I had another conversation today with two of my close friends. The major topic of debate: assuming there is an inevitable takeover by AI in the next couple of years, what happens to the millions of people displaced by it?
Here is a little of how the conversation unfolded in my mind.
Argument A: “A mass exodus will occur if AI takes over the majority of jobs, leaving millions jobless. However, the economy would not crash. New jobs would be created, whether or not there is immediate demand for them. Certain sectors would see clear growth—such as the development of human culture (art, music, writing, philosophy, etc.) and space exploration. We are more likely to move toward a Star Trek–esque society than a total dystopia.”
Argument B: “I disagree. Yes, a mass exodus will occur if AI takes over the majority of jobs, leaving millions jobless—but it will be followed by mass revolution. People may become neo-Luddites, perhaps even reverting to something more primitive. If AI truly takes over—and I mean over—there would theoretically be no reason for humans to work. That is to say, we are more likely to move toward a society like the one in Wall-E.”
Pause.
Let us face reality for a moment. There are infinite possibilities for how AI will shape the world around us. It has already touched many industries, many for the better. There is no single right or wrong answer.
From my personal view—as a self-proclaimed optimist—we are more likely to see society embrace Argument B. Given my current knowledge and view of the world, there are many reasons:
-
I believe we have an innate desire to find things to do, regardless of whether our basic biological needs are met. There is no such thing as “nothing to do.” Work will continue to exist—only the nature of that work will shift.
-
This desire is rooted in our biology. Every organism we know competes for survival. We may be the first “super-predator,” capable of reshaping our environment rather than simply reacting to it. But we have no true point of comparison—no organism that has lived with guaranteed abundance. If such a system did exist, it is unclear whether it would remain stable or collapse under its own excess.
-
There has never been a time when learning new skills has been easier than it is today. The internet and generative AI allow anyone to teach themselves a seemingly infinite array of skills. This “mass exodus” would not signal the end of human contribution, but rather force society to think and operate at a higher level. Those who refuse to adapt will fall behind. We already see this divide today in a world that increasingly assumes technological fluency.
-
Inequality has always existed, and arguably has been one of the forces that drives change. Without differences in access, perspective, or ability, there would be less pressure to adapt, innovate, or improve. The only true eradication of inequality would require a fundamental shift in societal values—toward a world where no individual is considered greater than another. A deeply Star Trek–esque ideal.
-
Progress has never been purely moral. Many of the forces and actors we view negatively have nonetheless catalyzed change. This does not justify harm, but it acknowledges its role in shaping the present. The same pattern exists in technology. The internet, GPS, dynamite, and atomic energy were created as tools—yet each was, at some point, used for destructive purposes. Still, these same technologies reshaped civilization and enabled the world we now inhabit.