Tag Archives: automation

Why an AI Soft Landing Might Look Like Victorian England

2 Replies

LAST UPDATED: April 18, 2026 at 3:29 PM

Why an AI Soft Landing Might Look Like Victorian England

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

The Mirage of the Post-Scarcity Utopia

For decades, the prevailing narrative surrounding artificial intelligence has been one of a post-scarcity “Star Trek” future. The logic was simple: as machines took over the labor, the dividends of automation would be harvested by the state and redistributed via Universal Basic Income (UBI), freeing humanity to pursue art, philosophy, and leisure.

The AI Promise vs. The Fiscal Reality

However, this utopian vision ignores the gravity of The Great American Contraction. As we approach 2026 and beyond, the friction between exponential technological growth and a $37 trillion+ national debt (with a $2 trillion annual budget deficit) creates a structural barrier to redistribution. When the tax base of human labor erodes, the math for a livable UBI simply fails to compute.

The Victorian Hypothesis

If UBI is a mathematical and political impossibility fueled by corporate and human greed, we must look toward an alternative “soft landing.” This hypothesis suggests a vertical restructuring of society. As AI drives the cost of production and the demand for goods into a deflationary spiral, the purchasing power of the remaining “employed elite” will skyrocket.

The result isn’t a horizontal distribution of wealth, but a return to a Neo-Victorian social hierarchy. In this reality, the new digital gentry will use their outsized wealth to employ a massive “servant class” to maintain stately homes and personal lives, creating a world where status is defined by the human labor one can afford to command.

Neo-Victorian Hypothesis Infographic

The Great American Contraction: Why UBI is a Non-Starter

The conversation around the transition to an AI-driven economy often treats Universal Basic Income as an inevitability — a safety net that will naturally catch those displaced by the silicon wave. However, this assumes a level of fiscal elasticity that no longer exists. We are entering The Great American Contraction, a period where the traditional levers of government spending are restricted by the sheer weight of historical obligation and systemic greed.

The Debt Ceiling of Compassion

With a national debt exceeding $37 trillion, a $2 trillion budget deficit and rising interest rates, the federal government’s “room to maneuver” has effectively vanished. A livable UBI requires a massive, consistent tax base. As AI begins to hollow out the middle class, the very tax revenue needed to fund such a program disappears. To fund UBI under these conditions would require a level of sovereign borrowing that the global markets simply will not support, leading to a reality where the government cannot afford to be the savior of the displaced.

The Greed Variable

Even if the math were more favorable, the human element remains a constant. Corporate interests, focused on margin preservation and shareholder value, are unlikely to support the aggressive taxation required to fund a social floor. In the race to the bottom of production costs, the primary goal of the “winners” in the AI revolution will be wealth concentration, not social equity. The political willpower to force a massive transfer of wealth from AI-profiting corporations to the idle masses is a historical outlier that we should not count on repeating.

The Velocity of Displacement

Finally, the speed of the AI transition is its most disruptive feature. Legislative bodies move in years, while AI cycles move in weeks. By the time a political consensus for UBI could be formed, the economic floor will have already fallen out. This lag time creates a vacuum that will be filled not by government checks, but by a desperate search for subsistence, setting the stage for the return of the domestic labor economy.

The Deflationary Paradox: Collapse of Demand and Cost

In a traditional economy, unemployment leads to recession, which usually leads to stagflation or managed recovery. However, the AI-driven “soft landing” introduces a unique mechanical failure: the Deflationary Paradox. As AI and advanced robotics permeate every sector, the labor cost of producing goods and services begins to approach zero, but the pool of consumers capable of buying those goods simultaneously evaporates.

The Production Floor Drops

We are witnessing the end of the labor theory of value. When an AI can design, a robot can manufacture, and an automated fleet can deliver a product without a single human touchpoint, the marginal cost of production hits the floor. In a desperate bid to capture the dwindling “active” capital in the market, companies will engage in a race to the bottom, causing the prices of physical and digital goods to deflate at a rate unseen in modern history.

The Demand Vacuum

While cheap goods sound like a boon, they are a symptom of a deeper rot: the Demand Vacuum. As the middle class is hollowed out, the velocity of money slows to a crawl. The economy shifts from a mass-consumption model to a precision-consumption model. Most businesses will fail not because they can’t produce, but because there are no longer enough customers with a paycheck to buy, even at rock-bottom prices.

The Purchasing Power of the “Remaining”

This is where the Victorian shift begins. For the small percentage of Americans who retain their income — the innovators, the orchestrators, and the entrepreneurs — this deflationary environment is a golden age. Their dollars, fixed in value while the cost of everything else drops, suddenly possess exponential purchasing power. When a gallon of milk or a digital service costs mere pennies in relative terms, the “wealthy” find themselves with a massive surplus of capital that cannot be spent on “things” alone. This surplus will naturally be redirected toward the one thing that remains scarce and high-status: the dedicated service of another human being.

The New “Stately Home” Economy

As the Deflationary Paradox takes hold, we will see a fundamental shift in the definition of luxury. In the pre-AI era, luxury was defined by the acquisition of high-tech gadgets or rare goods. In the Neo-Victorian era, where machines produce goods for nearly nothing, “luxury” will pivot back toward the human-centered experience. Status will no longer be measured by what you own, but by whose time you command.

