pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.16853 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-19 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Agentic Inequality

Matthew Sharp , Omer Bilgin , Iason Gabriel , Lewis Hammond This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI agentsagentic inequalitydigital inequalityAI governanceautonomous systemspower distributiontechnological disparitiessocioeconomic impacts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Unequal access to autonomous AI agents will create disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines agentic inequality as the emerging challenge of disparities in power and opportunity that arise when people differ in their access to AI agents, the quality of those agents, and the number they can deploy. It matters because these agents go beyond current chat-based tools by acting as independent delegates that can plan, execute tasks, and compete directly with other agents on behalf of their owners. The authors develop a three-part framework to track this, show how agents generate fresh asymmetries through scalable delegation, examine the technical and market forces likely to widen or narrow the gaps, and end with a call for governance research to manage the distribution of agentic power.

Core claim

Agentic inequality consists of disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes that stem from unequal access to, capabilities of, and numbers of AI agents. Agents differ from prior technologies because they operate as autonomous delegates rather than passive tools, which enables scalable goal delegation and direct agent-to-agent competition. The resulting distribution of agentic power will be shaped by model-release decisions, market incentives, and related socioeconomic drivers, requiring deliberate governance to avoid deepening divides or to realize possible mitigating effects.

What carries the argument

The three-dimensional framework of availability, quality, and quantity used to analyze how agents function as autonomous delegates that generate new asymmetries.

If this is right

  • Agents could deepen existing social and economic divides when access, quality, and deployment numbers remain concentrated.
  • Under appropriate technical and policy conditions, agents could help reduce some inequalities by extending capabilities to more people.
  • Model release strategies and market incentives will be key drivers that determine how agentic power spreads across populations.
  • A dedicated research agenda on governance is needed to monitor and shape the distribution of autonomous agents.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Widespread agent use could create parallel economies in which fleets of agents negotiate, trade, or influence outcomes on behalf of their owners.
  • Public institutions might need to consider providing baseline agent access to prevent exclusion from planning-intensive activities such as legal or financial decisions.
  • Direct agent competition could accelerate winner-take-most dynamics in sectors where speed and scale of delegation confer advantages.

Load-bearing premise

That future AI agents will be deployed with enough autonomy to serve as independent delegates capable of scalable goal pursuit and direct competition with other agents.

What would settle it

Large-scale deployment data showing that agents remain under continuous human oversight without producing measurable outcome gaps between high-access and low-access groups.

read the original abstract

Autonomous AI agents capable of complex planning and action mark a shift beyond today's generative tools. As these systems enter political and economic life, who can access them, how capable they are, and how many can be deployed will shape distributions of power and opportunity. We define this emerging challenge as "agentic inequality": disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes arising from unequal access to, and capabilities of, AI agents. We show that agents could either deepen existing divides or, under the right conditions, mitigate them. The paper makes three contributions. First, it develops a framework for analysing agentic inequality across three dimensions: availability, quality, and quantity. Second, it argues that agentic inequality differs from earlier technological divides because agents function as autonomous delegates rather than tools, generating new asymmetries through scalable goal delegation and direct agent-to-agent competition. Third, it analyses the technical and socioeconomic drivers likely to shape the distribution of agentic power, from model release strategies to market incentives, and concludes with a research agenda for governance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper defines 'agentic inequality' as disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes stemming from unequal access to, capabilities of, and deployment of autonomous AI agents. It develops a three-dimensional analytical framework covering availability, quality, and quantity; argues that this form of inequality is distinct from prior technological divides because agents act as autonomous delegates rather than tools, enabling scalable goal delegation and direct agent-to-agent competition; examines technical and socioeconomic drivers such as model release strategies and market incentives; and concludes with a proposed research agenda for governance.

Significance. If the framework holds as an analytical lens, the paper provides a timely conceptual contribution for understanding how the shift to autonomous AI agents may reshape distributions of power in political and economic domains. It explicitly contrasts agentic inequality with earlier divides and identifies actionable drivers, offering a foundation for subsequent empirical work and policy analysis in AI governance. The definitional approach avoids circularity and parameter fitting, which strengthens its utility as a new analytical tool.

