The paper sets out to explain how differing rates of artificial intelligence adoption will shape productivity, inequality, and regional gaps. It extends the Solow growth framework with an automation variable and overlays Rogers diffusion theory, then sketches a logistic adoption process and an aggregate regional production function. The conceptual synthesis is logically organised and the notation is clear. Figures outlining Gini trajectories are helpful.
The contribution is limited by the absence of empirical grounding. All parameters in the models are hypothetical and no real adoption or productivity data are used for calibration. As a result the results section repeats the intuition that faster adoption raises output and widens gaps, but offers no quantification beyond stylised claims. The references list omits key recent papers that estimate industry level adoption curves, intangible capital spillovers, or distributional effects of large language models. The mechanisms that link AI adoption to regional inequality are described qualitatively and remain untested.
AI safety relevance is only implicit. The paper notes that widening disparities could undermine social stability but does not connect its framework to concrete safety levers such as compute governance, labour transition funds for alignment workers, or incentives for safer model deployment. Without tracing pathways from distributional outcomes to tail risk mitigation the impact on the safety agenda is weak.
Technical quality is hindered by the lack of data, code, or sensitivity tests. Several symbols in the equations are introduced without units. The logistic adoption curve is presented but no baseline or comparative static is shown. The Google Drive link mentioned in the appendix is not integrated into the submission so reproducibility is not possible.
Future work would benefit from collecting cross‐industry panel data on AI investment, estimating adoption rates, and embedding those estimates into the model. A calibrated simulation with Monte Carlo uncertainty would allow credible policy experiments. Engaging with current empirical studies and mapping specific safety channels such as funding for red teaming would strengthen both foundation and relevance.