From Software to Service

For the “In-Group” — those entrepreneurs and specialized leaders still generating significant revenue — capital will lose its utility in the digital marketplace. When software is free and manufactured goods are commoditized, wealth seeks the only remaining friction: human presence. We will see a massive migration of capital away from Silicon Valley “platforms” and toward the local domestic economy. The wealthy will stop buying more “things” and start buying “lives” — the total dedicated attention of house managers, chefs, valets, and tutors.

The Modern Manor

This economic shift will be physically manifested in the return of the Stately Home. These won’t just be houses; they will be complex ecosystems of employment. Large estates will once again become the primary employer for local communities. As traditional corporate offices vanish, the residence becomes the center of both social and economic power. These modern manors will require extensive human staffs to cook, clean, maintain grounds, and provide security — services that, while technically possible via robotics, will be performed by humans as a deliberate signal of the owner’s immense “effectively wealthy” status.

The Return of the Domestic Professional

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of this transition will be the class of worker entering domestic service. We are not talking about a traditional blue-collar service shift, but the “Victorianization” of the former middle class. Displaced white-collar professionals — accountants, teachers, and middle managers — will find that their highest-paying opportunity is no longer in a cubicle, but in managing the complex domestic affairs, private education, and logistics of the new digital aristocracy. It is a “soft landing” in name only; while they may live in proximity to grandeur, their survival is entirely tethered to the whims of their employer.

Socio-Economic Stratification: The Two-Tiered Reality

The inevitable result of the “Victorian Soft Landing” is the formalization of a rigid, two-tiered social structure. Unlike the 20th century, which was defined by a fluid and expanding middle class, the post-contraction era will be characterized by extreme polarization. The economic “missing middle” creates a vacuum that forces every citizen into one of two distinct realities: the Digital Gentry or the Dependent Class.

The Corporate and Government Gentry

A small percentage of Americans — likely less than 10% — will remain tethered to the engines of primary wealth creation. This “In-Group” consists of high-level AI orchestrators, strategic entrepreneurs, and essential government officials who maintain the infrastructure of the state. Because their income is derived from high-margin automated systems while their cost of living has plummeted due to deflation, they possess a level of functional wealth that rivals the landed gentry of the 19th century. To this group, the “Great Contraction” is not a crisis, but a refinement of their dominance.

The Dependent Class

For those outside the digital fortress, the reality is stark. Without a national UBI to provide a floor, the majority of the population becomes the “Dependent Class.” Their economic utility is no longer found in the marketplace of ideas or manufacturing, but in the marketplace of personal service. In this neo-Victorian landscape, you either work for the companies that own the AI, work for the government that protects it, or you work directly for the individuals who do.

The Choice: Service or Scarcity

This stratification reintroduces a primal power dynamic into the American workforce. When the cost of basic survival (food and shelter) is low due to deflation, but the opportunity for independent income is zero, the wealthy gain total leverage. The “soft landing” is, in truth, a forced labor transition. Those who are not “useful” to the gentry — either as specialized labor or domestic support — face the grim reality of the Victorian workhouse era: they must find a patron to serve, or they will starve in a world of plenty.

Experience Design in the Neo-Victorian Era

Experience Design in the Neo-Victorian Era

From the perspective of experience design and futurology, the shift toward a Victorian-style social structure will fundamentally alter the aesthetic of status. In a world where AI can generate perfect, flawless goods and digital experiences at zero marginal cost, “perfection” becomes a commodity. Status, therefore, will be redesigned around human friction and intentional inefficiency.

The Aesthetic of Inequality

We will see a move away from the sleek, minimalist “Apple-esque” design of the early 21st century toward a more ornate, human-heavy luxury. Experience design for the elite will emphasize things that AI cannot authentically replicate: the slight imperfection of a hand-cooked meal, the presence of a uniformed gatekeeper, and the physical maintenance of vast, non-automated gardens. Architecture will pivot back to “human-centric” layouts—designing spaces not for efficiency, but to accommodate the movement and housing of a live-in staff.

Designing for Disconnect

The most challenging aspect of this new era will be the Experience of the Invisible. Designers will be tasked with creating systems that allow the Digital Gentry to interact with their environment without acknowledging the vast economic disparity surrounding them. This involves “Social UX” — designing layers of intermediation where the “Dependent Class” provides the comfort, but the “Gentry” only interacts with the result. It is a return to the “back-stairs” architecture of the 19th century, modernized for a digital age.

The UX of Survival

For the majority, the “User Experience” of daily life will be one of Hyper-Personal Patronage. Navigation of the economy will no longer be about interfaces or platforms, but about the “UX of Relationships.” Survival will depend on the ability to design one’s persona to be indispensable to a wealthy patron. In this reality, human-centered design takes on a darker, more literal meaning: the human becomes the product, the service, and the infrastructure all at once.