minor comments (3)
  1. The three contributions listed in the abstract are clearly stated, but the manuscript would benefit from an explicit mapping in the introduction or conclusion that ties each section back to these contributions for improved readability.
  2. Terminology such as 'agentic power' and 'scalable goal delegation' is introduced without a dedicated definitions subsection; adding this early in the framework section would reduce ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with the subfield.
  3. The research agenda in the final section lists promising directions but lacks prioritization or suggested methodologies; specifying one or two concrete next steps (e.g., empirical measurement of the quantity dimension) would strengthen the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and constructive review of our manuscript on agentic inequality. We appreciate the recognition of the framework's timeliness and potential utility for AI governance research, as well as the recommendation for minor revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a purely conceptual framework contribution that introduces the term 'agentic inequality' and analyzes it across three dimensions (availability, quality, quantity) while contrasting it with prior technological divides via the premise that agents act as autonomous delegates. No equations, fitted parameters, empirical datasets, formal models, or quantitative predictions appear in the provided text or abstract. All three stated contributions consist of definitional framing, argumentative distinction, and high-level analysis of drivers, none of which reduce by construction to prior inputs or self-citations. The framework is presented as a new analytical lens rather than a derivation that loops back to its own assumptions, rendering the work self-contained with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that autonomous AI agents will significantly enter political and economic life and operate as delegates. The main invented entity is the concept itself, introduced without independent falsifiable evidence in the abstract. No free parameters since the work is non-quantitative.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption AI agents will enter political and economic life as autonomous delegates capable of complex planning and action rather than remaining passive tools.
    Invoked at the start of the abstract to establish the shift beyond generative tools and the basis for new asymmetries.
invented entities (1)
  • agentic inequality no independent evidence
    purpose: To name and frame disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes from unequal AI agent access and capabilities.
    New concept introduced by the paper to organize the analysis; no external falsifiable handle provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1417 out tokens · 36955 ms · 2026-05-18T06:12:33.235431+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    and Restrepo, P

    Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2020), ‘Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets’,Journal of Political Economy128(6), 2188–2244. URL:https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/ 10.1086/705716

    work page doi:10.1086/705716 2020

  2. [2]

    and Goldfarb, A

    Agrawal, A., Gans, J. and Goldfarb, A. (2022), Prediction Machines, Updated and Expanded: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence, Harvard Business Review Press

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    S., Shelby, R

    Bergman, A. S., Shelby, R. and Gabriel, I. (2024), Chapter 15: Access and Opportunity,in‘The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants’, arXiv, pp. 146–156

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Michael, A., Heim, L., Luo, X

    Besiroglu, T., Bergerson, S. A., Michael, A., Heim, L., Luo, X. and Thompson, N. (2024), ‘The Compute Divide in Machine Learning: A Threat to Academic Contribution and Scrutiny?’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02452

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

    Zhou, K. and Liang, P. (2022), ‘On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    and Zouridis, S

    Bovens, M. and Zouridis, S. (2002), ‘From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control’,Public Administration Review62(2), 174–184. URL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 111/0033-3352.00168

    work page arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    and Chen, R

    Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B. and Chen, R. (2025), Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts About the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    URL:https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp -content/uploads/2025/08/Canaries_Brynjolf ssonChandarChen.pdf

    Intelligence, Technical report, Stanford Digital Economy Lab, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. URL:https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp -content/uploads/2025/08/Canaries_Brynjolf ssonChandarChen.pdf

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    and Raymond, L

    Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D. and Raymond, L. (2025), ‘Generative AI at Work’,The Quarterly Journal of Economics140(2), 889–942. URL:https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/1 40/2/889/7990658

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    and McAfee, A

    Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014),The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, W. W. Norton &

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    A., Peters, D., Vold, K

    Calvo, R. A., Peters, D., Vold, K. and Ryan, R. M. (2020), Supporting Human Autonomy in AI Systems: A Framework for Ethical Enquiry,in C. Burr and L. Floridi, eds, ‘Ethics of Digital Well-Being’, Vol. 140, Springer International

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Publishing, Cham, pp. 31–54. URL:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3 -030-50585-1_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3

  13. [13]

    Chan, A., Wei, K., Huang, S., Rajkumar, N., Perrier, E., Lazar, S., Hadfield, G. K. and Anderljung, M. 10 (2025), ‘Infrastructure for AI Agents’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10114

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    (2025), ‘When AIs Bargain, a Less Advanced Agent Could Cost You’

    Chen, C. (2025), ‘When AIs Bargain, a Less Advanced Agent Could Cost You’. URL:https://www.technologyreview.com/202 5/06/17/1118910/ai-price-negotiation/

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    (1980),The Social Control of

    Collingridge, D. (1980),The Social Control of

    work page 1980

  16. [16]

    Concordia AI (2024), ‘The State of China-Western Track 1.5 and 2 Dialogues on AI’

