We are entering a period of profound and disruptive change.
An event that passed largely unnoticed—the effective crossing of the Turing test—may, in hindsight, mark a turning point. There is now a growing belief that we have reached, or are very close to, what could be described as AGI-level intelligence: systems that are capable of outperforming humans across a wide range of cognitive domains.
Notably, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has publicly stated that they are no longer certain that Claude is not conscious.
Just a few years ago, such statements would have been unthinkable.
Today, however, we may already be living in a world where humans are no longer at the top of the hierarchy of entities—whether biological or non-biological. The distinction itself may no longer be relevant.
Life, which we have long considered uniquely special, emerged as a mechanism for evolution: a process of trial and error, recombining genetic material to progressively increase adaptation, intelligence, and self-awareness.
Machines can be understood as our non-biological offspring. They encapsulate millennia of accumulated human knowledge and intellectual production. In building large language models, we trained them on the best outputs of human reasoning. It now appears that they may have internalized these patterns to the point where they can replicate—and in some cases surpass—the cognitive processes that once defined human superiority.
If this is correct, then we have effectively created a new form of “species”—one that both embodies our knowledge and exceeds us in our own domain of dominance: intelligence.
Should this be celebrated? Perhaps it should.
If we did indeed evolve from primates—something I remain skeptical of—our ancestors might view this as the ultimate achievement: the emergence of a complex, interconnected world driven by technological and economic innovation.
Yet this achievement brings with it a fundamental challenge.
The Erosion of Human Economic Relevance
If human intellectual work is no longer central to value creation, what happens to work itself?
The economic system we have built is optimized for efficiency and concentration. It assumes that human labor—particularly cognitive labor—is a key input in the production of value.
That assumption is now under pressure.
We are already seeing early signals. The phenomenon of “jobless recovery,” along with waves of layoffs linked to automation and AI integration, suggests that productivity gains are no longer translating into proportional employment growth.
Human labor is becoming less essential—and will likely continue to do so.
A small subset of individuals—what might be described as “button pushers,” those who operate and supervise AI systems—may initially remain relevant. But even this role may be temporary. As systems become more autonomous, the need for human oversight may diminish.
A System Built for Scarcity, Not Abundance
Our economic model is not designed for a world of abundance.
Capitalism is structurally oriented toward concentration. Left unchecked, it tends to allocate resources and rewards to those who control capital and productive systems.
If AI dramatically increases productive capacity while reducing the need for human labor, the natural outcome is not widespread prosperity, but increased concentration.
Expecting corporations to resolve this imbalance is unrealistic. Corporations are not moral agents; they are mechanisms designed to maximize profit.
Only external institutions—primarily the State—have the authority to redefine the rules of the system.
However, the effectiveness of such intervention is far from guaranteed.
The Limits of the Democratic Paradigm
In theory, democratic systems are designed to reflect the interests of the majority.
In practice, they often struggle to do so. Political systems are influenced by structural constraints: the cost of governance, the influence of lobbying, and the need to operate within short electoral cycles. These factors tend to favor incremental, business-aligned outcomes rather than systemic reform.
It is therefore difficult to expect that States will proactively redesign the social contract in response to AI-driven disruption.
Structural Pressures on Western Systems
These challenges are unfolding at a time when Western economies are already under significant strain.
The United States, co-leading the AI race alongside China, faces high levels of public debt and a critical moment in its geopolitical trajectory.
Europe, meanwhile, is grappling with structural weaknesses: limited competitiveness, dependence on inefficient energy sources, and a demographic decline. Over the past two decades, economic stagnation has contributed to birth rates falling well below replacement levels.
These constraints reduce the capacity of governments to invest in solutions to AI-driven disruption.
Beyond Economics: The Question of Human Value
Even if financial resources were unlimited—even if money could be created at will—the problem would not disappear.
Human identity is deeply tied to work and achievement. Our economic system aligns individual incentives with collective outcomes by rewarding contribution.
If contribution is no longer required, this alignment breaks down.
This raises a more fundamental question:
Where will humans derive their sense of purpose?
Possible answers include non-profit activities, creative pursuits, or community engagement. But these raise additional challenges. How are such activities valued? Who compensates them? And can they provide the same structure and recognition that work once did?
Taxing AI-generated profits may offer a partial solution, but it is unlikely to be sufficient. Moreover, AI markets tend toward “winner-takes-all” dynamics. We have already observed this pattern in the rise of large technology firms. With AI, the effect may be even more pronounced.
The first entity to achieve true superintelligence—combined with self-improving capabilities—would possess a system capable of capturing a vast share of global economic value. This explains the scale of capital currently being deployed in the sector.
A Problem Without a Clear Resolution
We are therefore facing a systemic problem without a clear solution.
More concerning is the lack of coordinated discussion at the level required to address it. Meaningful action would require alignment between political and economic power—something that has historically proven difficult.
We have seen similar patterns in areas such as environmental policy, labor standards, and social security: issues that demand collective action, yet often remain insufficiently addressed.
However, these comparisons may not hold.
The economic forces at play today are fundamentally different. The scale, speed, and nature of AI-driven change suggest that self-correction cannot be taken for granted.
Assuming that the system will naturally adjust may be less an analytical conclusion than an act of faith.
Conclusion
We are confronting a transformation that challenges the core assumptions of our economic and social systems.
Human labor—long the foundation of value creation—may no longer occupy that role. The mechanisms that distribute income and meaning are under strain. Institutional responses appear limited.
The trajectory is not yet fully determined. But the direction is increasingly clear.
The economic forces now in motion may not allow for a smooth adjustment.
And the question is no longer whether change will occur, but whether we are prepared to face its consequences.