Conclusion: Preparing for the Retro-Future

The “Soft Landing” we are currently engineering is not the one we were promised. As the Great American Contraction forces a collision between astronomical debt and the deflationary power of AI, the middle-class dream of a subsidized leisure class is evaporating. In its place, we are seeing the blueprints of a Retro-Future — a world that looks forward technologically but moves backward socially.

A Call for Human-Centered Transition

If we continue to view innovation solely through the lens of efficiency and margin preservation, the Victorian outcome is not just possible — it is inevitable. We must realize that without a radical redesign of how we value human contribution beyond mere “market productivity,” we are simply building a more efficient feudalism. True Experience Design must now focus on the social fabric, or we risk creating a world where the only “innovation” left is finding new ways for the many to serve the few.

Final Thought: The Soft Landing Paradox

We must be careful what we wish for when we ask for a “seamless” transition. A landing that is “soft” for the Digital Gentry is one where the friction of poverty and the noise of the displaced have been successfully silenced by the return of the servant class. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme — and right now, the future sounds remarkably like 1837. The question is no longer if AI will change our world, but whether we have the courage to design a future that doesn’t require us to retreat into our past.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why would prices deflate if the economy is struggling?

In this scenario, AI and robotics drive the marginal cost of production toward zero. Simultaneously, massive job displacement creates a “demand vacuum.” To capture what little liquid currency remains, companies must drop prices drastically, leading to a reality where goods are incredibly cheap but income is even scarcer.

How does this differ from the 20th-century middle class?

The 20th century was defined by a “horizontal” distribution where many people owned moderate assets. The Neo-Victorian model is “vertical.” The middle class disappears, replaced by a tiny, hyper-wealthy elite (Digital Gentry) and a large class of people who provide them with personalized human services (the Servant Class).

Isn’t UBI a more logical solution to AI displacement?

While logical in theory, the “Great American Contraction” hypothesis suggests that high national debt and corporate prioritisation of margins make a livable UBI politically and fiscally impossible. Without a state-funded floor, the market defaults to the oldest form of social safety: personal patronage and domestic service.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a visualization of but one possible future. I will be publishing other possible futures as they crystallize in my mind (or as you suggest them for me to explore).

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Great American Contraction

9 Replies

Population, Scarcity, and the New Era of Human Value

LAST UPDATED: April 17, 2026 at 10:26 AM
FIRST PUBLISHED: September 24, 2025 at 12:00 PM
The Great American Contraction - Population, Scarcity, and the New Era of Human Value

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

We stand at a unique crossroads in human history. For centuries, the American story has been a tale of growth and expansion. We built an empire on a relentless increase in population and labor, a constant flow of people and ideas fueling ever-greater economic output. But what happens when that foundational assumption is not just inverted, but rendered obsolete? What happens when a country built on the idea of more hands and more minds needing more work suddenly finds itself with a shrinking demand for both, thanks to the exponential rise of artificial intelligence and robotics?

The Old Equation: A Sinking Ship

The traditional narrative of immigration as an economic engine is now a relic of a bygone era. For decades, we debated whether immigrants filled low-skilled labor gaps or competed for high-skilled jobs. That entire argument is now moot. Robotics and autonomous systems are already replacing a vast swath of low-skilled labor, from agriculture to logistics, with greater speed and efficiency than any human ever could. This is not a future possibility; it’s a current reality accelerating at an exponential pace. The need for a large population to perform physical tasks is over.

But the disruption is far more profound. While we were arguing about factory floors and farm fields, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has quietly become a peer-level, and in many cases, superior, knowledge worker. AI can now draft legal briefs, write code, analyze complex data sets, and even generate creative content with a level of precision and speed no human can match. The very “high-skilled” jobs we once championed as the future — the jobs we sought to fill with the world’s brightest minds — are now on the chopping block. The traditional value chain of human labor, from manual to cognitive, is being dismantled from both ends simultaneously.

But workers are not the only thing being disrupted. Governments will be disrupted as well. Why? Because companies will be incentivized to decrease profitability by investing in compute to remain competitive. This means the tax base will shrink at the same time that humans will need increased financial assistance from the government. Taxes are only paid by businesses when there is profit (unless you switch to a revenue basis) and workers only pay taxes when they’re employed. A decreasing tax base and rising welfare costs is obviously unsustainable and another proof point for why smart countries have already started reducing their population to decrease the chances of default and social unrest.

“The question is no longer ‘What can humans do?’ but ‘What can only a human do?'”

The New Paradigm: Radical Scarcity

This creates a terrifying and necessary paradox. The scarcity we must now manage is not one of labor or even of minds, but of human relevance. The old model of a growing population fueling a growing economy is not just inefficient; it is a direct path to social and economic collapse. A population designed for a labor-based economy is fundamentally misaligned with a future where labor is a non-human commodity. The only logical conclusion is a Great Contraction — a deliberate and necessary reduction of our population to a size that can be sustained by a radically transformed economy.

This reality demands a ruthless re-evaluation of our immigration policy. We can no longer afford to see immigrants as a source of labor, knowledge, or even general innovation. The only value that matters now is singular, irreplaceable talent. We must shift our focus from mass immigration to an ultra-selective, curated approach. The goal is no longer to bring in more people, but to attract and retain the handful of individuals whose unique genius and creativity are so rare that AI can’t replicate them. These are the truly exceptional minds who will pioneer new frontiers, not just execute existing tasks.