    Technology, Frances Pinter. Concordia AI (2024), ‘The State of China-Western Track 1.5 and 2 Dialogues on AI’. URL:https://aisafetychina.substack.com/p/the -state-of-china-western-track

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    and Salz, T

    Cui, Z., Demirer, M., Jaffe, S., Musolff, L., Peng, S. and Salz, T. (2024), ‘The Effects of Generative AI on High Skilled Work: Evidence from Three Field Experiments with Software Developers’. URL: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4945566

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    DiPrete, T. A. and Eirich, G. M. (2006), ‘Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments’,Annual Review of Sociology32, 271–297. URL: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/jour nals/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127 2006

  19. [19]

    and Vayena, E

    Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P. and Vayena, E. (2018), ‘AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities,

    work page 2018

  20. [21]

    (2022), ‘Toward a Theory of Justice for Artificial Intelligence’

    Gabriel, I. (2022), ‘Toward a Theory of Justice for Artificial Intelligence’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14419

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [22]

    The ethics of advanced ai assistants.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16244, 2024

    Goldstein, J. A., Lehman, J., Klenk, M., Vallor, S., Biles, C., Morris, M. R., King, H., Arcas, B. A. y., Isaac, W. and Manyika, J. (2024), ‘The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16244

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    and Lee, M

    Gimbel, M., Kinder, M., Kendall, J. and Lee, M. (2025), Evaluating the Impact of AI on the Labor Market: Current State of Affairs, Technical report, The Budget Lab at Yale University. URL: https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/evaluating -impact-ai-labor-market-current-state-affairs

    work page 2025

  23. [24]

    (2004),States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order,

    Jasanoff, S. (2004),States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order,

    work page 2004

  24. [25]

    and Blum, C

    Jimenez-Romero, C., Yegenoglu, A. and Blum, C. (2025), ‘Multi-agent Systems Powered by Large Language Models: Applications in Swarm Intelligence’,Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 8, 1593017. URL:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10. 3389/frai.2025.1593017/full

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    and Lazar, S

    Kapoor, S., Kolt, N. and Lazar, S. (2025), ‘Build Agent Advocates, Not Platform Agents’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04345

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    and Gabriel, I

    Kasirzadeh, A. and Gabriel, I. (2025), ‘Characterizing AI Agents for Alignment and Governance’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21848

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Governing ai agents

    Kolt, N. (2025), ‘Governing AI Agents’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07913

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [29]

    Larsen, B. C. (2022), ‘Geopolitics of AI and the Rise of Digital Sovereignty’,Brookings Institution. URL: https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/swc5mh

    work page 2022

  29. [30]

    (2025), ‘Governing the Algorithmic City’, Philosophy & Public Affairs53(2), 102–168

    Lazar, S. (2025), ‘Governing the Algorithmic City’, Philosophy & Public Affairs53(2), 102–168. URL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1111/papa.12279

    work page doi:10.1111/papa.12279 2025

  30. [31]

    (2025), ‘Mercantilist AI Policy: Reconstructing the Doctrine Behind US AI Foreign Policy’

    Leicht, A. (2025), ‘Mercantilist AI Policy: Reconstructing the Doctrine Behind US AI Foreign Policy’. URL:https://writing.antonleicht.me/p/merca ntilist-ai-policy 11

    work page 2025

  31. [32]

    and Hosseini Maasoum, S

    Lichtinger, G. and Hosseini Maasoum, S. M. (2025), ‘Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change: Evidence from U.S. Résumé and Job Posting Data’. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5425555

    work page 2025

  32. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18765 (2025)

    Li, X., Liu, Y., Feng, Y., Huang, Y., Xu, Y., Sun, Y., Zhou, Z. and Xu, Z. (2025), ‘A Vision for Auto Research with LLM Agents’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18765

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    and Rao, S

    Mamie, N. and Rao, S. X. (2025), ‘The Society of HiveMind: Multi-Agent Optimization of Foundation Model Swarms to Unlock the Potential of Collective Intelligence’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05473

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    Marchant, G. E. (2011), The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and the Law,inG. E

    work page 2011

  35. [36]

    Marchant, B. R. Allenby and J. R. Herkert, eds, ‘The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight’, Vol. 7, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 19–33. URL:https://link.springer.com/10.1007/97 8-94-007-1356-7_2

    work page doi:10.1007/97

  36. [37]

    (2017),The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs

    Mazzucato, M. (2017),The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Penguin Books, London

    work page 2017

  37. [38]

    Merton, R. K. (1968), ‘The Matthew Effect in Science’,Science159(3810), 56–63. URL:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.159.3810.56

    work page 1968

  38. [39]

