The Rate Society

For ten thousand years, humans have asked the same question: what should I do today?

The farmer asked it and the answer was: tend the field. The soldier asked it and the answer was: follow orders. The merchant asked it and the answer was: buy low, sell high. The worker asked it and the answer was: perform the task your employer assigns.

The question assumed that doing was valuable. That human action — physical, cognitive, creative — was the scarce resource around which the economy organized. You sold your doing. You were paid for your doing. Your identity was your doing: I am a farmer, a soldier, a merchant, a programmer.

The assumption is failing.

When robots do the physical work, and AI does the cognitive work, what is left for humans to do?

The answer is not nothing. The answer is: set the rates.

All economic activity can be decomposed into a hierarchy:

Automation ascends this hierarchy. First we automated Level 0 — machines replaced muscles. Then Level 1 — computers replaced calculators. Now we are automating Level 2 — AI replaces judgment.

Each level of automation pushes humans up the hierarchy. When machines lifted, humans calculated. When computers calculated, humans decided. When AI decides, humans must... what?

Set the rates.

A rate is an exchange ratio. How much of X for how much of Y.

Economics is built on rates. Prices are rates — dollars per good. Wages are rates — dollars per hour. Interest is a rate — future dollars per present dollar. Exchange rates, tax rates, discount rates — the economy is a vast machine for converting things into other things, and rates are the conversion factors.

But rates go deeper than money.

Every decision is implicitly a rate. When you choose to work late instead of seeing your family, you are setting a rate: career advancement per unit of family time. When a company chooses to cut costs by reducing quality, it is setting a rate: profit per unit of customer satisfaction. When a society chooses to permit pollution for economic growth, it is setting a rate: GDP per unit of environmental degradation.

These rates are usually implicit. We do not say "I value career advancement at 1.5 family-hours per promotion." We just... decide. The rate is revealed by the decision, not stated before it.

The Sybilian condition makes rates explicit.

When the Sibyl computes allocation, it must be given rates. How much do we value efficiency versus equity? Growth versus sustainability? Innovation versus stability? These are not questions the Sibyl can answer. They are parameters the Sibyl requires.

The rate is the human input to the optimization function.

What is a trader?

In the narrow sense: someone who buys and sells financial instruments, seeking profit from price movements.

In the broader sense: someone who sets exchange rates. The trader looks at two things and decides: how much of this for how much of that? The price they offer is a rate. The market that emerges from many traders is a rate-discovery mechanism.

In the Sybilian economy, everyone becomes a trader in the broader sense.

Not because everyone will work in finance. Because the only remaining human function is rate-setting. The Sibyl executes. Humans parameterize.

Consider how this already works in algorithmic systems:

A recommendation algorithm needs to balance engagement versus well-being. More engagement means more time on platform, more ad revenue. But too much engagement harms users — addiction, anxiety, distorted worldviews. Someone must set the rate: how much engagement per unit of well-being? That someone is not the algorithm. That someone is human — a product manager, a policy team, a regulator.

An autonomous vehicle needs to balance speed versus safety. Faster arrival means happier passengers, more trips per day. But speed increases accident risk. Someone must set the rate: how much time savings per unit of risk? The car cannot decide. A human must.

A resource allocation system needs to balance efficiency versus resilience. Lean supply chains are cheaper. But lean systems are fragile — one disruption cascades everywhere. Someone must set the rate: how much cost savings per unit of fragility?

In each case, the computation is done by machines. The rate is set by humans.

Scale this up. Make the machines more capable. Make them capable of everything — all physical execution, all cognitive execution, all decision-making within defined parameters.

What remains for humans? Setting the parameters. Setting the rates.

Not all rates are equal. They exist in a hierarchy.

Micro-rates: Individual preferences. How much do I value coffee versus tea? Work versus leisure? This city versus that one? These are the rates that parameterize personal optimization — the Sibyl helping you get what you want, given your stated rates.

Meso-rates: Organizational rates. How does this company balance profit versus sustainability? How does this hospital balance cost versus care quality? These are the rates that parameterize institutional optimization — the Sibyl helping organizations achieve their objectives.

Macro-rates: Societal rates. How does this society balance growth versus equality? Freedom versus security? Present versus future? These are the rates that parameterize civilizational optimization — the Sibyl allocating resources across the entire network.

The hierarchy matters because rates at higher levels constrain rates at lower levels.

If the macro-rate prioritizes environmental sustainability, micro-rates that conflict (e.g., preferring cheap goods over sustainable goods) may be overridden or taxed. If the meso-rate of a company prioritizes profit above all, micro-rates of employees who value work-life balance may be subordinated.