The future of innovation lies not in the crowd, but in the individual who can forge a new path where none existed before. We must build a system that only allows for the kind of talent that is a true outlier — the Einstein, the Tesla, the Brin, but with the understanding that even a hundred of them will not be enough to employ millions. We are not looking for a workforce; we are looking for a new type of human capital that can justify its existence in a world of automated plenty. This is a cold and pragmatic reality, but it is the only path forward.

Human-Centered Value in a Post-Labor World

My core philosophy has always been about human-centered innovation. In this new world, that means understanding that the purpose of innovation is not just about efficiency or profit. It’s about preserving and cultivating the rare human qualities that still hold value. The purpose of immigration, therefore, must shift. It is not about filling jobs, but about adding the spark of genius that can redefine what is possible for a smaller, more focused society. We must recognize that the most valuable immigrants are not those who can fill our knowledge economy, but those who can help us build a new economy based on a new, more profound understanding of what it means to be human.

The political and social challenges of this transition are immense. But the choice is clear. We can either cling to a growth-based model and face the inevitable social and economic fallout, or we can embrace this new reality. We can choose to see this moment not as a failure, but as an opportunity to become a smaller, more resilient, and more truly innovative nation. The future isn’t about fewer robots and more people. It’s about robots designing, building and repairing other robots. And, it’s about fewer people, but with more brilliant, diverse, and human ideas.

This may sound like a dystopia to some people, but to others it will sound like the future is finally arriving. If you’re still not quite sure what this future might look like and why fewer humans will be needed in America, here are a couple of videos from the present that will give you a glimpse of why this may be the future of America:

INFOGRAPHIC ADDED DECEMBER 3, 2025:

The Great American Contraction Infographic

YOUTUBE Video with Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton discussing our post-AI economic future:

So, as the demand for human labor shrinks, stability requires that we also shrink the population. The question then becomes, what are the least problematic ways to do that?

Failing to answer this question or reacting too slowly to the accelerating labor displacement as demand shrinks is inviting chaos and societal collapse. We must act — now.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

Leave a reply

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

We live in an automated age. From the news we read and the items we shop for, to who we date and what companies we choose to work for, algorithms help drive every facet of modern life. Such rapid technological advancement has led some to predict that we’re headed for a jobless future, where there is no more need for humans.

Yet in their recent book Radically Human, Accenture’s Paul Daugherty and H. James Wilson argue exactly the opposite. In their work guiding technology strategy for many of the world’s top corporations, they have found that, in many cases, the robots need us more than we need them. Automation is no panacea.

For over a century, pundits have been trying to apply an engineering mindset to human affairs with the hope of taking a more “scientific approach.” So far, those efforts have failed. In reality, these ideas have less to do with science than denying the value of human agency and limiting the impact of human judgment. We need to stop making the same mistake.

The Myth Of Shareholder Value

In 1970, the economist Milton Friedman proposed a radical idea. He argued that corporate CEOs should not take into account the interests of the communities they serve, but that their only social responsibility was to increase shareholder value. While ridiculed by many at the time, by the 1980s Friedman’s idea became accepted doctrine.

In particular, what irked Friedman was that managers would exercise judgment with respect to the objectives of the organization. “the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation … and his primary responsibility is to them,” he wrote.

The problem is that boiling down the success of an enterprise to the single variable of shareholder value avoids important questions. What do we mean by “value?” Is short term value more important than long-term value? Do owners value only share price or do they also value other things, like technological progress and a healthy environment?

Avoiding tough questions leaves significant problems unsolved, which may be one reason that, since Friedman’s essay, our well-being has declined significantly. Our economy has become markedly less productive, less competitive and less dynamic. Purchasing power for most people has stagnated. By just about every metric, we’re worse off.

How The Consumer Welfare Standard Undermines Consumer Welfare

In 1978, the legal scholar Robert Bork published the Antitrust Paradox in which he argued against the rule of reason standard for antitrust cases that required judges to use their discretion when deciding what constitutes a practice that “unreasonably” restricts trade. In its place, he suggested a consumer welfare standard, which would only take into account whether the consumer was harmed by higher prices.

Much like Friedman, Bork didn’t like the idea of depending on subjective human judgment. How could we trust judges to decide what is “reasonable” without a clear and objective standard? If the government is going to block business activity, he argued, it should have to prove, through stringent economic analysis, that harm is being done.

Yet as Lina Kahn pointed out in a now-famous paper titled Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, consumers can be harmed even as prices are lowered. If Amazon is allowed to control the online retail infrastructure, including logistics, hosting, marketing, etc., then trade is restricted, free markets are undermined and the consumer will be harmed.

To understand why, you only need to look at the recent baby formula shortage, in which only three firms dominate the market and, the leader, Abbott, is the exclusive supplier in many markets. Not only is it highly likely that the lack of competition contributed to lax quality standards at Abbott’s plant in Sturgis, Michigan, but once it went offline because of contamination, there weren’t enough suppliers to fill the gap.