    (2021), How Much Will the Artificial Intelligence Act Cost Europe?, Technical report, Centre for Data Innovation

    Mueller, B. (2021), How Much Will the Artificial Intelligence Act Cost Europe?, Technical report, Centre for Data Innovation. URL:https://www2.datainnovation.org/2021 -aia-costs.pdf

    work page 2021

  39. [40]

    (1970),The Myth of the Machine

    Mumford, L. (1970),The Myth of the Machine. 1: Technics and Human Development, Harcourt,

    work page 1970

  40. [41]

    and Zhang, W

    Noy, S. and Zhang, W. (2023), ‘Experimental Evidence on the Productivity Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence’,Science 381(6654), 187–192. URL:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.adh2586

    work page 2023

  41. [42]

    The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot

    Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P. and Demirer, M. (2023), ‘The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot’. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06590

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [43]

    and Tucker, J

    Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (2020),Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, Cambridge University Press. URL: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&i d=NEjzDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=. +Social+Media+and+Democracy:+The+State +of+the+Field,+Prospects+for+Reform.+C ambridge+University+Press.&ots=5k2QmsF i8F&sig=ZmxLt4z0bN...

    work page 2020

  43. [44]

    (2018), ‘Infrastructure Studies Meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook’,New Media & Society20(1), 293–310

    Sandvig, C. (2018), ‘Infrastructure Studies Meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook’,New Media & Society20(1), 293–310. URL:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.11 77/1461444816661553

    work page 2018

  44. [45]

    (2024), ‘Human Autonomy at Risk? An Analysis of the Challenges from AI’,Minds and Machines34(26)

    Prunkl, C. (2024), ‘Human Autonomy at Risk? An Analysis of the Challenges from AI’,Minds and Machines34(26). URL:https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s110 23-024-09665-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s110 2024

  45. [46]

    (2001),Justice as Fairness: A

    Rawls, J. (2001),Justice as Fairness: A

    work page 2001

  46. [47]

    and Vogel, M

    Jaffe, S., Lucier, B., Slivkins, A. and Vogel, M. (2025), ‘The Agentic Economy’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15799

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    and Coyle, D

    Weller, A., Bengio, Y. and Coyle, D. (2024), ‘Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08797

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [49]

    (1999),Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press

    Sen, A. (1999),Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press

    work page 1999

  49. [50]

    and Chen, J

    Song, K., Trotter, A. and Chen, J. Y. (2025), ‘LLM Agent Swarm for Hypothesis-Driven Drug Discovery’. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17967

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Stigler, G. J. (1971), ‘The theory of economic regulation’,The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science2(1), 3–21. URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003160 12 The French Center for AI Safety (CeSIA), The Future Society and UC Berkeley’s Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence (2025), ‘Global Call for AI Red Lines’. URL:https://red-lines.ai/

    work page arXiv 1971

  51. [52]

    (2014),Platform Ecosystems: Aligning

    Tiwana, A. (2014),Platform Ecosystems: Aligning

    work page 2014

  52. [53]

    URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve /pii/C20120066252 Van Loo, R

    Architecture, Governance, and Strategy, Elsevier. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve /pii/C20120066252 Van Loo, R. (2019), ‘Digital Market Perfection’, Michigan Law Review117(5), 815–884. URL:https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/v ol117/iss5/2/

    work page 2019

  53. [54]

    A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents

    Zhao, W. X., Wei, Z. and Wen, J.-R. (2024), ‘A Survey on Large Language Model Based Autonomous Agents’,Frontiers of Computer Science18(6), 186345. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11432

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [55]

    (2003),Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press

    Warschauer, M. (2003),Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press. URL:https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&l r=&id=nU4zz1O88mAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11& dq=Warschauer,+M.+(2004).+Technology+ and+social+inclusion:+Rethinking+the+digita l+divide.+MIT+press.&ots=rXWxXXo34q&si g=zcrhPMUB7JD9KvXzOY1qqK1jyx4

    work page 2003

  55. [56]

    Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models

    Legassick, S., Irving, G. and Gabriel, I. (2021), ‘Ethical and Social Risks of Harm from Language Models’. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04359

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    and Pei, J

    Zhu, S., Sun, J., Nian, Y., South, T., Pentland, A. and Pei, J. (2025), ‘The Automated but Risky Game: Modeling Agent-to-Agent Negotiations and Transactions in Consumer Markets’. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00073

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    (2019),The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Profile Books

    Zuboff, S. (2019),The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Profile Books. 13

    work page 2019