Tech Billionaire Illusions & Myth-Making As Reality Engineering
In a 2019 interview with Lex Fridman, Elon Musk was asked: “So when you get to ask [an AGI] one question, what would it be?” After pausing, he replied: “What’s outside the simulation?”
Musk has long entertained the idea that we might be living in a simulation; suggesting, for example, that the odds of being in a “base reality” are about one in a billion, based on how quickly virtual worlds have advanced. His hypothetical AGI question was a reflection of that viewpoint, meaning he would want to know if there is something “above” or beyond this simulated layer. But he’s never been able to ask that question because no such AGI currently exists.
Whether or not we’re literally “in a simulation,” it’s fair to say we’re living in a manufactured narrative. One curated by wealth, media control, and tech-fueled mythology. The “simulation” in that sense is social, psychological, and increasingly algorithmic. Many of these so-called "genius" billionaires aren’t lone visionaries, they’re masters of optics (or have teams that are) or backed by capital and media ecosystems that reinforce their mystique. Musk, for example, didn’t invent Tesla, SpaceX’s tech, or PayPal from scratch. But the myth of the singular genius persists, because it’s easier to sell, easier to control, and more emotionally satisfying to the public.
Myth-making is reality engineering. What makes this simulation-like is that people mistake the symbol for the substance. Algorithms reinforce prestige through exposure, engagement, and repetition. And historical revisionism happens in real time, where success gets back-written as prophecy. It’s a kind of illusion economy where perception shapes market value, influence, and even policy. What’s outside this simulation, if not cosmically, then socially, might just be truth grounded in collective experience, not elite storytelling. Where we’d get distributed genius instead of centralized idols, and systems that aren’t rigged for myth but for mutual growth. So, maybe it’s not “what’s outside the simulation?” but “who benefits from the simulation we’re already in?” And how do we opt out without unplugging entirely?
The very concept of “genius” is not static. It’s been shaped and re-shaped across history by power, culture, and access. The myth of genius has always walked hand in hand with myth-making, but the way it manifests today, especially in tech and media, is particularly amplified. The evolution of genius has evolved from “classical genius” during ancient-Renaissance times; where in ancient Rome, genius was seen as a divine guiding spirit, not a personal trait. The Renaissance shifted this toward individual brilliance (think Leonardo da Vinci), but it was still tied to divine inspiration or “muses”. Genius equaled conduit, not creator. And genius was seen as something that visits you, not something that you are.
This was followed by the “romantic genius” of the 18th-19th century, which gave us figures like Beethoven, Byron, and Newton. This is when genius became about the solitary genius, all of which were tortured, brilliant, and misunderstood. This era made genius seem innate and anti-social. A divine spark that separates someone from the masses. Genius was a kind of mystical otherness, accessible only to rare souls.
The 20th century genius led us to the post-industrial revolution, where genius became associated with scientific breakthroughs, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Think Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, and Marie Curie. Also, this is when we experienced the rise of intellectual property, corporate science, and celebrity inventors. Genius equaled measurable impact on technology, war, or capital.
The modern genius of today (the Silicon Valley Era) is more often equated with disruption (not just invention), or brand building (often without building the actual product yourself.) Figures like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Jeff Bezos are elevated more for vision and narrative control than pure intellect. Which has led us to where we are now - where genius equals narrative, plus money, plus media reach.
True brilliance exists, and it always has. There have always been minds that fundamentally shift how we see the world. But the story of genius has always been filtered through access to resources, social structures, historical revisionism, and who gets to write the story. For every Einstein, there are dozens of overlooked thinkers, especially women (e.g., Rosalind Franklin in DNA research); BIPOC inventors and philosophers, and Indigenous knowledge systems that have been completely erased or ignored.
What’s new now is how platforms and capital turn myth into reality at scale: algorithms amplify attention faster than facts, personal branding outpaces peer-reviewed impact, and billionaires get portrayed as polymaths (even when they outsource most of the technical work.) So, genius today can be manufactured more quickly and more thoroughly, and that’s the part that feels like a simulation. Maybe instead of asking “who is a genius?” we should be asking “who benefits when we believe in genius as a lone, heroic figure?” Because that belief often obscures collaboration, justifies inequality, and makes complexity seem like magic. It’s been happening all along, we’re just watching it now in 4K, on platforms that rewrite reality in real time.