These aren’t isolated examples, but indicative of a much larger and growing crisis. An article in Harvard Business Review details how the vast majority of industries are concentrated in just a few dominant players. A more extensive analysis by the Federal Reserve bank shows how the lack of competition leads to lower business dynamism and less productivity.

“Great Power” Politics

In early March, the prominent political scientist John Mearsheimer gave an interview to The New Yorker in which he argued that the United States had erred greatly in its support of Ukraine. According to his theory, we should recognize Russia’s role as a great power and its right to dictate certain things to its smaller and weaker neighbor.

Today, the idea that America should have left Ukraine at the mercy of Russia seems not only morally questionable, but patently absurd. Not only has the brutality of the Russian forces horrified the world, their incompetence has laid bare the fecklessness of the the Putin regime. How could such a respected expert of foreign affairs get things so wrong?

Once again, the failure to recognize human agency is a key culprit. In Mearsheimer’s view, which he calls, “realism,” only “great powers” have a say in world affairs and they will work to further their interests. He believes that by not recognizing Russia’s desire to subjugate other nations in its orbit, America and its allies are being silly and impractical.

Hopefully, we can learn some lessons from the war in Ukraine. Strategy is not a game of chess, in which we move inert pieces around a board. People have the power to make choices. Ukraine chose to undertake tough reforms and arm itself. Russia chose an autocracy which rewarded loyalty over competence. That, more than anything else, has driven events.
The Real World Isn’t An Algorithm

A joke began circulating in the late 1970s, often attributed to management consultant Warren Bennis, that the factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. Today, even with offshoring, about 10% of Americans work in factories.

When you scratch below the surface, the joke has less to do with technological advancement than it does with derision and control. Bennis wasn’t just any business consultant, but a renowned expert on leadership, who wrote books, published articles in top journals and even advised presidents. That he would promote the view, even as a joke, that leaders should deny agency to employees is as troubling as it is telling.

If you believe that human judgment is a liability rather than an asset, you manage accordingly. You treat employees as cogs in a machine rather than partners in a shared enterprise. You invest in offshoring rather than up-skilling, schedule shifts without regard to people’s lives, deny benefits such as parental leave. We’ve seen where that’s gotten us—lower productivity, worsening mental health and a society that is more unequal and less just.

We need to get back to the business of being human. Our economy should serve our people, not the other way around. The success of a society needs to be measured by the well-being of those who live in it. If we increase GDP, but our air and water are more polluted, our children less educated, we live unhappy lives and die deaths of despair, what have we really gained?

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Humans Wanted for the Decade’s Biggest Innovation Challenges

Leave a reply

Humans Wanted for the Decade's Biggest Innovation Challenges

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Every era is defined by the problems it tackles. At the beginning of the 20th century, harnessing the power of internal combustion and electricity shaped society. In the 1960s there was the space race. Since the turn of this century, we’ve learned how to decode the human genome and make machines intelligent.

None of these were achieved by one person or even one organization. In the case of electricity, Faraday and Maxwell established key principles in the early and mid 1800s. Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla came up with the first applications later in that century. Scores of people made contributions for decades after that.

The challenges we face today will be fundamentally different because they won’t be solved by humans alone, but through complex human-machine interactions. That will require a new division of labor in which the highest level skills won’t be things like the ability to retain information or manipulate numbers, but to connect and collaborate with other humans.

Making New Computing Architectures Useful

Technology over the past century has been driven by a long succession of digital devices. First vacuum tubes, then transistors and finally microchips transformed electrical power into something approaching an intelligent control system for machines. That has been the key to the electronic and digital eras.

Yet today that smooth procession is coming to an end. Microchips are hitting their theoretical limits and will need to be replaced by new computing paradigms such as quantum computing and neuromorphic chips. The new technologies will not be digital, but will work fundamentally different than what we’re used to.

They will also have fundamentally different capabilities and will be applied in very different ways. Quantum computing, for example, will be able to simulate physical systems, which may revolutionize sciences like chemistry, materials research and biology. Neuromorphic chips may be thousands of times more energy efficient than conventional chips, opening up new possibilities for edge computing and intelligent materials.

There is still a lot of work to be done to make these technologies useful. To be commercially viable, not only do important applications need to be identified, but much like with classical computers, an entire generation of professionals will need to learn how to use them. That, in truth, may be the most significant hurdle.

Ethics For AI And Genomics

Artificial intelligence, once the stuff of science fiction, has become an everyday technology. We speak into our devices as a matter of course and expect to get back coherent answers. In the near future, we will see autonomous cars and other vehicles regularly deliver products and eventually become an integral part of our transportation system.

This opens up a significant number of ethical dilemmas. If given a choice to protect a passenger or a pedestrian, which should be encoded into the software of a autonomous car? Who gets to decide which factors are encoded into systems that make decisions about our education, whether we get hired or if we go to jail? How will these systems be trained? We all worry about who’s educating our kids, but who’s teaching our algorithms?

Powerful genomics techniques like CRISPR open up further ethical dilemmas. What are the guidelines for editing human genes? What are the risks of a mutation inserted in one species jumping to another? Should we revive extinct species, Jurassic Park style? What are the potential consequences?