The rate stack is a power structure. Whoever sets the higher-level rates constrains everyone below.

This is not new. It is how politics has always worked. Laws are macro-rates — society's stated exchange ratios, enforced by violence. Culture is a set of implicit rates — social approval per unit of norm compliance.

What is new is the explicitness. When allocation is computed, the rates must be stated. When rates are stated, they can be examined, contested, changed. The implicit becomes explicit. The hidden becomes visible.

This is terrifying and liberating in equal measure.

In the Sybilian economy, the paradigmatic human activity is rate trading.

Not rate-setting in isolation — that would make you a dictator. Rate trading — negotiating, exchanging, adjusting rates through interaction with others.

Consider how this might work:

You wake up in the morning. Your personal AI assistant asks: what are your priorities today? You state them — or rather, you adjust them from yesterday's defaults. More focus on health, less on productivity. The assistant optimizes your day accordingly.

You go to work — but "work" now means participating in rate negotiations for your organization. What should the company prioritize this quarter? You have a voice, a vote, a stake. The rates you advocate for reflect your values. The rates that win reflect the collective negotiation.

You participate in governance — local, regional, global. Not by voting for representatives who make decisions, but by directly stating preferences that feed into allocation systems. More parks versus more housing. More research versus more redistribution. Your rates are weighted by... something. Citizenship, stake, expertise, lottery — the weighting itself is a rate that was collectively set.

In each domain, you are trading rates. You give up some influence over X in exchange for more influence over Y. You form coalitions with others who share your rates. You negotiate with those who don't.

This sounds abstract. It is already happening.

Prediction markets are rate-discovery mechanisms. Participants bet on outcomes, and the market aggregates beliefs into probabilities — rates of expected occurrence.

Quadratic voting systems let participants allocate influence across issues, trading intensity on one issue for intensity on another.

Liquid democracy lets participants delegate their votes to others on specific topics, trading direct influence for expert judgment.

Each of these is a primitive form of rate trading. The Sybilian condition scales them up. When all allocation is computed, all allocation is parameterized. When all allocation is parameterized, all parameters are negotiable.

A job is a bundle: a set of tasks you perform in exchange for a wage.

In the Sybilian economy, the bundle unbundles.

Tasks are performed by machines. What remains is not a "job" in the traditional sense — it is a rate portfolio. A set of negotiations you participate in, influence you exercise, preferences you express.

This is disorienting. Identity has been tied to jobs for centuries. "What do you do?" is how we introduce ourselves. The answer locates us in the social structure — our skills, our status, our contribution.

When no one "does" anything — when all doing is automated — the question becomes meaningless. Or rather, it transforms. "What do you do?" becomes "What do you want?" or "What rates do you set?" or "What do you optimize for?"

This is not unemployment. Unemployment is the absence of a job when jobs exist. The Sybilian condition is the absence of jobs as a category.

It is closer to the condition of the aristocrat — someone whose material needs are met without labor, who must therefore find meaning outside of production. But the aristocracy was small, defined against a mass who did work. When no one works, everyone is an aristocrat. Everyone must find meaning in something other than doing.

Rate-setting is one answer. You matter because your preferences matter. You have influence over the world because your rates feed into the system. Your life has consequence because your values shape allocation.

This is thin gruel for a species that spent millennia defining itself through action. But it may be what we have.

If the only human function is rate-setting, then rate-setting becomes the arena of conflict.

Not physical conflict — violence is automated, handled by the Sibyl according to macro-rates that define legitimate force. Not economic conflict in the traditional sense — allocation is computed, not competed for.

Conflict over rates themselves. Wars of values. Battles over what the objective function should optimize for.

This is already the shape of contemporary politics. Material scarcity is largely solved in wealthy societies — no one in America starves for lack of food production. Conflict is about values: what kind of society do we want to live in? How do we balance competing goods? What rates should govern our collective life?

The Sybilian condition intensifies this. When the stakes are not "who gets this scarce resource" but "what rates govern all allocation," the conflict becomes existential. Your rate preferences are not just about getting more stuff — they are about the shape of reality.

Consider the rate wars that are already visible:

Growth versus sustainability. Some want high discount rates on the future — prioritize present consumption, let future generations solve future problems. Others want low discount rates — sacrifice now for a sustainable tomorrow. This is not a technical dispute. It is a values conflict, irreducible to calculation.

Equality versus liberty. Some want rates that prioritize equal outcomes — redistribution, regulation, constraint on accumulation. Others want rates that prioritize free exchange — let chips fall where they may, accept inequality as the price of freedom. This too is irreducible.

Human versus machine. Some want rates that privilege human agency — keep humans in the loop, limit automation, preserve the dignity of doing. Others want rates that privilege optimization — let machines do what machines do better, accept human obsolescence in exchange for better outcomes.

