In partnership with

Big investors are buying this “unlisted” stock

When the founder who sold his last company to Zillow for $120M starts a new venture, people notice. That’s why the same VCs who backed Uber, Venmo, and eBay also invested in Pacaso.

Disrupting the real estate industry once again, Pacaso’s streamlined platform offers co-ownership of premier properties, revamping the $1.3T vacation home market.

And it works. By handing keys to 2,000+ happy homeowners, Pacaso has already made $110M+ in gross profits in their operating history.

Now, after 41% YoY gross profit growth last year alone, they recently reserved the Nasdaq ticker PCSO.

Invest for $2.90/Share

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

The Great AI Exodus: Why Harvard and MIT's Brightest Are Betting Everything on a Countdown to Obsolescence

Alice Blair was supposed to graduate from MIT in 2027. Instead, she's writing her own obituary—not because she's dying, but because she believes humanity might not survive that long.

The computer science major took permanent leave from one of the world's most prestigious universities after becoming convinced that artificial general intelligence could lead to human extinction before she'd even receive her diploma. "I was worried I might not even live to graduate because of AGI," Blair explains with the matter-of-fact tone of someone discussing weekend plans. "In many scenarios, due to our current trajectory toward AGI, it leads to human extinction."

She's not alone. Across Cambridge and Boston, students at Harvard and MIT—institutions that have produced 13 U.S. presidents and 101 Nobel laureates—are walking away from degrees that could guarantee them spots in America's elite. But here's the twist: they're not dropping out to chase unicorn startups or travel the world. They're abandoning their studies because they believe their educations may become worthless—or that they might not live long enough to use them.

This isn't your typical Silicon Valley disruption story. This is something far more unsettling...

When the Smartest People in the Room Start Running for the Exits

Think about the last time you changed your entire life plan because of something you read online. Now imagine you're surrounded by the brightest minds of your generation, studying at institutions where the professors literally helped invent the internet, and they're all telling you the same thing: the game is about to change so dramatically that the rules you've spent your whole life learning are becoming obsolete.

That's the reality facing students like Adam Kaufman, who left Harvard last fall where he was studying physics and computer science. His destination? Redwood Research, a nonprofit examining deceptive AI systems that could act against human interests. The kicker? His brother, roommate, and girlfriend all made the same choice, leaving Harvard to work at OpenAI.

"I'm quite worried about the risks and think that the most important thing to work on is mitigating them," Kaufman states, as if he's discussing a term paper rather than abandoning a Harvard education.

Here's what should make you pause: these aren't conspiracy theorists huddled in basement forums. These are students who were admitted to institutions with acceptance rates below 5%. They've spent their entire academic careers being rewarded for making rational, evidence-based decisions. And now they're collectively deciding that staying in school is the irrational choice.

But what exactly are they seeing that's invisible to the rest of us?

The Countdown Clock No One Wants to Acknowledge

The students aren't making their decisions in a vacuum. They're listening to the people who actually build these systems—and those people are issuing warnings that sound more like movie plots than business forecasts.

Sam Altman of OpenAI predicts AGI will emerge before 2029. Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind anticipates it within the next five to ten years. Shane Legg, DeepMind's Chief AGI Scientist, has maintained since 2010 a 50% probability of human-level AI by 2028. These aren't random tech bloggers making predictions—these are the CEOs and chief scientists of the companies racing to build these systems.

Now put yourself in these students' shoes. You're 20 years old, planning to graduate in 2027, and the people creating AI are telling you that human-level artificial intelligence might arrive in 2028. Suddenly, that four-year degree timeline looks less like an investment in your future and more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Nikola Jurković, a recent Harvard graduate who led the university's AGI preparedness efforts, crystallized this dilemma perfectly: "If your career is about to be automated by the end of the decade, then every year spent in college is one year subtracted from your short career." His personal prediction? AGI in just four years, with complete economic automation potentially occurring within five to six years.

But surely these timeline predictions are just tech industry hype, right? The same overblown promises we've heard for decades?

When Your Career Becomes a Historical Footnote Before You Even Start It

Here's where the story gets personal for anyone under 30 reading this. A recent survey of 326 Harvard students revealed that half were concerned about AI's influence on their job prospects. Let that sink in—students at the world's most elite university, studying fields that historically guaranteed financial success, are genuinely worried about finding work.

And their fears aren't unfounded fantasy. Companies are already hiring fewer interns and recent graduates because AI can perform many of their tasks. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has warned that AI could eliminate half of entry-level white-collar positions and push unemployment rates to 20% in the coming years.

Think about your own career path for a moment. If you're in college now, you're essentially betting four years and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars on the assumption that the job market will look roughly similar in 2028 to how it looks today. But what if it doesn't?

The math is brutal: traditional college costs average $35,000 annually, meaning a four-year degree represents a $140,000 investment plus four years of opportunity cost. Meanwhile, the window to influence AI development—or even understand it well enough to adapt—is allegedly closing faster than a college graduation timeline.

So what are the rational responses to this dilemma?

