years, these two people's ways of thinking, judgment, and worldview have become completely different.

The AI ​​era has further widened this gap. Those who can bypass internet restrictions use Claude, Perplexity, and the world's best AI tools. Those who cannot—ChatGPT and Claude are blocked in China—can only use localized alternatives or obtain them through resellers at inflated prices.

In the AI ​​era, the "walls" are not just physical firewalls. There are language walls—cutting-edge AI models are optimized for English far more than for other languages. There are paywalls. And there are algorithmic cocoons. Each wall is dividing people into different worlds.

Research from Stanford University shows that non-English speaking users require five times more tokens to access the same content using AI. In other words, you spend the same amount of money but get less information of lower quality.

The scariest thing: You've fallen behind, but you don't know it.

This is the point I most want to make in the whole article.

The free version of AI can answer questions, write things for you, and search for you. So people who use the free version feel, "I'm using AI too; I'm not falling behind."

But the free version's reasoning is shallower, its illusions more numerous, and its information older. The answers you get "look" correct, but are actually riddled with plausible but ultimately flawed reasoning.

It's like two people are both "running." One is actually running forward, and the other is running in place on a treadmill. Both feel like they're running, but only one is actually moving forward.

There's a concept in psychology called the Dunning-Kruger effect: the less you know, the more you think you know. AI amplifies this effect tenfold—the more you rely on AI, the more powerful you feel. But you've lost the ability to think independently; you're simply unaware.

This is the cruelest part of the AI ​​era.

It's not AI that will replace you. It's people with better AI and deeper understanding who will leave you far behind. And you might not even understand how you fell behind until the day you're eliminated.

Market Opportunity
ConstitutionDAO Logo
ConstitutionDAO Price(PEOPLE)
$0.006426
$0.006426$0.006426
-1.39%
USD
ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

WLFI Technical Analysis Mar 27

WLFI Technical Analysis Mar 27

The post WLFI Technical Analysis Mar 27 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WLFI, while approaching critical support regions in the downtrend, continues to give
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/03/27 13:35
Virunga Gorilla Twins Boost Conservation Outlook

Virunga Gorilla Twins Boost Conservation Outlook

The Virunga gorilla twins signal renewed momentum for conservation-driven economic growth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   Rare conservation milestone
Share
Furtherafrica2026/03/27 13:00
USDH Power Struggle Ignites Stablecoin “Bidding Wars” Across DeFi: Bloomberg

USDH Power Struggle Ignites Stablecoin “Bidding Wars” Across DeFi: Bloomberg

A heated contest for control over a new dollar-pegged token has set the stage for what analysts say could define the next phase of the stablecoin industry. According to Bloomberg, a bidding war unfolded on Hyperliquid, one of crypto’s fastest-growing trading platforms, with the prize being the right to issue USDH, its native stablecoin. The competition drew some of the sector’s most prominent names, including Paxos, Sky, and Ethena, who later withdrew their bid, alongside the lesser-known Native Markets, a startup backed by Stripe stablecoin subsidiary Bridge. Hyperliquid Stablecoin Race Shows Branding and Partnerships Matter as Much as Tech Over the weekend, Hyperliquid’s validators, the contributors who secure the network and vote on key decisions, awarded the USDH contract to Native Markets over the weekend. Despite its relatively new status, the firm’s connection with Stripe helped it outpace more established rivals. Stablecoins underpin decentralized finance by providing a dollar-backed medium for collateral, settlement, and payments across applications. What began as a grassroots, community-led sector has evolved into a battleground for institutions and payment companies seeking revenue from interest on reserves. Circle, for example, shares proceeds from its USDC with Coinbase under a partnership designed to stabilize earnings during market swings. The Hyperliquid contest offered a rare glimpse into just how intense competition has become. Paxos pledged to take no revenue until USDH surpassed $1 billion in circulation. Agora offered to share 100% of net revenue with Hyperliquid, while Ethena put forward 95%. All were outbid by Native Markets, whose ties to Stripe’s $1.1 billion acquisition of Bridge and subsequent rollout of the Tempo blockchain positioned it as a strong contender. “Every stablecoin issuer is extremely desperate for supply,” said Zaheer Ebtikar, co-founder of Split Capital. “They are willing to publicly announce how much they are willing to offer. It just shows it’s a very tough business for stablecoin issuers.” While USDC remains dominant on Hyperliquid with more than $5.6 billion in deposits, the arrival of USDH could shift flows and revenue dynamics. Paxos co-founder Bhau Kotecha said the firm sees the exchange’s growth as an important opportunity, while Agora’s co-founder Nick van Eck warned that awarding the contract to a vertically integrated issuer risked undermining decentralization. Regulatory positioning also factored into the debate. Paxos operates under a New York trust charter and is seeking a federal license, while Bridge holds money transmitter approvals in 30 states. Native Markets, in a blog post, cited regulatory flexibility and deployment speed as reasons for its selection. Hyperliquid said the strong engagement from its community validated the process. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed concerns over USDC’s status, noting on X that competition benefits the ecosystem. Analysts suggested that fears of centralization may be exaggerated, noting that Hyperliquid is likely to remain neutral and support multiple stablecoins. Still, the contest over USDH highlighted a new reality for stablecoins: branding, partnerships, and business strategy are becoming as decisive as technology. Native Markets Secures USDH Stablecoin Mandate on Hyperliquid Hyperliquid has concluded its governance vote for the USDH stablecoin, awarding the mandate to Native Markets after a closely watched process that drew weeks of community debate and rival proposals. USDH, described by Hyperliquid as a “Hyperliquid-first, compliant, and natively minted” dollar-backed token, is intended to reduce the platform’s dependence on USDC and strengthen its spot markets. Validators on the decentralized exchange voted in favor of Native Markets, a relatively new player backed by Stripe’s Bridge subsidiary, over established contenders including Paxos and Ethena. The outcome followed a string of proposals offering aggressive revenue-sharing terms to win validator support, underscoring the scale of incentives attached to controlling USDH. Hyperliquid’s exchange has become a critical hub for stablecoin liquidity, with $5.7 billion in USDC, around 8% of its total supply, currently held on the network. At prevailing treasury yields, that translates to an estimated $200 million to $220 million in annual revenue for Circle, underlining why a native alternative could be transformative. Hyperliquid’s validators, who secure the network and vote on key decisions, selected Native Markets following an on-chain governance process that concluded September 15. Native Markets has laid out a phased rollout for USDH, beginning with capped minting and redemption trials before expanding into spot markets. Its reserves will be managed in cash and treasuries by BlackRock, with on-chain tokenization through Superstate and Bridge. Yield from those reserves will be split between Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund and ecosystem development. The launch of USDH comes as Hyperliquid records record profits from perpetual futures trading, with $106 million in revenue in August alone, and prepares to slash spot trading fees by 80% to bolster liquidity. Analysts say the move positions Hyperliquid to capture more of the stablecoin economics internally, marking a significant step in its bid to rival the largest players in decentralized finance
Share
CryptoNews2025/09/18 00:48