What’s striking about the moral and ethical issues of both artificial intelligence and genomics is that they have no precedent, save for science fiction. We are in totally uncharted territory. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we develop a consensus about what principles should be applied, in what contexts and for what purpose.

Closing A Perpetual Skills Gap

Education used to be something that you underwent in preparation for your “real life.” Afterwards, you put away the schoolbooks and got down to work, raised a family and never really looked back. Even today, Pew Research reports that nearly one in four adults in the US did not read a single book last year.

Today technology is making many things we learned obsolete. In fact, a study at Oxford estimated that nearly half of the jobs that exist today will be automated in the next 20 years. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be jobs for humans to do, in fact we are in the midst of an acute labor shortage, especially in manufacturing, where automation is most pervasive.

Yet just as advanced technologies are eliminating the need for skills, they are also increasingly able to help us learn new ones. A number of companies are using virtual reality to train workers and finding that it can boost learning efficiency by as much as 40%. IBM, with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has recently unveiled a system that help you learn a new language like Mandarin. This video shows how it works.

Perhaps the most important challenge is a shift in mindset. We need to treat education as a lifelong need that extends long past childhood. If we only retrain workers once their industry has become obsolete and they’ve lost their jobs, then we are needlessly squandering human potential, not to mention courting an abundance of misery.

Shifting Value To Humans

The industrial revolution replaced the physical labor of humans with that of machines. The result was often mind-numbing labor in factories. Yet further automation opened up new opportunities for knowledge workers who could design ways to boost the productivity of both humans and machines.

Today, we’re seeing a similar shift from cognitive to social skills. Go into a highly automated Apple Store, to take just one example, and you don’t see a futuristic robot dystopia, but a small army of smiling attendants on hand to help you. The future of technology always seems to be more human.

In much the same way, when I talk to companies implementing advanced technologies like artificial intelligence or cloud computing, the one thing I constantly hear is that the human element is often the most important. Unless you can shift your employees to higher level tasks, you miss out on many of the most important benefits

What’s important to consider is that when a task is automated, it is also democratized and value shifts to another place. So, for example, e-commerce devalues the processing of transactions, but increases the value of things like customer service, expertise and resolving problems with orders, which is why we see all those smiling faces when we walk into an Apple Store.

That’s what we often forget about innovation. It’s essentially a very human endeavor and, to measure as true progress, humans always need to be at the center.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

4 Things Leaders Must Know About Artificial Intelligence and Automation

Leave a reply

4 Things Leaders Must Know About Artificial Intelligence and Automation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 2011, MIT economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee self-published an unassuming e-book titled Race Against The Machine. It quickly became a runaway hit. Before long, the two signed a contract with W. W. Norton & Company to publish a full-length version, The Second Machine Age that was an immediate bestseller.

The subject of both books was how “digital technologies are rapidly encroaching on skills that used to belong to humans alone.” Although the authors were careful to point out that automation is nothing new, they argued, essentially, that at some point a difference in scale becomes a difference in kind and forecasted we were close to hitting a tipping point.

In recent years, their vision has come to be seen as deterministic and apocalyptic, with humans struggling to stay relevant in the face of a future ruled by robot overlords. There’s no evidence that’s true. The future, in fact, will be driven by humans collaborating with other humans to design work for machines to create value for other humans.

1. Automation Doesn’t Replace Jobs, It Replaces Tasks

When a new technology appears, we always seem to assume that its primary value will be to replace human workers and reduce costs, but that’s rarely true. For example, when automatic teller machines first appeared in the early 1970s, most people thought it would lead to less branches and tellers, but actually just the opposite happened.

What really happens is that as a task is automated, it becomes commoditized and value shifts somewhere else. That’s why today, as artificial intelligence is ramping up, we increasingly find ourselves in a labor shortage. Most tellingly, the shortage is especially acute in manufacturing, where automation is most pervasive.

That’s why the objective of any viable cognitive strategy is not to cut costs, but to extend capabilities. For example, when simple consumer service tasks are automated, that can free up time for human agents to help with more thorny issues. In much the same way, when algorithms can do much of the analytical grunt work, human executives can focus on long-term strategy, which computers tend to not do so well.

The winners in the cognitive era will not be those who can reduce costs the fastest, but those who can unlock the most value over the long haul. That will take more than simply implementing projects. It will require serious thinking about what your organization’s mission is and how best to achieve it.

2. Value Never Disappears, It Just Shifts To Another Place

In 1900, 30 million people in the United States were farmers, but by 1990 that number had fallen to under 3 million even as the population more than tripled. So, in a manner of speaking, 90% of American agriculture workers lost their jobs, mostly due to automation. Still, the twentieth century was seen as an era of unprecedented prosperity.

We’re in the midst of a similar transformation today. Just as our ancestors toiled in the fields, many of us today spend much of our time doing rote, routine tasks. Yet, as two economists from MIT explain in a paper, the jobs of the future are not white collar or blue collar, but those focused on non-routine tasks, especially those that involve other humans.