The New Gold Rush: Building the Future Instead of Preparing for It

Not every student is dropping out from fear. Some are leaving to capitalize on what they see as a limited-time opportunity to shape the AI revolution from the inside.

Michael Truell left MIT to co-found Anysphere, the company behind Cursor, an AI coding assistant. The result? A startup valued at approximately $9.9 billion with revenue surpassing $500 million annually. At 22 years old, Truell has likely generated more value than most MIT graduates will create in their entire careers.

Then there's the Mercor story—three former high school debate teammates who dropped out of elite universities to build an AI-driven recruitment platform. Brendan Foody left Georgetown, Adarsh Hiremath left Harvard, and Surya Midha followed suit. Their company now has a $2 billion valuation and over $100 million in funding. They're 21 years old.

Jared Mantell represents yet another variation of this trend. The Washington University student left to build dashCrystal, automating electronics design. His company has raised over $800,000 at a $20 million valuation. "There's a limited window to have a hand on the steering wheel," Mantell explained, capturing the urgency driving these decisions.

The pattern is clear: students are calculating that the potential upside of influencing AI development now outweighs the security of traditional credentials. They're betting that being early to the AI revolution is worth more than being late with a degree.

But is this rational calculation or collective delusion?

The Dissenting Voices: Why the Experts Think They're Wrong

Not everyone buys into the urgency driving these dropouts. Gary Marcus, professor emeritus at New York University who studies the intersection of psychology and AI, argues that "human extinction seems to be very very unlikely" and describes near-term AGI as "extremely unlikely" due to unresolved problems like reasoning errors and hallucinations.

Paul Graham, co-founder of Y Combinator and someone who's seen every variety of startup fever, offers blunt advice: "Don't drop out of college to start or work for a startup. There will be other (and likely better) startup opportunities, but you cannot reclaim your college years."

The economic data supports the skeptics' position. The Pew Research Center indicates that young adults with bachelor's degrees typically earn at least $20,000 more annually than those without. In a job market already being disrupted by AI, lacking traditional credentials might actually make you more vulnerable, not less.

Harvard University maintains a 96% retention rate with dropout rates around 4%, making these AI-motivated departures statistically significant but still relatively small. The vast majority of students are staying put, suggesting that either the dropouts are prescient pioneers or they're falling victim to a particularly sophisticated form of groupthink.

So who's right? The students betting everything on AI timelines, or the experts urging patience?

Three Scenarios for How This Plays Out

Let's game out the most likely outcomes, because your response to this story should depend heavily on which future actually materializes.

Scenario 1: The AI Revolution Arrives on Schedule (2027-2030)

In this timeline, the dropouts look like geniuses. AGI emerges by 2028, fundamentally transforming the job market within months rather than decades. Traditional degrees become as relevant as buggy whip manufacturing certificates. The students who left early either helped build the new economy or positioned themselves to adapt quickly to it.

The Harvard and MIT graduates who stayed in school find themselves overqualified for a world that no longer values traditional credentials. Meanwhile, Alice Blair's work at the Center for AI Safety becomes crucial for humanity's survival, and the Mercor founders become the Sam Waltons of the AI economy.

Your move: If you believe this scenario is likely, the rational response might be to immediately pivot toward AI-related skills, consider leaving traditional educational paths, or at minimum start treating your current degree as insurance rather than destiny.

Scenario 2: AI Development Hits Unexpected Roadblocks (2030-2040)

Perhaps Gary Marcus is right. Maybe current AI systems hit fundamental limitations that require decades of additional research to overcome. AGI arrives, but slowly and with significant limitations. The job market changes, but gradually enough for traditional institutions to adapt.

In this timeline, the dropouts look impulsive. They sacrificed guaranteed credentials for speculative positions in a field that took longer to mature than predicted. Meanwhile, traditional graduates had time to develop expertise in AI integration while maintaining their foundational education.

The dropouts might still succeed—entrepreneurship rewards risk-taking regardless of AI timelines—but they gave up significant security for marginal advantages.

Your move: Continue traditional education but heavily supplement with AI literacy. Treat AI as an important tool rather than a civilization-ending threat or limitless opportunity.

Scenario 3: The Hybrid Reality (Most Likely)

AI capabilities advance rapidly but unevenly. Some jobs disappear quickly while others prove surprisingly resistant to automation. The economy transforms significantly but not catastrophically. Both dropouts and graduates find opportunities, but in different niches.

The dropouts gain early-mover advantages in AI-native industries but miss out on the broad foundation that helps them adapt when their initial bets don't pan out. Traditional graduates enter a changed job market but with reasoning skills and networks that help them navigate uncertainty.

Your move: Diversify your bets. Develop AI fluency without abandoning traditional credentials. Build adaptability rather than betting everything on a single timeline.

But here's the question that really matters: What does this mean for you?

The Personal Stakes: Why This Isn't Just About Elite Students

If you're reading this and thinking, "Well, I'm not at Harvard or MIT, so this doesn't affect me," you're missing the broader implications. These students aren't just making individual career choices—they're serving as canaries in the coal mine for everyone under 40.

