Citadel’s Grand Rebuttal to AI Doomsday: A Tale of Data and Disruption

by

Citadel Securities, that most astute of financial sages, has deigned to address the recent cacophony from Citrini Research regarding their apocalyptic vision of 2028’s “Global Intelligence Crisis.” With the solemnity of a man recounting a parable in a Russian village, the firm asserts that the current labor data and AI adoption trends offer scant evidence of an impending white-collar collapse. One might wonder if the architects of such dire predictions have ever observed a spreadsheet, much less a market.

Is AI Getting Too Good? Citadel Offers a Different Take

Authored by the indomitable Frank Flight, Citadel’s rebuttal-published with all the urgency of a man describing a slow train-begins with the pedestrian facts of 2026: unemployment at 4.28%, AI capital expenditures at a mere 2% of GDP (a paltry $650 billion), and 2,800 data centers plotted across the U.S. Meanwhile, job postings for software engineers have risen 11% year over year. One might think these figures were scribbled on a napkin by a man who forgot to bring his dramamine.

For those unfamiliar with Citadel Securities, it is one of the largest liquidity providers in global markets, a titan among titans, though it operates separately from its hedge fund cousin, Citadel. Both, however, share a common ancestor in Ken Griffin, whose legacy is as unassailable as Tolstoy’s prose. When Citadel Securities speaks, one might imagine the rustle of parchment and the creak of an old oak desk.

Flight’s critique, delivered with the patience of a man explaining calculus to a goat, targets what he calls the “overconfident leap from technological possibility to economic inevitability.” He notes that forecasters, those modern-day Nostradamuses, struggle to predict payroll growth two months ahead, yet some now claim to see the “forward path of labor destruction” with clarity surpassing even the prophetic visions of a certain 19th-century novelist. A bold claim, if one ignores the fog of uncertainty that clings to every economic forecast like a bad odor.

The firm previously described near-term AI capital expenditure as inflationary, a term that strikes fear into the hearts of economists and baristas alike. But the crux of this rebuttal lies in the “speed of diffusion.” Citadel argues that the displacement narrative hinges on the assumption that AI adoption will compound at breakneck speed, a notion as likely as a horse-drawn carriage overtaking a Tesla on a highway.

“The imminent disintermediation narrative rests on the speed of diffusion.”

So what does the data show? Citing the St. Louis Fed’s Real Time Population Survey, the firm notes that generative AI usage is growing, but frequency data tells a more measured story. If AI were poised to replace broad swaths of labor, daily use for work would exhibit a sharp inflection. Instead, the data remains as stable as a well-brewed tea. One might suspect the AI itself is taking a siesta.

Flight frames the debate as a category error: recursive technology does not guarantee recursive adoption. AI systems may improve themselves, but economic deployment follows an S-curve, a concept as ancient as the hills. Early uptake is slow and costly, then accelerates as infrastructure matures, before plateauing as integration costs, regulation, and diminishing returns emerge. A tale as old as the steam engine, perhaps.

Markets, the firm contends, often extrapolate the acceleration phase linearly, a mistake akin to expecting a horse to run indefinitely without rest. History suggests otherwise. Organizational change is costly, regulatory frameworks evolve, and marginal gains shrink. Slower adoption, in turn, reduces the probability of abrupt displacement. A lesson as clear as the morning after a night of drinking with Dostoevsky.

“Markets often extrapolate the acceleration phase linearly but history implies pace of adoption plateaus as organizational integration is costly, regulation emerges and diminishing marginal returns exist in economic deployment,” Flight’s rebuttal notes, with all the gravitas of a man quoting a tax code.

Another constraint in dystopian narratives is compute intensity. Training and inference require vast semiconductor capacity, data centers, and energy. Fully automating white-collar work would demand compute at orders of magnitude beyond current utilization. If demand for compute spikes, its marginal cost rises. Should that cost exceed the marginal cost of human labor for certain tasks, substitution stalls. Economic gravity reasserts itself, much like a man finally remembering to tie his shoes after a long walk.

Flight also addresses the macro accounting at the core of the Citrini thesis. AI-driven automation is, fundamentally, a productivity shock. Productivity shocks are positive supply shocks: they lower marginal costs and expand potential output. Historically-from steam power to computing-such shifts have raised real incomes over time. A trend as steady as the turning of seasons.

The counterargument claims AI is different because it directly displaces labor income, thereby suppressing demand. Citadel responds with a national income identity: If output rises and real GDP increases, some component of demand-consumption, investment, government spending, or net exports-must also be increasing. A scenario in which productivity climbs while aggregate demand collapses and measured output rises strains accounting logic. A contradiction as jarring as a man trying to ride a bicycle with square wheels.

New business formation adds texture to the debate. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows a rapid expansion in new business applications. Capital income may have a lower propensity to consume than wage income, but it does not vanish into a black hole. Profits can be reinvested, distributed, taxed, or spent. A process as natural as the blooming of dandelions in spring.

At the heart of the displacement question lies substitution elasticity-the ease with which firms can replace labor with capital. If that elasticity is extremely high, labor’s share of income could shrink. Yet even then, democratic nations would likely adjust through fiscal and regulatory measures. Moreover, current labor tracking shows improvement in forward-looking indicators, with AI data center construction contributing to construction hiring. A development as unexpected as a snowstorm in July.

“There is little evidence of AI disruption in labor market data as of today. In fact, the forward-looking components of our labor market tracking have improved and AI data center construction appears to be driving a pick-up in construction hiring.”

The economy, Flight argues, consists of countless tasks-physical, relational, regulatory, and supervisory-that are costly or difficult to automate. Even cognitive automation faces coordination and liability constraints. It is therefore more plausible, he suggests, that AI will complement labor in many domains rather than eradicate it. A conclusion as comforting as a warm bath after a cold journey.

To make his point, Flight invokes John Maynard Keynes’ 1930 essay predicting a 15-hour workweek by the 21st century. Productivity did soar. But instead of withdrawing from labor en masse, societies consumed more. Preferences evolved, new industries formed, and human wants proved elastic. A testament to the resilience of mankind, or perhaps a clever marketing ploy by appliance manufacturers.

In closing, Citadel sets a high bar for the dystopian scenario to materialize. It would require rapid adoption, near-total labor substitution, no fiscal response, limited investment absorption, and unconstrained compute scaling-all at once. Over the past century, technological waves have neither eliminated labor nor produced runaway growth; they have largely sustained long-term trend expansion near 2%. A performance as steady as a metronome, though one might argue it lacks the flair of a symphony.

For Citadel Securities, the AI debate is not about exponential fantasies. It is about substitution elasticities, institutional response, and the enduring capacity of human demand to reinvent itself. A narrative as timeless as the struggle between man and machine, though one might prefer to leave the machines to their circuits and the men to their spreadsheets.

FAQ 🤖

  • What did Citadel Securities argue in its rebuttal?
    The firm contends that current labor data and AI adoption trends do not support imminent mass displacement of white-collar workers.
  • Who is Citadel Securities?
    It is one of the largest global market makers, providing liquidity across equities, options, and fixed income markets.
  • Does Citadel believe AI is deflationary or inflationary?
    The firm has said near-term AI capital expenditure dynamics appear inflationary rather than contractionary.
  • What is substitution elasticity in the AI debate?
    It refers to how easily firms can replace human labor with AI capital without significant cost increases.

Read More

2026-02-26 01:59