In partnership with

Learn from this investor’s $100m mistake

In 2010, a Grammy-winning artist passed on investing $200K in an emerging real estate disruptor. That stake could be worth $100+ million today.

One year later, another real estate disruptor, Zillow, went public. This time, everyday investors had regrets, missing pre-IPO gains.

Now, a new real estate innovator, Pacaso – founded by a former Zillow exec – is disrupting a $1.3T market. And unlike the others, you can invest in Pacaso as a private company.

Pacaso’s co-ownership model has generated $1B+ in luxury home sales and service fees, earned $110M+ in gross profits to date, and received backing from the same VCs behind Uber, Venmo, and eBay. They even 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 AI Revolution: What's Really Happening Behind the Scenes

Something strange is happening right now. While you're scrolling through your phone, AI is quietly taking over three major parts of our world. And most people have no idea how deep this goes.

i'm talking about fashion magazines using fake models, the government using robots to delete laws, and Chinese tech giants putting computers in your glasses. This isn't science fiction. It's happening today.

Here's what you need to know.

Vogue Just Put a Fake Woman on Their Pages (And People Are Losing Their Minds)

Remember when seeing a model in Vogue meant something? When it represented real people, real beauty, real dreams?

That's over.

Vogue's August 2025 issue features something that has never existed before: a completely artificial woman. Her name is made up. Her face is fake. Her body doesn't exist. But there she is, selling Guess clothes to millions of readers.

The company behind this digital woman is called Seraphinne Vallora. Two 25-year-old women started it. They create "artificial women that do not exist" for brands who want perfect models without the hassle of real humans.

Think about that for a second.

No bad hair days. No contract negotiations. No human emotions or opinions. Just pure, algorithmic perfection that costs six figures to create but never ages, never complains, and never asks for a raise.

The process takes a month. Five employees work on each fake person. The result? A blonde woman in striped dresses who looks more real than most Instagram influencers.

But here's where it gets weird. The backlash has been brutal.

Fashion insiders are calling it "cheap" and "lazy." Mental health experts worry about the message this sends to young people already struggling with unrealistic beauty standards. Long-time Vogue readers are canceling subscriptions.

And the models? The real ones? They're watching their jobs disappear to computers.

But the money doesn't lie. McKinsey says AI could add $275 billion to fashion profits by 2028. When that much cash is on the table, human feelings become secondary.

The company even offers to create "digital twins" of real models. Imagine selling your face to work multiple jobs simultaneously while you sleep. It sounds like a deal with the devil, doesn't it?

The Government Built an AI That's Deleting Half of All Federal Rules

While everyone was arguing about fake models, something bigger was happening in Washington.

The Department of Government Efficiency built an AI tool that's about to change everything. They call it the "DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool." Its job? Delete 100,000 federal regulations by next year.

That's half of all federal rules. Gone. Decided by a computer.

The AI analyzes 200,000 regulations and flags the ones it thinks are outdated or unnecessary. No human reading every line. No congressional debates. Just algorithms making decisions that affect millions of lives.

It's already working. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the AI made "decisions on 1,083 regulatory sections" in under two weeks. At the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it authored "100% of deregulations."

Think about what that means. Rules about your mortgage, your credit cards, your safety at work – all being reviewed by a machine that processes legal language faster than any human ever could.

The supporters say this will save trillions in compliance costs and unleash economic growth. Business will boom when red tape disappears.

The critics? They're terrified. What happens when the AI misunderstands a law? What if it accidentally deletes protections for consumers or workers? The system has already made mistakes at HUD, misreading legal language.

But here's the scariest part: there's no real oversight. No public comment period. No time for experts to review the decisions. Just an AI deciding which rules matter and which don't.

Federal agencies have four weeks to complete their lists. By September 1st, the AI will have marked half of federal regulations for deletion.

Democracy is getting automated. And most people don't even know it's happening.

China Just Put AI in Your Glasses (And Privacy is Dead)

Alibaba just announced something that should make you very uncomfortable: AI glasses that see everything you see, hear everything you hear, and connect to everything you buy.

The Quark AI Glasses look normal. But they're running on Alibaba's AI brain and Qualcomm's newest chip. They can translate languages in real-time, transcribe meetings, make payments, and help you shop – all through voice commands.

Sound useful? It is. That's the problem.

These glasses connect to Alibaba's entire ecosystem. Maps, payments, shopping, cloud storage. Everything you look at, everywhere you go, everything you buy gets fed into their system.

And it's working. The smart glasses market is exploding. China alone expects to sell 2.75 million units this year – a 107% increase. Meta's Ray-Ban glasses saw sales triple in 2025.

But here's what nobody talks about: privacy is dying.

When everyone wears cameras on their faces, public spaces become surveillance zones. The person next to you on the bus could be recording without you knowing. The glasses are designed to be invisible to others.

