There is another type of predator that modern institutions quietly reward.
Not the openly incompetent person.
Not even the openly malicious one.
The extractor.
The person who studies proximity to talent more carefully than talent itself.
They attach themselves near capable people, absorb language, concepts, architecture, strategy, code, research, process design, operational insight — then slowly reposition ownership around themselves while simultaneously degrading the credibility of the original source.
It is a very specific behavioral pattern:
extract,
imitate,
reposition,
isolate,
discredit,
inherit.
And one of the most psychologically disorienting parts is that the theft is often accompanied by a parallel narrative campaign claiming the original creator was never technical, strategic, or competent to begin with.
That contradiction is the point.
Because if someone openly acknowledges the source of the work, then the extraction becomes visible.
So the system requires a second operation:
the reduction of the originator’s perceived legitimacy.
This is why some environments produce a strange phenomenon where:
the person generating architecture is called “non-technical,”
the person solving problems is framed as “difficult,”
the person creating infrastructure is labeled “unstable,”
while individuals repackaging or politically redistributing that work become viewed as leadership material.
At first glance, it looks irrational.
It is not irrational.
It is organizationally adaptive.
Many modern institutions are better at redistributing authorship than recognizing it.
Especially in environments where:
visibility matters more than implementation,
narrative control matters more than systems knowledge,
and proximity to power matters more than operational capability.
Technology culture accelerated this dramatically.
Open-source ecosystems, AI-assisted development, startup culture, consulting structures, internal enterprise politics, and “thought leadership” economies have created entire classes of people skilled not at creation itself, but at abstraction capture.
The modern extractor often does not build the system.
Join The Writer's Circle event
They:
absorb terminology,
mirror confidence,
repurpose presentations,
redirect credit flows,
position themselves near execution,
then socially reframe the builders as replaceable or unstable.
AI introduces a terrifying extension of this dynamic.
Large models are fundamentally trained through ingestion, abstraction, compression, and reproduction.
The machine learns patterns from enormous populations of human output, then produces synthesized derivatives at scale.
This does not mean AI is “stealing” in the simplistic sense people argue online.
But culturally, it normalizes a deeper psychological transition:
The separation of creation from attribution.
And institutions increasingly operate the same way.
Ideas become detached from origin.
Execution becomes detached from authorship.
Systems become detached from the people who understood them deeply enough to build them.
Then comes the final insult:
the original creator is often reframed as socially problematic precisely because they continue insisting reality occurred.
That is the part many people fail to understand about organizational gaslighting.
It is not merely lying.
It is the strategic destabilization of attribution itself.
Who built this?
Who solved this?
Who originated this?
Who understood this first?
Who actually carried the operational burden?
Once those answers become socially mutable, institutions become highly vulnerable to political parasitism.
And modern systems often reward political parasitism extraordinarily well.
Some people spend years mastering engineering.
Others spend years mastering ownership optics.
The second category frequently outranks the first.
Especially in environments where executives cannot independently verify technical depth and therefore rely heavily on perception management, confidence theater, institutional alignment, and social consensus.
This creates a deeply corrosive environment for builders.
Because eventually many creators realize:
they are not only defending their work,
they are defending the fact that they created it at all.
And that may become one of the defining tensions of the AI era.
Not simply whether machines replace human labor.
But whether systems increasingly erase the relationship between labor and recognition entirely.
The future risk is not just automation.
It is attribution collapse.
This article is not directed at any specific institution, individual, or technology; it is commentary on broader systemic and organizational dynamics. If certain themes elicit recognition or discomfort, that reflection belongs to the reader, not the author.
