Gutenberg killed Compact Discs

We determine if something is ergodic or non-ergodic roughly by comparing the two:

a) At one single timestamp, you compute the average of 1,000,000 people

b) Take 1 single person, going through 10 years, you compute his average

We all know very slow, low productivity fields (construction, electricians, retailed restaurants, or even consultants, accountants etc.) are very ergodic. Their (a) and (b) are the same. Internet couldn't help scaling the atoms unlike the bits, they remain very localised.

There is no such thing as "a millionaire electrician/baker/construction worker", "a law firm or consulting firm that goes public", "an amusement park with million-dollared valuation". These localised fields are "winner-take-little" or "losers-take-alot". Try running a local retailed shop selling goods and make a million quickly! Even people who make hardware are pretty ergodic (again Internet is not really their ally).

We also know that finance, music, writers, movies, sports, video games are non-ergodic. Their (a) and (b) are never the same. There is no such thing as "a mediocre actor" or "a small bank", "a boutique music studio", "a small footballer", a local video game, you become a king or a pauper in power-law worlds.

How about IT dudes (softwre engineers, programmers, game dev, web dev, CRUD, whatever, or even ppl work on cybersecurity, databases, neural nets, cryptography graphics engines etc.), ergodic or non-ergodic? Is the world of bits as whimsical as the world of arts? Or as boring as the localised world of atoms? Is there such a thing as "a mediocre programmer"? "A small tech company"? "A boutique game dev"? Or is there such a thing as "a millionaire programmer"? "A millionaire crud man"?

The very nature of computer programs (particularly those like SaaS that could be accessed globally through web Internet) is it has zero marginal cost of replication. That is something the local bakers, construction workers, electricians, barbers, consultants, accountants could only dream of, that should tell us alot on whether IT dudes and world of bits are ergodic or not?

In the past, scalability was limited by transmitting programs via localised floppy disks, compact discs, thumbdrives. The winners took not that too much, the losers still took quite a bit. Internet then makes winners take even more and the losers take even less. Internet ruins "untalented" programmers like how Gutenberg ruined "untalented" writers?

Ideas are highly scalable, power-law-ed, winner-take-all in nature. That is why getting "highly educated" and years of education is a pretty bad deal for the fools? “Education” is in another words “improving intelligence”, but now the best idea of all ideas: a machine that comes out idea by itself, the neural net, is coming after us. You spent 10,000 hours to add intelligence but now only the 99th percentile intelligence takes the entire market share!

That is the ultimate scalability: 1 “unit” of intelligence out of 8 billlion "Sapiens" generate the best design/thoughts, swamping over millions of self-claimed "thinkers" (who have manually devoured some books and papers and gotten 3 decades of expensive education).

Is the neural net gonna ruin all "untalented" thinkers/designers?