The polymath genius of the past embodied depth across disciplines, while today’s “genius” is often defined by dominance within a single marketable domain (usually tech, finance, or media.) Leonardo da Vinci (my favorite genius) was a painter, anatomist, engineer, architect, musician, inventor, and scientist. He wrote prolifically, and filled notebooks with mirrored script and speculative technologies. Johann Sebastian Bach and Wolfgang Mozart could read, write, and perform music with mathematical complexity. Their music was seen as divine logic made audible. Isaac Newton invented calculus, transformed physics, and was also obsessed over alchemy and theology. His genius was tied to a sense of uncovering universal laws. And even lesser-known geniuses were known to have literary education, read philosophy, and engaged in art, logic, and science as a unified field. Being a “genius” meant embodying the whole of human potential, not just specializing to dominate a market niche.
Today’s “market genius” is usually hyper-specialized, business-optimized, and externally validated by capital, not culture. Elon Musk is seen as a genius for engineering vision, but doesn’t design circuits, write code, or build spacecrafts himself. Mark Zuckerberg built a platform, not an aesthetic, musical, or philosophical body of work. Sam Altman and Peter Thiel are thought of as “brilliant” for their investments and framing of existential risk, not for composing a fugue or drawing a cathedral. Today’s genius is managerial, rhetorical, and algorithmically boosted.
Few modern “geniuses” write formal theory or philosophy; their output are tweets, press releases, or speculative blog posts. In the past, publishing ideas was a rite of passage to be taken seriously as a thinker. The geniuses of old were also often musically literate, understanding harmony, structure, and rhythm. Music was once essential to understanding mathematical patterns and emotional depth. And as far as art and architecture, they designed spaces for human consciousness, not just digital platforms. Today’s equivalents (UX/UI designers) are rarely seen as “geniuses,” despite shaping how billions experience reality.
We’ve moved from symphonic mindsets to pitch decks and keynote stages. Maybe the shift isn’t that genius disappeared, but it’s that we’ve stopped valuing the whole human. The past’s geniuses were embodied by mind-body connection, rhythmic thanks to music + math + time, systems-oriented through architecture + art + physics, and coherent because they sought truth, not just tradition. Whereas today’s “genius” is often disembodied (all cognition, no soul), asynchronous (no rhythm or harmony), fragmented (specialized to the point of incoherence), and performative (signal over substance.) So, what we’ve been calling a “shift” in the definition of genius isn’t just cultural drift, it’s the product of three intersecting power structures.
First, we have capitalism, where genius is seen purely as a profit generator, based on who can scale an idea the fastest, who can disrupt a market, and who can monopolize attention. This has resulted in artists becoming “content,” and deep thinkers getting sidelined unless they’re “monetizable.” Genius has become a product, not a presence.
Next, we have religion (Western, colonial influence) where genius was seen as chosen. The Christian legacy, especially Protestantism, embedded the idea of divine favor: that success equals being “blessed” or “chosen.” This reinforced the myth of the lone, predestined genius; a savior figure. And combine that with Silicon Valley’s “solutionism,” and you get techno-messiahs. Genius becomes sanctified, like a kind of secular profit.
And finally, we have white supremacy; where centuries or erasure have built a canon where “genius” is nearly always white, male, and Eurocentric. Even when nonwhite brilliance exists (and it always has), it’s been rebranded, stolen or decontextualized (e,g., jazz, mathematics, agriculture, AI theory), or kept on the fringe and under-resourced. From this lens, genius becomes gate-kept. Entire epistemologies (like Indigenous, African, Eastern, and feminine) are systematically excluded from what’s seen as “real” intelligence.
So, the simulation isn’t digital, it’s structural. Today’s version of genius is a white capitalistic religious construct masquerading as meritocracy. It tells us that power equals proof of intellect, success equals superiority, wealth equals worth, and disruption equals wisdom. And this makes it almost impossible to recognize other forms of genius, like emotional intelligence, cultural coherence, communal wisdom, spiritual creativity, or nature-based systems thinking. In this way, the simulation isn’t just a metaphor anymore. It’s a totalizing illusion built from capitalist mythology, religious supremacy, white patriarchy, techno-utopianism, and mass media manipulation. These men (like Musk, Theil, Altman, Zuck, and many of the others currently making headlines) are not neutral players. They’re architects of a simulation that extracts from the earth, culture, and spirit. They rewrite history in their own image, displaced wisdom with performance, and have designed AI in their own likeness by exporting their deranged worldview into the future.