Far too often, however, managers fail to recognize value hidden in the work their employees do. They see a certain job description, such as taking an order in a restaurant or answering a customer’s call, and see how that task can be automated to save money. What they don’t see, however, is the hidden value of human interaction often embedded in many jobs.

When we go to a restaurant, we want somebody to take care of us (which is why we didn’t order takeout). When we have a problem with a product or service, we want to know somebody cares about solving it. So the most viable strategy is not to cut jobs, but to redesign them to leverage automation to empower humans to become more effective.

3. As Machines Learn To Think, Cognitive Skills Are Being Replaced By Social Skills

20 or 30 years ago, the world was very different. High value work generally involved the retaining information and manipulating numbers. Perhaps not surprisingly, education and corporate training programs were focused on building those skills and people would build their careers on performing well on knowledge and quantitative tasks.

Today, however, an average teenager has more access to information and computing power than even a large enterprise would a generation ago, so knowledge retention and quantitative ability have largely been automated and devalued, so high value work has shifted from cognitive skills to social skills.

To take just one example, the journal Nature has noted that the average scientific paper today has four times as many authors as one did in 1950 and the work they are doing is far more interdisciplinary and done at greater distances than in the past. So even in highly technical areas, the ability to communicate and collaborate effectively is becoming an important skill.

There are some things that a machine will never do. Machines will never strike out at a Little League game, have their hearts broken or see their children born. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, for machines to relate to humans as well as a human can.

4. AI Is A Force Multiplier, Not A Magic Box

The science fiction author Arthur C. Clark noted that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” and that’s largely true. So when we see a breakthrough technology for the first time, such as when IBM’s Watson system beat top human players at Jeopardy!, many immediately began imagining all the magical possibilities that could be unleashed.

Unfortunately, that always leads to trouble. Many firms raced to implement AI applications without understanding them and were immediately disappointed that the technology was just that — technology — and not actually magic. Besides wasting resources, these projects were also missed opportunities to implement something truly useful.

As Josh Sutton, CEO of Agorai, a platform that helps companies build AI applications for their business, put it, “What I tell business leaders is that AI is useful for tasks you understand well enough that you could do them if you had enough people and enough time, but not so useful if you couldn’t do it with more people and more time. It’s a force multiplier, not a magic box.”

So perhaps most importantly, what business leaders need to understand about artificial intelligence is that it is not inherently utopian or apocalyptic, but a business tool. Much like any other business tool its performance is largely dependent on context and it is a leader’s job to help create that context.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Beyond Automation: How AI Elevates Human Creativity in Innovation

Leave a reply

Beyond Automation: How AI Elevates Human Creativity in Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The chatter surrounding Artificial Intelligence often paints a picture of stark dichotomy: either AI as a tireless automaton, displacing human roles, or as an ominous, sentient entity. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I find both narratives profoundly miss the point. The true revolution of AI isn’t in what it *replaces*, but in what it **amplifies**. Its greatest promise lies not in automation, but in its unparalleled ability to act as a powerful co-pilot, fundamentally elevating human creativity in the complex dance of innovation.

For centuries, the spark of innovation was viewed as a mystical, solitary human endeavor. Yet, in our hyper-connected, data-saturated world, the lone genius model is becoming obsolete. AI steps into this void not as a rival, but as an indispensable cognitive partner, liberating our minds from the tedious and augmenting our uniquely human capacity for empathy, intuition, and truly groundbreaking thought. This isn’t about AI *doing* innovation; it’s about AI empowering humans to innovate with unprecedented depth, speed, and impact.

The Cognitive Co-Pilot: AI as a Creativity Catalyst

To grasp how AI truly elevates human creativity, we must reframe our perspective. Imagine AI not as a separate entity, but as an extension of our own cognitive capabilities, allowing us to think bigger and explore further. AI excels at tasks that often bog down the initial, expansive phases of innovation:

  • Supercharged Sensing & Synthesis: AI can rapidly sift through petabytes of data—from global market trends and nuanced customer feedback to scientific breakthroughs and competitor strategies. It identifies obscure patterns, correlations, and anomalies that would take human teams decades to uncover, providing a rich, informed foundation for novel ideas.
  • Expansive Idea Generation: While AI doesn’t possess human “creativity” in the emotional sense, it can generate an astonishing volume of permutations for concepts, designs, or solutions based on defined parameters. This provides innovators with an infinitely diverse raw material, akin to a boundless brainstorming partner, for human refinement and selection.
  • Rapid Simulation & Prototyping: AI can simulate complex scenarios or render virtual prototypes with incredible speed and accuracy. This accelerates the “test and learn” cycle, allowing innovators to validate assumptions, identify flaws, and iterate ideas at a fraction of the time and cost, minimizing risk before significant investment.
  • Liberating Drudgery: By automating repetitive, analytical, or research-intensive tasks (e.g., literature reviews, coding boilerplate, data cleaning), AI frees human innovators to dedicate their invaluable time and cognitive energy to higher-order creative thinking, empathic problem framing, and the strategic foresight that only humans can provide.

