Some weekend food for thought: what if artificial intelligence is not simply changing what we do, but also changing who gets to make decisions?
We keep hearing that AI will eliminate entry-level jobs, disrupt career paths and accelerate uncertainty. Some concerns are justified. Yet I wonder whether we are paying too much attention to the disappearance of tasks and not enough to the evolution of human potential.
Perhaps the real question is not whether AI will replace us. It is whether we will use it to become more capable, more creative and, hopefully, more human.
Only one or two years ago, the conversation still sounded like: AI or not AI? Use it or not use it? The question has moved quickly. It is now about integration: how do we combine human judgment with AI and leverage the best advantages of both?
1. When everyone becomes a decision-maker, with AI in the workflow
Mark Zuckerberg’s famous grey T-shirt routine was described as a way to reduce small, unnecessary decisions and preserve mental energy for more important matters. Whether we need an entire wardrobe in grey is another question.
The principle, however, is interesting.
If AI can handle repetitive tasks, organise information and produce a first draft, the value of our work may increasingly come from deciding what matters, asking better questions and knowing when something does not feel right.
In other words, everyone becomes more of a decision-maker at every step, assisted by AI tools, chat systems and automated workflows.
That creates a new responsibility: how do we make decisions with the strongest benefits, the fewest unintended consequences and the soundest ethical foundations? The objective should be to advance human potential, not simply accelerate output.
The International Labour Organization’s 2025 update estimates that around one in four jobs globally has some exposure to generative AI. Yet exposure refers mainly to the tasks within a job, not the immediate disappearance of the entire occupation. The ILO stresses that transformation is more likely than complete replacement.
That does not mean entry-level workers have nothing to worry about. If routine assignments disappear, companies will need new ways to help junior employees develop judgment, context and experience. Still, the picture is more nuanced than the familiar apocalyptic headline.
AI may not eliminate the need for human intelligence. It may make the quality of our decisions more visible.
Jeff Bezos’s shareholder letters offer another useful distinction. Amazon’s 1997 letter emphasised long-term value and market leadership. His 2016 letter, however, also argued that organisations need to make high-quality decisions at high speed and learn to correct course quickly.
That feels particularly relevant now.
In a highly connected world, information travels almost instantly. A crisis that once took weeks to become visible can now reach us before breakfast. It may feel as though uncertainty arrives every six months rather than every three to five years. Perhaps the crises are not always objectively more frequent; perhaps we are simply exposed to them in real time.
So, is planning three years still relevant?
I think it is, but with a different mindset. A long-term direction still matters. What changes is the speed at which we adapt along the way. Strategy becomes less about predicting every step and more about knowing where we want to go when the road keeps changing.
2. The rocket ship and the end of the traditional career ladder
Sheryl Sandberg once shared advice she received from former Google CEO Eric Schmidt: “If you’re offered a seat on a rocket ship, don’t ask what seat. Just get on.”
She recalled the conversation during a Harvard Business School speech, where she also suggested that a career is less like a ladder and more like a jungle gym.
That feels particularly relevant now.
If the train is already moving fast, perhaps the question is not whether we can stop it. It is whether we can learn to sit in the driving seat.
For decades, professional development followed a fairly predictable formula: start at the bottom, accumulate five or ten years of experience, specialise and gradually move up.
AI challenges that structure.
A person who previously needed several colleagues to research, analyse, write, visualise and communicate an idea may now be able to do much of that independently. Not perfectly, of course. And certainly not without critical thinking. Yet the range of what one individual can contribute is expanding.
A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that access to a generative AI assistant increased customer-support productivity by approximately 14% on average. The gains were even stronger among less experienced workers.
That does not mean expertise no longer matters. Experience still brings judgment, context and the ability to recognise what a machine cannot see.
AI may shorten certain learning curves, but it does not turn a novice into a doctor, scientist or climate specialist overnight. Some of humanity’s most urgent problems remain profoundly difficult: chronic disease, mental health, climate adaptation, poverty and peace-building all require deep knowledge, long-term research and human responsibility.
Perhaps the future professional will not be defined by one rigid job title, but by the ability to connect several disciplines: analyst and communicator, strategist and creator, coordinator and decision-maker.
This does not mean choosing between vertical expertise and horizontal breadth. The strongest combination may be both: enough breadth to connect different fields, and enough depth to solve serious problems within one of them.
Less career ladder. More intellectual jungle gym.
For those of us who have never felt entirely comfortable fitting into one professional box, that sounds rather promising. We may be able to develop multiple roles across work and life, adding more life to our years rather than simply adding more years to our CVs.
3. Will AI expand our intelligence or slowly outsource it?
There is a popular claim that humans use only a small percentage of their brains. It sounds fascinating, but it is not scientifically accurate. The idea that we use only 10%, let alone 3%, of our brains is a persistent neuromyth.