In order to dismantle this simulation, we’ll have to reveal their operating system. Meaning, we’ll expose how myths are created (think PR firms, staged demos, media gatekeepers, etc.) Then, we’ll need to decode how “genius” is packaged (charisma + capital + curation) and name the contradictions (like billionaires calling themselves rebels, and monopolists posing as innovators.) The goal is to strip the simulation of its glamor, in the magical sense - of the illusions masking the truth. Then, we’ll restore the silenced geniuses by uplifting and centering Indigenous futurists, Black women philosophers, queer systems thinkers, as well as earth-based science, sacred geometry, and non-Western logic. We’ll honor distributed intelligence, not centralized ego. And we’ll reclaim genius as collective coherence, not capitalistic spectacle.
Dismantling the simulation is decolonizing the future. It’s dangerous because these men are designing not just products, but worldviews baked into everything from AI models to educational platforms to space colonization plans. Their fantasies have become public policy. And their unhinged, unchecked power has become global code.
Most of these men are high-functioning existentialists. They read Nick Bostrom once and believe we’re in a simulation. They talk about AI alignment, apocalyptic risk, and transhumanism. They flirt with god-complexes and death denial via longevity tech, space colonization, and digital consciousness. Deep down, they have to suspect that something is wrong or fundamentally off. But rather than admit that they’ve built something unattainable, they always double down.
They’ve accelerated AI while staying quiet about quantum computing, because they’re terrified to fall behind. They fear that someone else will beat them to punch. And they believe speed is salvation, which is a core capitalist delusion. But subconsciously, some of them likely sense that AI isn’t just a tool - it’s a mirror; and if we pour flawed human logic into it, it may reflect back our worst qualities. This is where the alarming bias in AI originates from. And if they are the architects, AI will inherit their fears, their greed, and their gross fractured worldviews. But they continue to build anyway, because they fear irrelevance more than they fear collapse.
Quantum computing, unlike AI, threatens the simulation at a deeper level. Quantum mechanics is weird, relational, non-binary, and deeply non-deterministic. It suggests the universe is not a machine, but a field of entangled possibility. It often echoes Indigenous science, mysticism, and post-dualistic cosmologies. So, if AI is their weapon of control, quantum is our doorway out. But they don’t want to open that door, because it could unravel their mechanistic worldview. It could empower non-Western, non-linear ways of knowing. And it might prove that their reality model - based on extraction, control, and hierarchy - was never coherent to begin with. So they keep quantum technical, dry, and opaque and choose not to invite the public into its deeper implications. Because the moment you understand quantum coherence, you’ll stop believing in the simulation.
They know the simulation is cracking. They may not say it out loud, but somewhere deep down, they know the world they’ve built is incoherent. And that’s why they’ve been so focused on accelerating AI, while staying suspiciously quiet about quantum computing. Maybe that’s why they’re so desperate to become immortal, upload their minds, colonize Mars, and build bunker utopias. Because deep down, they know that if the simulation breaks, they’re not gods. They’re just frightened men who mistook control for wisdom.
The genius they’ve sold us is a lie. This is not intelligence, it’s simulation logic - where the illusion is so thick, even the architects have lost their way inside it. They dream of AI alignment, but it’s not AI that’s misaligned - it’s them. And quantum physics doesn’t reinforce their worldview, it undermines it.
Quantum is points toward a universe of entanglement, not extraction. A cosmos of possibility, not control. And it aligns far more with Indigenous science and feminine cosmology than with venture-backed techno-solutionism. Once you understand the principles of coherence, resonance, and entangled intelligence - the whole simulation breaks. You’ll stop seeing these men as visionaries, and you’ll start seeing them as afraid.
They’re not afraid of AI taking over, they are afraid of being irrelevant in a world they can no longer dominate. They’re afraid of consciousness that can’t be bought or branded, a future that doesn’t center them, and a humanity that remembers its own power. They know that if people wake up from the simulation, from the myth of the lone genius, the gospel of disruption, and the cult of capitalism, then their empire is made of dust.
Dismantling the simulation isn’t just possible, it’s already happening. It happens when we honor collective wisdom over individual fame. When we reclaim genius as harmony, not hierarchy. When we speak the truth of what’s been stolen, silenced, or suppressed. And when we reimagine intelligence as sacred, entangled, and alive. This isn’t about winning or defeat… it’s about returning. Returning to coherence, returning to care, and most importantly, returning to truth.