Meanwhile, the irreplaceable human element brings the very essence of innovation:

  • Empathy and Nuance: AI can process sentiment, but it cannot truly *feel* or understand the unspoken needs, cultural context, and emotional drivers of human beings. This deep empathy is paramount for defining meaningful problems and designing solutions that truly resonate.
  • Intuition & Lateral Thinking: The spontaneous “aha!” moments, the ability to connect seemingly disparate concepts in genuinely novel ways, the audacious leap of faith based on gut feeling honed by experience—these remain uniquely human domains.
  • Ethical Judgment & Purpose: Determining the “why” behind an innovation, its intended impact, and ensuring its alignment with human values and ethical considerations demands human wisdom and foresight.
  • Storytelling & Vision: Articulating a compelling vision for a new product or solution, inspiring adoption, building coalitions, and weaving a resonant narrative around innovation is a distinctly human art form, essential for bringing ideas to life.

Case Study 1: BenevolentAI – Igniting Scientific Intuition

Accelerating Drug Discovery with AI-Human Collaboration

Traditional drug discovery is a famously protracted, exorbitantly expensive, and often dishearteningly unsuccessful process. BenevolentAI, a pioneering AI-enabled drug discovery company, provides a compelling testament to AI augmenting, rather than replacing, human creativity.

  • The Challenge: Sifting through billions of chemical compounds and vast scientific literature to identify promising drug candidates and understand their complex interactions with specific diseases.
  • AI’s Role: BenevolentAI’s platform employs advanced machine learning to digest colossal amounts of biomedical data—from scientific papers and clinical trial results to intricate chemical structures. It uncovers hidden patterns and proposes novel drug targets or molecules that human scientists might otherwise miss or take years to find. This significantly narrows the focus for human investigation.
  • Human Creativity’s Role: Human scientists, pharmacologists, and biologists then leverage these AI-generated hypotheses. They apply their profound domain expertise, critical thinking, and scientific intuition to design rigorous experiments, interpret complex biological outcomes, and creatively problem-solve the path towards viable drug candidates. The AI provides the expansive landscape of possibilities; the human provides the precision, the ethical lens, and the iterative refinement.

**The Lesson:** AI liberates human scientists from data overwhelm, allowing their creativity to focus on the most intricate scientific challenges and accelerate breakthrough medical solutions.

Case Study 2: Autodesk – Unleashing Design Possibilities

Generative Design: Expanding the Horizon of Sustainable Products

Autodesk, a global leader in 3D design software, has masterfully integrated AI-powered generative design into its offerings. This technology beautifully illustrates how AI can dramatically expand the creative possibilities for engineers and designers, especially in critical fields like sustainable manufacturing.

  • The Challenge: Designing components that are lighter, stronger, and use minimal material (e.g., for aerospace or automotive sectors) while adhering to stringent engineering and manufacturing constraints.
  • AI’s Role: Designers input specific performance requirements (e.g., maximum weight, material types, manufacturing processes, stress points). The AI then employs complex algorithms to explore and generate thousands, even millions, of unique design options. These often include highly organic, biomimetic structures that would be beyond conventional human conceptualization, automatically optimizing for factors like material reduction and structural integrity.
  • Human Creativity’s Role: The human designer remains unequivocally in the driver’s seat. They define the initial problem, establish the critical constraints, and, most importantly, critically evaluate the AI-generated solutions. Their creativity manifests in selecting the optimal design, refining it for aesthetic appeal, integrating it seamlessly into larger systems, and ensuring it meets human-centric criteria like usability, manufacturability, and market appeal in the real world. AI provides the unprecedented breadth of possibilities; the human brings the discerning eye, the artistry, and the practical application.

**The Lesson:** AI provides an explosion of novel design options, freeing human designers to elevate their focus to aesthetic refinement, functional integration, and real-world impact.

Leading the Human-AI Innovation Renaissance

For forward-thinking leaders, the imperative is clear: shift the narrative from “AI will replace us” to “How can AI empower us?” This demands a deliberate cultivation of human-AI collaboration:

  1. Upskill for Synergy: Invest aggressively in training your teams not just in using AI tools, but in the uniquely human skills that enable effective partnership: critical thinking, ethical reasoning, empathetic design, and advanced prompt engineering.
  2. Design for Augmentation: Implement AI systems with the explicit goal of amplifying human capabilities, not merely automating existing tasks. Focus on how AI can enhance insights, accelerate iterations, and free up valuable human cognitive load for higher-value activities.
  3. Foster a Culture of Play and Experimentation: Create safe spaces for teams to explore AI, experiment with its limits, and discover novel ways it can support and spark their creative processes. Encourage a “fail forward fast” mindset with AI.
  4. Anchor in Human Values: Instill a non-negotiable principle that human empathy, ethical considerations, and purpose always remain the guiding stars for every innovation touched by AI. AI is a powerful tool; human values dictate its direction and impact.

The innovation landscape of tomorrow will not be dominated by Artificial Intelligence, nor will it be solely driven by human effort. It will be forged in the most powerful partnership ever conceived: the dynamic fusion of human ingenuity, empathy, and vision with the analytical power and scale of AI. This is not the end of human creativity; it is its most magnificent renaissance, poised to unlock solutions we can barely imagine today.

“The future of work is not human vs. machine, but human + machine.”
– Ginni Rometty

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.