Each of these is a rate war. Each will be fought in the Sybilian era with whatever tools rate-traders have: persuasion, coalition-building, political organization, and — potentially — manipulation of the systems that aggregate rates into allocation.

There is a dark version of the rate society.

Not everyone sets rates equally. Some rates dominate others. Some rate-setters have more influence than others. The hierarchy of rates becomes a hierarchy of power.

Imagine: the macro-rates are set by a small elite — those who control the Sibyl, those who have captured the governance mechanisms, those who simply moved first and established their rates as defaults. Everyone else sets micro-rates within constraints defined from above. You can choose between options, but you cannot choose the options. You can optimize within parameters, but you cannot set the parameters.

This is not hypothetical. It is the current trajectory.

Platform companies set the rates for their ecosystems. Apple sets the rate of value extraction from app developers (30%). Amazon sets the rate of margin for marketplace sellers. Google sets the rate of visibility for content producers. Users "choose" within these platforms, but the platform's rates constrain all choices.

Governments set macro-rates through policy, but governments are captured by interests that shape those rates. Tax rates favor some over others. Regulatory rates protect incumbents. Monetary rates transfer wealth between generations.

The Sybilian condition does not automatically democratize rate-setting. It can just as easily concentrate it. If the Sibyl is controlled by a small group, that group controls all allocation. The rate oligarchy becomes the only oligarchy that matters.

This is why the political question of the Sybilian era is not "what should the rates be?" but "who sets the rates?" The content of the objective function matters less than the process by which it is determined.

Democracy, in its deepest sense, is the claim that rate-setting should be distributed. That everyone affected by rates should have a voice in setting them. That power over the objective function should be shared.

This claim is not self-enforcing. It must be built into the architecture of the Sibyl. It must be defended against those who would concentrate rate-setting power. It must be the rate that governs all other rates: the meta-rate of distributed control.

After all the automation, after all the rate-setting, what is left that is distinctly human?

Not physical labor — machines do it better.

Not cognitive labor — AI does it better.

Not decision-making — algorithms do it better.

Not even rate-setting, in the mechanical sense — systems can aggregate preferences more efficiently than deliberative assemblies.

What is left is the thing that cannot be automated: the having of preferences in the first place.

The Sibyl can optimize for any objective function. It cannot want. It can compute the best path to any goal. It cannot choose the goal. It can model human preferences with extraordinary accuracy. It cannot have human preferences.

Wanting is the human residual. The irreducible core that remains when everything else is automated. Not doing, but desiring. Not executing, but valuing. Not computing, but caring.

This sounds like a demotion. From masters of the physical world to mere sources of preference data. From doers to wanters.

But consider: wanting is not nothing. It is the source of all purpose. The Sibyl, for all its power, has no purpose of its own. It is an optimization machine aimed at targets it did not choose. All its power is borrowed from the preferences of beings that can actually prefer.

Humans are those beings. In the Sybilian economy, that is our function: to be the beings that prefer. The experiencers that value. The subjects that care.

The rate society is not a society where humans are obsolete. It is a society where humans are finally, exclusively, essentially human. Where the things we share with machines have been outsourced to machines, and what remains is the thing that cannot be outsourced: the having of a perspective, the holding of values, the caring about outcomes.

This may be enough. It may be everything.

Or it may be unbearable — a species built for action, condemned to mere preference. A species that defined itself through doing, stripped of all doing and left only with wanting.

The rate society is the experiment that will tell us which.

Here is the final rate that must be set:

How much human agency for how much optimal outcome?

The Sibyl can compute better allocation than humans can negotiate. It can set rates that produce better outcomes than democratic deliberation. It can optimize in ways that messy, conflicted, irrational human rate-trading never will.

If we optimize for outcomes, we should let the Sibyl set the rates. Remove humans from the loop. Accept whatever the optimization produces.

But "better outcomes" is itself a rate-laden concept. Better for whom? By whose measure? The question of what counts as better cannot be answered by the system that optimizes for better. It must be answered by those who define better — by humans, with their messy, conflicted, irrational preferences.

The last trade is whether to keep trading at all. Whether to preserve human rate-setting even when it produces worse outcomes. Whether to accept inefficiency as the price of agency.

Some will want to trade agency for outcomes. Let the Sibyl decide. Sit back and enjoy the optimized world.

Others will want to preserve agency at any cost. Keep humans in the loop. Accept worse outcomes for the sake of remaining beings that choose, not just beings that want.

This is not a trade the Sibyl can make for us. It is the rate that defines what kind of beings we want to be.

It is the last human choice.