The more interesting question is not how much of the brain we use.
It is how we choose to use it.
AI can give us access to information, perspectives and capabilities that might previously have taken years to develop. It can help us explore unfamiliar subjects, test ideas and connect dots across disciplines.
Used thoughtfully, it could become a lever for human evolution—not because it magically unlocks a hidden percentage of the brain, but because it gives more people access to tools for learning, creating and contributing.
But there is another possibility.
If we outsource every question, calculation and piece of writing, do we gradually weaken the very skills that make us effective?
This is where the idea of AI as a thinking partner becomes more interesting. Should AI merely accelerate our work, or should it help us think before we communicate?
Imagine an ordinary meeting. AI could prepare the agenda, summarise the background information, identify gaps and suggest questions. Human beings would still need to decide what matters, read the room, listen carefully and leave space for creative ambiguity—the unknown, the unexpected and even the mystery of life.
The OECD’s Digital Education Outlook 2026 raises a similar concern. Generative AI can improve immediate performance, yet outsourcing cognitive effort without deliberate learning may weaken independent thinking and long-term skill development.
So perhaps the balance is this: let AI do the repetitive lifting, but do not let it do all the thinking.
Use it as a sparring partner. Ask it to challenge your reasoning, identify blind spots and propose alternatives. Then make the judgment yourself.
Because becoming faster is not the same thing as becoming wiser.
4. More productivity, more life, and perhaps a more connected world
If technology allows us to achieve more in less time, what should we do with the time we gain?
One answer, naturally, is to produce even more.
Another answer is to live a little better.
The idea of shorter working weeks is no longer entirely hypothetical. A major UK four-day-week trial involving 61 organisations and around 2,900 employees reported lower stress and burnout, a 65% reduction in sick days and a 57% fall in the number of staff leaving participating companies, with organisational performance broadly maintained. The University of Cambridge’s summary offers a useful overview.
Imagine if increased productivity gave people more space for creativity, culture, rest, family and their nearest and dearest.
A Friday that feels a little more like a weekend? I would not object.
Of course, a four-day working week is not automatically realistic for every sector, and productivity gains are not always shared fairly. Still, the broader question is worth asking: should progress mean squeezing more work into every available hour, or creating more room for what makes life meaningful?
More time for family and community matters in societies already debating mental health, loneliness and demographic decline. Work is important, but it is not the whole architecture of a human life.
Perhaps the same question applies beyond the workplace.
Digitalisation and AI can make knowledge more accessible across geographical borders. Someone born with fewer resources may gain access to learning opportunities, professional tools and global networks that previously belonged to a much smaller group.
That does not erase inequality. Access to technology, education and reliable infrastructure remains uneven. Nor can digital connectivity eliminate war by itself. Technology can support cooperation across borders, but it can also amplify misinformation, division and cyber-conflict.
Still, the more connected world remains a meaningful aspiration. It echoes the United Nations Charter’s long-standing commitment to peace and cooperation.
Rather than turning skilled immigrants, international colleagues or unfamiliar communities into convenient explanations for economic anxiety, perhaps the healthier response is to invest in education, adaptability and shared opportunity.
Competition can be constructive. Progress becomes more meaningful when more people have a fair chance to participate.
Ultimately, AI is not the destination. It is a tool, an accelerator and, occasionally, a rather confident assistant that still needs supervision.
Whether it expands human potential or reduces human thinking depends on the choices we make: how we educate people, how we design workplaces, how widely we share access and how seriously we protect human judgment.
Perhaps that is the real shift. In the age of artificial intelligence, we are all becoming decision-makers.
The question is whether we are ready to make better decisions, not only for our careers, but for the kind of life and world we want to create.
References
Amazon.com, Inc. (1997). Amazon’s original 1997 letter to shareholders. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazons-original-1997-letter-to-shareholders
Amazon.com, Inc. (2016). Jeff Bezos’ 2016 letter to Amazon shareholders. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2016-letter-to-shareholders
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at work (NBER Working Paper No. 31161). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161
Harvard Business School. (2012, May 24). Graduating Harvard Business School students hold Class Day exercises. https://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/classdayexercise2012
International Labour Organization. (2025, May 20). Generative AI and jobs: A 2025 update. https://www.ilo.org/publications/generative-ai-and-jobs-2025-update
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2026_062a7394-en.html
Papadatou-Pastou, M., Haliou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2017). Brain knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths among prospective teachers in Greece. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 804. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804
TIME. (2016, January 25). This photo of Mark Zuckerberg’s closet is ridiculous. https://time.com/4192840/mark-zuckerberg-wardrobe-facebook-photo/
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations: Preamble. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
University of Cambridge. (2023, February 21). Would you prefer a four-day working week? https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/fourdayweek
Leave a Reply