Under GDPR, recording people without consent is illegal. But how do you get consent from everyone you see? How do you even know you're being recorded?

The technology is moving faster than the law. And companies like Alibaba are betting that convenience will win over privacy concerns.

Imagine a world where every conversation, every interaction, every moment in public gets captured and analyzed by AI. That's not a dystopian future. That's next year's Christmas gift.

What This All Really Means

These three stories aren't separate. They're connected.

AI is replacing human creativity in fashion. It's replacing human judgment in government. It's replacing human privacy in daily life.

The pattern is clear: efficiency over humanity, profit over people, automation over accountability.

In fashion, fake perfection is cheaper than real beauty. In government, algorithmic speed beats democratic deliberation. In tech, seamless surveillance trumps personal privacy.

But here's what the executives and politicians won't tell you: this isn't just about better technology. It's about power.

When AI makes the decisions, who controls the AI controls everything. A few companies and government agencies are gaining unprecedented influence over what we see, what laws we follow, and how much privacy we have.

The economic numbers are staggering. AI will contribute $19.9 trillion to the global economy by 2030. Every dollar spent returns $4.60. That kind of money creates its own gravity, pulling everything toward automation.

Jobs will disappear. Not just modeling jobs or government jobs, but entire categories of human work. The UC Berkeley Labor Center found that technological change often hurts women and people of color the most.

Democracy is at risk too. When machines make policy decisions faster than humans can understand them, public participation becomes impossible. We're creating what experts call "governance spectacle" – the appearance of regulation without real oversight.

And privacy? Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

The companies building these systems say they're solving problems. Making fashion more inclusive. Making government more efficient. Making life more convenient.

But they're also creating new problems that might be worse than the ones they're solving.

The Choice We're Not Making

Here's the thing nobody wants to admit: we're not really choosing this future. It's being chosen for us.

While we argue about fake models and worry about job security, the fundamental decisions about AI deployment are being made in boardrooms and government offices. The pace of change is so fast that democratic oversight can't keep up.

Tech companies are investing billions. Governments are implementing AI tools. Markets are rewarding automation over human labor.

But we still have some power. We can push for transparency in AI systems. We can demand accountability for automated decisions. We can insist on human oversight for critical choices.

The alternative is a world where algorithms decide what's beautiful, what's legal, and what's private.

That world is coming fast. The question is whether we'll have any say in what it looks like.

The AI revolution isn't waiting for permission. It's happening now, reshaping fashion, government, and technology in ways that will define the next decade.

The only question left is: are we going to shape it, or let it shape us?

Critical Analysis and Summary

What's Really Happening:

This isn't just technological progress – it's a fundamental shift in power structures. Three seemingly unrelated developments reveal a coordinated move toward algorithmic control across industries.

The Fashion Story exposes how economic pressure trumps human values. Vogue's AI model controversy isn't about technology; it's about an industry choosing profit margins over human creativity and representation. The $275 billion projected value of AI in fashion creates irresistible pressure to replace humans with algorithms.

The Government Story reveals the most dangerous trend: automated policy-making without democratic oversight. When AI systems can eliminate 100,000 regulations in months, we're witnessing the end of deliberative democracy. The speed advantage of AI makes human participation obsolete.

The Privacy Story shows how convenience becomes a trojan horse for surveillance. Alibaba's smart glasses normalize constant recording and data collection, fundamentally altering social contracts around privacy and consent.

The Deeper Pattern:

All three developments share common characteristics:

• Speed that outpaces human oversight

• Economic incentives that overwhelm ethical concerns

• Technological capabilities deployed before regulatory frameworks exist

• Power concentration among a few large organizations

• Public acceptance achieved through convenience and efficiency promises

What We're Not Being Told:

The real transformation isn't technological – it's social and political. AI isn't just changing how we work; it's changing who makes decisions, what privacy means, and whether human judgment matters in critical areas.

The companies and agencies driving these changes aren't evil. They're responding to competitive pressures and efficiency demands. But the cumulative effect is a society where human agency becomes secondary to algorithmic optimization.

The Critical Questions:

• Who benefits when human creativity, judgment, and privacy are automated away?

• What happens to democratic accountability when machines make policy decisions?

• How do we maintain human agency in a world optimized for algorithmic efficiency?

The Real Stakes:

This isn't about stopping technology. It's about ensuring technology serves human flourishing rather than replacing human participation in crucial decisions about beauty, governance, and privacy.

The window for shaping these developments is closing rapidly. The economic and political momentum behind AI deployment may soon make meaningful oversight impossible.

The choice isn't between progress and stagnation. It's between conscious direction of technological development and passive acceptance of whatever emerges from competitive and bureaucratic pressures.

That choice is being made right now, whether we participate or not.