The survey showing half of Harvard students worried about AI's impact on their careers? That same concern exists across higher education. Studies show more than half of college graduates already question their workforce preparedness due to AI growth. The difference is that elite students have more options to act on their concerns.

Consider your own situation. Are you pursuing education or career paths that assume the next decade will look roughly like the last one? Are you developing skills that are complementary to AI systems, or are you competing directly with capabilities that improve exponentially?

The students dropping out of Harvard and MIT are essentially conducting a massive, real-world experiment in how to respond to technological disruption. Some will succeed spectacularly, others will fail miserably, but all of them are generating data about what works when the rules change faster than institutions can adapt.

The question isn't whether they're right or wrong—it's what you can learn from their choices.

The Institutional Response: How Universities Are Failing the Moment

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this entire phenomenon is how unprepared educational institutions are to address it. Harvard has increased its focus on AI ethics courses, but the university's response feels like bringing a textbook to a gunfight.

Traditional higher education operates on four-year cycles, tenure tracks measured in decades, and curricula that change slowly enough to ensure quality control. Meanwhile, AI development operates on six-month cycles, with capabilities that can double in months rather than years.

The structural mismatch is obvious: institutions designed for stability are trying to prepare students for exponential change. It's like training cavalry officers when your enemy has tanks.

Universities face an impossible challenge. If they fully embrace the dropout students' timeline predictions, they'd essentially be arguing for their own obsolescence. If they ignore AI development entirely, they're failing to prepare students for the future. Their only viable path is the middle ground—acknowledge AI's importance while maintaining faith in traditional education's value.

But middle ground might not be good enough when dealing with exponential change.

So what's the path forward for institutions, students, and society?

The Uncomfortable Truth About Betting on Uncertainty

Here's what makes this story so compelling and unsettling: nobody actually knows who's right. The students dropping out might be responding rationally to real signals, or they might be caught up in apocalyptic groupthink. The institutions urging patience might be providing wise counsel, or they might be dinosaurs protecting their relevance.

The uncomfortable truth is that we're all making bets based on incomplete information about an unprecedented situation. Human-level artificial intelligence has never existed before, so we have no historical precedent for how to respond to its approach.

What we do know is this: the people closest to AI development seem to have the shortest timelines for its arrival. The students dropping out aren't responding to media hype—they're responding to predictions from the scientists and entrepreneurs actually building these systems.

Whether that makes their responses more credible or simply more influenced by groupthink within the AI community is anyone's guess.

Your Move: Four Questions to Guide Your Response

Rather than telling you what to think about this phenomenon, here are the questions you need to answer for yourself:

1. What timeline do you believe? If you think AGI is 20+ years away, staying in traditional educational and career paths makes sense. If you think it's 3-5 years away, the dropouts' logic becomes more compelling.

2. What's your risk tolerance? Dropping out to chase AI opportunities is high-risk, high-reward. Traditional paths offer more security but potentially less upside. Which trade-off matches your personality and circumstances?

3. What skills are you building? Are you developing capabilities that complement AI systems or compete with them? The answer should influence whether you see AI advancement as opportunity or threat.

4. How adaptable are you? The students dropping out are betting on their ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Traditional graduates are betting on the value of foundational knowledge. Which approach better matches your strengths?

The Bigger Picture: A Generational Inflection Point

Step back from the individual stories of Alice Blair, Adam Kaufman, and the Mercor founders, and you see something larger happening. An entire generation is grappling with the possibility that the future will look fundamentally different from the past—so different that traditional preparation might be counterproductive.

This isn't just about AI timelines or career choices. It's about how humans respond when the rate of change exceeds the speed of institutional adaptation. The students dropping out represent one response: radical individual action based on personal risk assessment. The students staying represent another: faith in established systems and gradual adaptation.

Both responses are rational given different assumptions about the future. Both involve significant trade-offs. Neither offers guarantees.

What's certain is that we're witnessing a generational inflection point. Young people are being forced to make decisions about education, careers, and life paths without the benefit of stable assumptions about how the world works.

The Harvard and MIT dropouts aren't just betting on AI timelines—they're betting on their ability to navigate unprecedented uncertainty. Whether they win or lose those bets, they're generating valuable information about how to respond when the future becomes unpredictable.

The rest of us would be wise to pay attention.

The Choice You Can't Avoid

You might think you can sit this one out—continue with your current plans and see how things develop. But inaction is also a choice, and it's also a bet. You're betting that traditional approaches will remain viable long enough for gradual adaptation.

That might be the right bet. It's certainly the safer bet. But it's still a bet based on assumptions about the future that might not hold true.

The students leaving Harvard and MIT have made their choice. They've decided that the potential upside of immediate action outweighs the security of traditional credentials. Whether they're right or wrong, they've forced the rest of us to confront a question we might prefer to avoid:

In a world where change happens faster than institutions can adapt, what's the rational response for individuals who want to thrive rather than just survive?

The clock is ticking, the brightest minds of a generation are making their moves, and the future is arriving faster than anyone expected. The question isn't whether you'll be affected by the choices they're making.

The question is what you're going to do about it.