Want smarter insights in your inbox? Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get only what matters to enterprise AI, data, and security leaders. Subscribe Now
Image generated by ChatGPT.
We are living through a time when AI is reshaping how we work but also how we think, perceive and assign meaning. This phase is not just about smarter tools or faster work. AI is beginning to reshape how we define value, purpose and identity itself. The future is not just unpredictable in terms of unknowable events; it is marked by deepening uncertainty about our place in it, and by growing ambiguity about the nature of human purpose itself.
Until now, the terrain of thought and judgment was distinctly human. But that ground is shifting. We find ourselves in motion, part of a larger migration toward something unknown; a journey as exhilarating as it is unnerving. Perhaps a redefinition of what it means to live, contribute and have value in a world where cognition is no longer our exclusive domain.
Reflected wisdom
Trained with vast expanses of human knowledge, machines now reflect versions of us through our language, reasoning and creativity, powered by statistical prediction and amplified by computational speed unimaginable just five years ago.
Much like Narcissus, transfixed by his reflection and unable to look away, we are drawn to AI’s mirrored intelligence. In chatbots, we encounter echoes of ourselves in their language, empathy and insight. This fascination with our reflected intelligence, however, unfolds against a backdrop of rapid economic transformation that threatens to make the metaphor literal, leaving us transfixed while the ground shifts beneath our feet.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said Gen Z and Millennials are now treating AI chatbots as “life advisors.” Yet what chatbots show us is not a perfect mirror. It is subtly reshaped by algorithmic logic, probabilistic inference and sycophantic reinforcement. Like a carnival mirror, its distortions are seductive precisely because they flatter.
The emotional toll
Even as AI offers an imperfect mirror, its proliferation is triggering profound and mixed emotions. In “The Master Algorithm,” University of Washington professor Pedro Domingos offers reassurance about the impact of AI: “Humans are not a dying twig on the tree of life. On the contrary, we are about to start branching. In the same way that culture coevolved with larger brains, we will coevolve with our creations.”
Not everyone is so certain. Psychologist Elaine Ryan, in an interview with Business Insider, noted: “[AI] didn’t arrive quietly. It appeared everywhere — at work, in healthcare, in education, even in creativity. People feel disoriented. They worry not just about losing jobs but about losing relevance. Some even wonder if they’re losing their sense of identity. I’ve heard it again and again: ‘Where do I fit now?’ or ‘What do I have to offer that AI can’t?’” These feelings are not personal failures. They are signals of a system in flux and of a story we have not yet written.
Losing our place
This sense of dislocation is not just an emotional reaction; it signals something deeper: A reexamination of the very ground on which human identity has stood. This moment compels us to revisit foundational questions: What does it mean to be human when cognition itself can be outsourced or surpassed? Where does meaning reside when our crowning trait — the capacity to reason and create — is no longer uniquely ours? These feelings point toward a fundamental shift: We are moving from defining ourselves by what we do to discovering who we are beyond our cognitive outputs.
One path sees us as conductors or orchestrators of AI. For example, Altman foresees a world where each of us has multiple AI agents running in parallel, anticipating needs, analyzing conversations and surfacing ideas. He noted: “We have this team of agents, assistants, companions… doing stuff in the background all the time… [that] will really transform what people can do and how we work, and to some extent how we live our lives.”
Another trajectory points toward AI systems that do not just assist but outperform. For example, Microsoft researches developed a “Microsoft AI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO)” system that uses multiple frontier AI models to mimic several human doctors working together in a virtual panel. In a blog post, Microsoft said this led to successful diagnoses at a rate more than four times higher than a group of experienced physicians. According to Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman: “This orchestration mechanism — multiple agents that work together in this chain-of-debate style — is going to drive us closer to medical superintelligence.”
The distinction between augmentation and replacement matters because our response, and the harbor we build, depends partly on which trajectory dominates. If AI acts continuously on our behalf by anticipating, executing, even exceeding us, what becomes of human initiative, surprise or the cognitive friction that fosters growth? And who, in this new orchestration, still finds a role that feels essential? That question is especially poignant now, as some startups promote “stop hiring humans” and instead employ AI agents as an alternative. Others pursue the wholesale automation of white-collar labor “as fast as possible.”
These efforts may not succeed, but companies are investing as if they will and doing so at speed. A survey of U.S.-based C-suite and business leaders by management consulting firm KPMG found that “as AI-agent adoption accelerates, there is near-unanimous agreement that comprehensive organizational changes are coming.” Nearly 9 in 10 respondents said agents will require organizations to redefine performance metrics and will also prompt organizations to upskill employees currently in roles that may be displaced.” Clients are no longer asking ‘if’ AI will transform their business, they’re asking ‘how fast’ it can be deployed.”
Joe Rogan, in conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders, expressed concern about AI displacing workers and its impact. “Even if people have universal basic income, they don’t have meaning.” Sanders responded: “What you’re talking about here is a revolution in human existence… We have to find [meaning] in ourselves in ways you don’t know, and I don’t know, because we’re not there yet.”
