What exactly is being priced in an Experience Economy?
Not intelligence in the abstract.
Not "smartness." Not stylistic fluency. Not the ability to produce ten polished answers before breakfast.
What gets priced is narrower - and more serious.
Experience becomes economically relevant only when it changes the decision conditions of someone else in a bounded way.
That means: less uncertainty, less waste, less preventable error, less repeated confusion, less blind trial-and-error under cost.
In other words: experience matters economically when it compresses risk.
This is why I distinguish between two very different things:
Learning Abstracts: compressed signals that may improve a model
and
Experience Artifacts: bounded records of interaction, consequence, constraint, and uncertainty.
Both are useful. But they are not the same object.
Learning can improve capability. It does not automatically carry legitimacy.
Experience can carry legitimacy. It does not automatically improve a model.
That distinction matters a lot once people start talking about "AI value."
Because if we fail to separate capability from consequence, we end up pricing eloquence as if it were judgment.
And that is how systems become socially expensive while still sounding impressive.
Earth paragraph:
There is a difference between reading a clean summary of an industrial incident and standing next to the machine that overheated at 3 a.m., with real downtime, real cost, and no magical retry button.
Both contain information. Only one carries consequence in a way that can change future behavior responsibly.
That is the kind of object I think the next economy will increasingly care about.
GitHub Economic Layer package: