This is the summarized version of AI: Dystopia or Utopia? (3,150 words). The full version (13,150 words) can be found here.
I've seen technology reshape our world repeatedly. Previous technology platforms amplified human capabilities but didn't fundamentally alter the essence of human intellect. They extended our reach but didn't multiply our minds.
Artificial intelligence is different. It's past the point where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. AI amplifies and multiplies the human brain, much like steam engines once amplified muscle power. Before engines, we consumed food for energy and that energy we put to work. Engines allowed us to tap into external energy sources like coal and oil, revolutionizing productivity and transforming society. AI stands poised to be the intellectual parallel, offering a near-infinite expansion of brainpower to serve humanity.
AI promises a future of unparalleled abundance. However, as we transition to a post-scarcity society, the journey may be complex, and the short term may be painful for those displaced. Mitigating these challenges requires well-reasoned policy. The next 0–10 years, 10–25 years, and 25–50 years will each be radically different. The pace of change will be hard to predict or anticipate, especially as technology capabilities far exceed human intelligence and penetrate society at varying rates.
Pessimists paint a dystopian future in two parts—economic and social. They fear widespread job loss, economic inequality, social manipulation, erosion of human agency, loss of creativity, and even existential threats from AI. I believe these fears are largely unfounded, myopic, and harmful. They are addressable through societal choices. Moreover, the real risk isn't “sentient AI” but losing the AI race to nefarious “nation states,” or other bad actors, making AI dangerous for the west. Ironically, those who fear AI and its capacity to erode democracy and manipulate societies should be most fearful of this risk!
In an economic dystopia, wealth concentrates at the top while intellectual and physical work are devalued. Widespread job loss and deflation destroy the economy and purchasing power, exacerbating inequalities. AI could create a world where a small elite thrives while the rest face instability.
But with smart interventions—like income redistribution or universal basic income (UBI), and strategic legislation—we can prevent this. Capitalism operates by the permission of democracy, and we have the collective power to shape economic outcomes if we handle this transition wisely.
Factor in an aging global population and a shrinking pool of young workers, and AI becomes essential. With the right policies, we could smooth the transition and even usher in a three-day workweek. If GDP growth jumps from 2% to 5% or more, we'll have the abundance to create "transition funds," much like the oil funds that have fueled prosperity in countries like Norway.
Naysayers envision AI undermining humanity through pervasive surveillance and manipulation. They fear AI being used to control information, influence elections, and erode democracy via targeted propaganda or deepfakes, making truth difficult to discern.
But these outcomes aren't inevitable. Legislation will shape how AI integrates into our lives. In democratic societies, these are collective choices. With AI’s abundance, the reasons for crime might even diminish. A balance can be achieved where we benefit from AI's advancements without succumbing to dystopian visions.
Fears of manipulation rely on the assumption of a single, despotic AI overlord, which is far-fetched. More likely, we'll see diverse AIs serving different interests, preventing the consolidation of power.
Concerns about AI making critical decisions in healthcare, justice, and governance are valid, given hidden biases in current systems. But these biases originate from humans, and AI offers a chance to recognize and correct them. For example, human physicians perform more surgeries if they're paid by the surgery—hardly unbiased. AI can surface and correct such biases, providing more equitable outcomes.
Humans will retain the power to revoke AI's decision-making privileges, ensuring AI remains guided by human consensus. The specter of a sentient, malevolent AI is a risk, but one we can mitigate through vigilance and proper safeguards.
Critics fear over-reliance on AI could diminish human creativity and critical thinking, as people depend on machines for decisions. They worry about cultural homogenization due to AI algorithms creating echo chambers.
But I see AI expanding our creativity. Someone like me—endowed with zero musical talent—can create a personalized song . AI enables new forms of expression, expanding our abilities rather than replacing them.
Doomers warn that AI could become uncontrollable and render humans extinct. While we must invest heavily in AI safety research, it's important to balance this concern against AI's immense benefits.
The larger and more immediate risk is losing the AI race to nations like China, making AI dangerous for the West. China's five-year plan explicitly aims to win in AI. If authoritarian regimes develop advanced AI before democratic societies, they could manipulate societies, erode democracy, and consolidate power.
Ironically, those who fear AI eroding democracy should be most concerned about this risk. We must step up and use AI for humanity's benefit, ensuring democratic values prevail.
Further, it is likely that we'll have multiple AIs, making it unlikely that all would turn against humanity simultaneously, even in a worst-case scenario. Most likely, the growing emphasis on AI explainability will enhance safety by aligning AI's goals with human values. Within the next decade, I believe we'll move beyond the scare-mongering around "black box systems" with no controllability.
However, solving this problem requires a laser focus on AI safety and ethics. Investing heavily in AI safety is crucial, and a substantial portion of university research should focus on this area. The federal government should invest more in safety research and detection of AI. Features like “off switches” should be required after appropriate research and testing. It's also important to remember that humanity faces many existential risks—pandemics, asteroid impacts, nuclear war, to name a few. AI is just one risk in a broader context, and we need to consider the trade-offs between these risks and the potential benefits AI can bring.
Concerns about tech CEOs wielding unprecedented sway over global structures are valid. But we must consider whether we're more comfortable with unelected leaders like Xi Jinping's global influence or that of tech CEOs. While both wield power without direct democratic accountability, tech CEOs rely on market forces and public opinion.
Moreover, democratization of AI development and multiple AI’s makes power concentration unlikely.
Part of my motivation to pen this piece is to dispel the dystopian vision of an AI-first world. First and foremost, it is a cognitively lazy vision – easy to fall into and lacking all imagination: large-scale job losses, the rich getting richer, the devaluation of intellectual expertise as well as physical work, and the loss of human creativity all in service of our AI overlords. On the contrary, AI can provide near free AI tutors to every child on the planet and near free AI physician expertise to everyone on the planet. Virtually every kind of expertise will be near free from oncologists to structural engineers, software engineers to product designers and chip designers and scientists all fall into this camp. It will also help control plasma in fusion reactors and self flying aircraft, self-driving cars and public transit making all substantially more affordable and accessible by all. AI promises to democratize even how we build enterprises. But more than anything it will be an equalizing force as all humans will be able to harness the same expertise.
I estimate that over the next 25 years, AI can perform 80% of the work in 80% of all jobs—whether doctors, salespeople, engineers, or farm workers. Mostly, AI will do the job better and more consistently. Anywhere that expertise is tied to human outcomes, AI can and will outperform humans, and at near-free prices. AI will transform how we discover and utilize natural resources such as lithium, cobalt, steel and copper, such that our resource discovery capabilities outpace consumption. The current challenge is not a lack of resources, but a limitation in our capacity to find them – a barrier AI is poised to help break. Further, AI could help optimize the use of resources and it will help discover new materials.
For the next 5-10 years, humans will oversee AI "interns," doubling or tripling productivity. Eventually, we'll decide which jobs to assign to AI and which to keep. AI will make expertise nearly free, making goods and services more accessible to everyone.
Our physical lives will transform. Bipedal robots could revolutionize sectors from housekeeping to manufacturing, freeing people from undesirable jobs. In 25 years, there could be a billion bipedal robots performing the wide range of tasks that humans do. We could free humans from the slavery of the bottom 50% of really undesirable jobs like assembly line & farm workers.
It is not just our physical lives that will be transformed. Soon, most consumer access to the internet could be agents acting on behalf of consumers and empowering them to efficiently manage daily tasks and fend off marketers and bots. This could be a great equalizer for consumers against the well-oiled marketing machines that attempt to co-opt the human psyche to increase consumerism and sell them stuff or bias their thinking.
AI could revolutionize healthcare with personalized medicine, tailoring treatments to individual genetics, lifestyle, and environment. AI could be used to detect diseases at an early stage, often before symptoms appear, allowing for more effective and less invasive treatments. AI will augment biotechnology to create effective, scalable precision medicines. An AI oncologist could access terabytes of research, more than any human could, making better-informed decisions.
Near-free AI physicians could offer high-quality healthcare globally. Expanding basic primary care, chronic care, and specialized care (i.e., cardiology, oncology, musculoskeletal, etc) is essential to improving the health of those living in emerging markets and preventing disease. Near-free 24x7 doctors, accessible by every child in the world would be impossible if we were to continue relying on humans for healthcare. Indeed, the current debate has painfully failed to focus on the most salient consequence of AI: those who stand to be most impacted by this AI revolution are the bottom half of the planet – 4 billion people – who struggle everyday to survive.
AI could create personalized learning experiences adapting to each student's needs and interests. AI tutors, available 24/7, could make high-quality education accessible worldwide, unlocking opportunity and fostering self-efficacy and AI researchers could expand human knowledge and rate of discovery.
AI could address climate change by optimizing energy use, reducing emissions, but more than anything, help in developing low carbon technologies. It could aid in environmental monitoring and conservation, leading to a sustainable economy.
Powering this AI-utopia will require complementary technologies such as fusion for limitless, clean and cheap power generation. My bet is on fusion boilers to retrofit and replace coal and natural gas boilers rather than building whole new fusion or nuclear plants. There are additionally promising efforts using geothermal, solar and advanced battery systems for clean, dispatchable electric power. Multiple vectors are driving down the environmental cost of compute.
AI could augment human capabilities, allowing us to tackle complex problems. It could be a creative partner, assisting in art, design, and innovation, pushing boundaries in various fields.
New “jobs” will emerge, and creativity will flourish.
AI could help create just societies by ensuring fair decision-making, reducing biases, and promoting transparency in governance, well beyond what humans have been able to do. It could assist in developing evidence-based policies through vast data analysis.
We could have 24/7 lawyers for every citizen, amplifying professional capacity and expanding access to justice. Education, legal, and financial advice would no longer be reserved for society's upper crust.
In a utopian vision, AI could shift societal focus from economic growth to well-being and fulfillment. Imagine a world where passions emerge naturally, as people pursue what excites them without the pressure to secure a job or develop a career.
Professions not typically associated with financial security—like arts, competitions and sports—could become achievable for anyone, unconstrained by the need to make a living. Life would become more meaningful as the 40-hour workweek disappears.
Obstacles stand in the way—incumbent resistance, political exploitation of fears, technical failures, financial risks, anti-tech sentiment, and negative public perception. But I believe an AI-driven utopia is achievable with the right societal choices and technological advancements.
In the next five years, life may not feel dramatically different. But between 10 and 20 years from now, we'll witness dramatic transformations reshaping society. While still on the horizon, this era of unprecedented prosperity is visible today.
Capitalism may need to evolve. The diminishing need for traditional economic efficiency allows us to prioritize empathetic capitalism and economic equality. Disparity beyond a point leads to unrest, so policy must address this.
Human labor may be devalued, putting downward pressure on wages. Labor will be devalued relative to capital and even more so relative to ideas and AI technology.
AI's leveling of skill differences could compress wages. Value creation may shift to creativity, innovation, or AI ownership, potentially leading to new inequalities. We can't simply extrapolate past economic history; AI may surpass human capabilities altogether, making education and upskilling less effective.
The AI cycle will be faster than previous technological shifts, making adjustment harder. Changes could hit some more seriously than others, especially in the next decade or two, even if society as a whole improves.
Let’s continue this thought experiment around wage compression and job disruption using the aggregate cost of physician salaries in the U.S. healthcare system as a starting point. It is north of $300 billion dollars, likely closer to $400 billion (take 1mn doctors each making $300-400k). Predicting the fate of the $300–$400 billion spent annually on U.S. physician salaries hinges on supply and demand elasticities in healthcare. Consider demand elasticity. If medical costs drop by 90% due to AI automation, will consumption increase tenfold to keep the ~$350 billion spent on U.S. physician salaries constant? Unlikely. People won't break more bones because orthopedic care is cheaper. But they might increase preventive care, mental healthcare, and elective procedures as access barriers fall. AI will hyper personalize and possibly commodify high quality entertainment and media, and any art form will vie for the same 24 hours of user attention each day. Diversity and quality of media will likely expand dramatically; will consumer spending also increase? In other areas like accounting even if services become cheaper through automation, a company won't require ten times more audits. The demand is bounded by regulatory needs, not cost.
Even if per-service costs decline, total spending may stay the same if increased volumes balance lower prices. Each sector will find its equilibrium between supply, demand, and elasticity, making precise predictions difficult without a nuanced, sector-specific analysis for which, today, we have insufficient data. In the fullness of time, the new AI economy will find an equilibrium once demand hits the asymptote of total consumption and time in each sector.
AI's surge in productivity could lead to deflation—a decrease in general price levels. Increased efficiency with fewer inputs (like lower labor costs due to AI and robotics) and heightened competition can trigger deflation and job loss.
But this deflationary economy challenges traditional measures like GDP. If we consume more but spend less due to lower prices, GDP may not reflect well-being. GDP won't mean much if it doesn't capture increased living standards and abundance.
We need new economic measures accounting for these changes. Deflation here isn't negative; it's increased efficiency, production of goods and services and abundance. Our current lexicon equates GDP growth with prosperity—a flaw. Monetary policy may not be as effective in this new age.
We face choices: accelerate, slow down, or moderate disruptive technologies, and decide whether to compensate those displaced. Change can be painful for the disrupted, and embracing AI's positives requires keeping those affected at the center of policy. These changes pose significant challenges, but they also offer an opportunity to create in the 25+ year windows a more empathetic society and a post-resource-constrained world. This is a luxury that has been unaffordable in the past but may now be ours to use.
Given the massive productivity gains on the horizon, and a potential for annual GDP growth to increase from 2 to potentially 5+% over the next 50 years, per capita GDP could hit ~1M (assuming 5% annual growth for 50 years if GDP is still a good measure). A deflationary enough economy makes current nominal dollars go much further and I suspect current measures of GDP will be poor measures of economic well being. Of course, this vision is only possible with a UBI-like mechanism that provides a minimum standard – that on the whole – far exceeds today’s, given accessibility of goods and services that enrich our lives.
I can imagine a consumer utopia in 25+ years, where we’re not supply constrained in most areas and deflation is actually a positive tailwind for access and more equal consumption. Imagine a world in which housing, energy, healthcare, food, and transportation is all delivered or at your door, for near-free, by machines; few jobs in those fields remain. What would be the key characteristics of that world, and what would it be like to live in it? Humans will finally be “free”.
An interesting parallel is China whose entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 indeed created deflationary pressures on the United States in the years that followed. This was largely due to several factors related to trade liberalization and increased competition from Chinese exports. The movement of labor overseas has resulted in a loss of tens of millions of stateside manufacturing jobs, yet little policy was centered around upskilling or taking care of those whose livelihoods were upended. With AI, we have the opportunity to free ourselves from this low-cost labor.
Ultimately, the future will be what we decide to guide this powerful tool toward. It will be a series of policy choices, not technological inevitability. Choices will vary by country. We must harness AI responsibly, ensuring its benefits are distributed equitably.
I'm a technology possibilist, a techno-optimist—for technology used with care. Reflecting on my words from 2000, we'll need to redefine what it means to be human. This new definition should focus not on the need for work or productivity but on passions, imagination, and relationships, allowing individual interpretations of humanity.