A time of redefinition
I use AI daily at work and remain astonished at how it cuts through complexity and surfaces ideas. I find it increasingly useful in my personal life too, as I now often use chatbots to identify birds in photographs I took or create travel itineraries. The capabilities of the latest AI systems feel near magical, and they keep improving. Soon, we may find it hard to remember life without our chatbots, just as we cannot now imagine life without our smartphones. And yet, I wonder: Where is this taking us? Who are we becoming?
There is no returning to a pre-AI world, however nostalgic some may feel. We are like wanderers in a desert now, discovering new terrain while grappling with the discomfort of ambiguity. This is the essence of cognitive migration: An interior journey where meaning and identity are being uprooted and reconstructed.
This is not merely economic or technological. It is profoundly existential, touching our deepest beliefs about who we are, our worth and how we belong to each other and to the world. As we traverse this new land, we must learn not just to adapt, but to live well within uncertainty, anchoring ourselves anew in what remains irreducibly human.
But meaning is not only psychological or spiritual; it is scaffolded by the structures we build together. If cognitive migration is an inner journey, it is also a collective challenge. A human harbor must rest on more than metaphor; it must be made real through institutions, policies and systems that support dignity, belonging and security in an age of machine cognition.
These questions of meaning do not unfold in isolation. They intersect with how we structure society, define fairness and support one another through transition.
Our collective future
Recognizing our dislocation is not an argument for despair. It is instead the beginning of moral imagination. If many feel unmoored, then the task before us is not only to endure, but to design: To begin building a human harbor that is both symbolic and structural. Not a nostalgic retreat, but a forward-looking foundation where meaning is supported not just by stories, but by systems. The challenge is not only to redefine purpose, but to rebuild the scaffolding that allows purpose to flourish.
Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” wrote that “life is never made unbearable by circumstances, only by lack of meaning and purpose.” Even in the darkest conditions, he observed, people endured if they could identify a “why” to live for.
The challenge now is not just to endure but to respond, to ask anew what is being asked of us. AI may alter our tools, but it does not alter our need to be needed. It may simulate thinking, but it cannot live values, grieve losses or shape futures with hope.
The human harbor is not about outperforming machines. It is about reclaiming what machines cannot: care, conscience and connection through community. We may be adrift, but the task is clear. The harbor, if we are wise enough to build it, awaits.
Navigating the waters ahead
If the harbor is to be more than metaphor, we must now ask what it takes to reach it: materially, socially and ethically. Building this will not be easy, and the journey itself will be transformative. The waters between here and that harbor are likely to be choppy. While some predict near-term collapse, the more plausible scenario is a slower, uneven diffusion, even as AI’s effects are already visible in sectors like software development.
But within a decade, the impact could be profound: Whole industries reshaped, many livelihoods displaced and identities called into question. Even if progress slows or encounters technical limits, the psychological and institutional effects of what AI has already introduced will continue to ripple outward. There may be a period of deep dislocation before policies catch up, before new norms are established and before society regains its footing. These could be turbulent times for many people and whole societies.
Yet even as individuals seek new meaning, our shared cognitive terrain is fracturing. As AI personalizes information and experiences to individuals, we risk drifting into cognitive archipelagos, clusters of belief, identity and perception that may deepen social fragmentation just as our need for collective understanding becomes more urgent.
During this period, people will reach for new forms of meaning beyond traditional work. Some may seek community in “back to the land” experiments or through creative co-housing ventures. Others will turn to spirituality or religion with some reviving established traditions while others will be pulled into more radical or messianic movements. The human search for coherence does not vanish in uncertainty; it intensifies.
The distant harbor
Eventually, the shape of the harbor may begin to form, fueled by the abundance that AI promises: A reimagined social contract. Universal basic income combined with healthcare, publicly funded education and subsidized daycare could form the bedrock of material security to provide a renewed foundation for psychological balance and human dignity. The harbor, then, would be both symbolic and structural.
These necessities would be seen as basic rights and would need to be funded by the wealth that AI provides. The aim is not only to fund these social support systems, but to moderate growing income inequality. These measures can buffer against descent, especially for the middle and working classes. This would at least avoid the dystopian Elysium vision of extreme wealth disparity.
In this economic future, the rich will continue to flourish. But a rising baseline for others would lead to fewer people sliding downward and could begin to rebalance the psychological equation.
However, MIT economist David Autor has voiced concern that rising national wealth is not translating into greater social generosity. On the Possible podcast, he noted, “The U.S. is not getting more generous as a society, even as it’s getting wealthier.” He warned that without adequate social supports, the rapid advancement of AI could devalue the skills of many workers, leading to increased inequality. Autor likened this potential outcome to a Mad Max: Fury Road scenario, where individuals compete over scarce resources in a dystopian landscape.
And finally, governments must play a constructive role. Encouraging AI innovation, yes, but also embedding real protections: For privacy, agency, transparency and choice. Governments must also guard against runaway AI development and an unfettered global arms race that could put all of humanity at risk. The goal is not to suppress what AI can do, but to guard what it must not undo.
Building the human harbor, then, is not a singular act. It is a collective migration: Through uncertainty, across disorientation, toward a renewed foundation of meaning. If we approach it with awareness, compassion and resolve, we may arrive not just safely, but wisely, to the human harbor we dare to imagine and choose to build.
Gary Grossman is EVP of technology practice at Edelman and global lead of the Edelman AI Center of Excellence.
