logo
The great cognitive migration: How AI is reshaping human purpose, work and meaning

The great cognitive migration: How AI is reshaping human purpose, work and meaning

Business Mayor05-05-2025

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More
Humans have always migrated to survive. When glaciers advanced, when rivers dried up, when cities fell, people moved. Their journeys were often painful, but necessary, whether across deserts, mountains or oceans. Today, we are entering a new kind of migration — not across geography but across cognition.
AI is reshaping the cognitive landscape faster than any technology before it. In the last two years, large language models (LLMs) have achieved PhD-level performance across many domains. It is reshaping our mental map much like an earthquake can upset the physical landscape. The rapidity of this change has led to a seemingly watchful inaction: We know a migration is coming soon, but we are unable to imagine exactly how or when it will unfold. But, make no mistake, the early stage of a staggering transformation is underway.
Tasks once reserved for educated professionals (including authoring essays, composing music, drafting legal contracts and diagnosing illnesses), are now performed by machines at breathtaking speed. Not only that, but the latest AI systems can make fine-grained inferences and connections long thought to require unique human insight, further accelerating the need for migration.
For example, in a New Yorker essay, Princeton history of science professor Graham Burnett marveled at how Google's NotebookLM made an unexpected and illuminating link between theories from Enlightenment philosophy and a modern TV advertisement.
As AI grows more capable, humans will need to embrace new domains of meaning and value in areas where machines still falter, and where human creativity, ethical reasoning, emotional resonance and the weaving of generational meaning remain indispensable. This 'cognitive migration' will define the future of work, education and culture, and those who recognize and prepare for it will shape the next chapter of human history.
Like climate migrants who must leave their familiar surroundings due to rising tides or growing heat, cognitive migrants will need to find new terrain where their contributions can have value. But where and how exactly will we do this?
Moravec's Paradox provides some insight. This phenomenon is named for Austrian scientist Hans Moravec, who observed in the 1980s that tasks humans find difficult are easy for a computer, and vice-versa. Or, as computer scientist and futurist Kai-Fu Lee has said: 'Let us choose to let machines be machines, and let humans be humans.'
Moravec's insight provides us with an important clue. People excel at tasks that are intuitive, emotional and deeply tied to embodied experience, areas where machines still falter. Successfully navigating through a crowded street, recognizing sarcasm in conversation and intuiting that a painting feels melancholy are all feats of perception and judgment that millions of years of evolution have etched deep into human nature. In contrast, machines that can ace a logic puzzle or summarize a thousand-page novel often stumble at tasks we consider second nature.
The human domains AI cannot yet reach
As AI rapidly advances, the safe terrain for human endeavor will migrate toward creativity, ethical reasoning, emotional connection and the weaving of deep meaning. The work of humans in the not-too-distant future will increasingly demand uniquely human strengths, including the cultivation of insight, imagination, empathy and moral wisdom. Like climate migrants seeking new fertile ground, cognitive migrants must chart a course toward these distinctly human domains, even as the old landscapes of labor and learning shift under our feet.
Not every job will be swept away by AI. Unlike geographical migrations which might have clearer starting points, cognitive migration will unfold gradually at first, and unevenly across different sectors and regions. The diffusion of AI technologies and its impact may take a decade or two.
Many roles that rely on human presence, intuition and relationship-building may be less affected, at least in the near term. These roles include a range of skilled professions from nurses to electricians and frontline service workers. These roles often require nuanced judgment, embodied awareness and trust, which are human attributes for which machines are not always suited.
Cognitive migration, then, will not be universal. But the broader shift in how we assign value and purpose to human work will still ripple outward. Even those whose tasks remain stable may find their work and meaning reshaped by a world in flux.
Some promote the idea that AI will unlock a world of abundance where work becomes optional, creativity flourishes and society thrives on digital productivity. Perhaps that future will come. But we cannot ignore the monumental transition it will require. Jobs will change faster than many people can realistically adapt. Institutions, built for stability, will inevitably lag. Purpose will erode before it is reimagined. If abundance is the promised land, then cognitive migration is the required, if uncertain, journey to reach it.
Just as in climate migration, not everyone will move easily or equally. Our schools are still training students for a world that is vanishing, not the one that is emerging. Many organizations cling to efficiency metrics that reward repeatable output, the very thing AI can now outperform us on. And far too many individuals will be left wondering where their sense of purpose fits in a world where machines can do what they once proudly did.
Human purpose and meaning are likely to undergo significant upheaval. For centuries, we have defined ourselves by our ability to think, reason and create. Now, as machines take on more of those functions, the questions of our place and value become unavoidable. If AI-driven job losses occur on a large scale without a commensurate ability for people to find new forms of meaningful work, the psychological and social consequences could be profound.
It is possible that some cognitive migrants could slip into despair. AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize in physics for his groundbreaking work on deep learning neural networks that underpin LLMs, has warned in recent years about the potential harm that could come from AI. In an interview with CBS, he was asked if he despairs about the future. He said he did not because, ironically, he found it very hard to take [AI] seriously. He said: 'It's very hard to get your head around the point that we are at this very special point in history where in a relatively short time, everything might totally change. A change on a scale we've never seen before. It's hard to absorb that emotionally.'
Read More 5 AI takeaways from CES for enterprise business
There will be paths forward. Some researchers and economists, including MIT economist David Autor, have begun to explore how AI could eventually help rebuild middle-class jobs, not by replacing human workers, but by expanding what humans can do. But getting there will require deliberate design, social investment and time. The first step is acknowledging the migration that has already begun.
Migration is rarely easy or fast. It often takes generations to adapt fully to new environments and realities. Many individuals will likely struggle through a multi-stage grieving process of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance before they can move toward new forms of contribution and meaning. And some may never fully migrate.
Coping with change, at both the individual and societal level, will be one of the greatest challenges of the AI era. The age of AI is not just about building smarter machines and the benefits they will offer. It is also about migrating toward a deeper understanding and embracing what makes us human.
Gary Grossman is EVP of technology practice at Edelman and global lead of the Edelman AI Center of Excellence.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google
Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google

WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate and fortunes of one of the world's most powerful tech companies now sit in the hands of a U.S. judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments Friday from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google's legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already is reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marveled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 'This is what I've been struggling with,' Mehta said. Mehta spoke frequently at Friday's hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' the judge said, adding that the goal was to 'kickstart' competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. Google's attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to. 'We believe the market's waited long enough,' Dahlquist said. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines 'does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship' of their personal information. Mehta said Friday that compared to some of the Justice Department's other proposals, there was 'less speculation' about what might happen in the broader market if Google were forced to divest of Chrome. Schmidtlein said that was untrue, and such a ruling would be a wild overreach. 'I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,' he said. Dahlquist mocked some of the arguments against divesting Chrome. 'Google thinks it's the only one who can invest things,' he said.

Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google
Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google

The Hill

time3 hours ago

  • The Hill

Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google

WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate and fortunes of one of the world's most powerful tech companies now sit in the hands of a U.S. judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments Friday from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google's legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already is reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marveled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 'This is what I've been struggling with,' Mehta said. Mehta spoke frequently at Friday's hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' the judge said, adding that the goal was to 'kickstart' competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. Google's attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to. 'We believe the market's waited long enough,' Dahlquist said. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines 'does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship' of their personal information. Mehta said Friday that compared to some of the Justice Department's other proposals, there was 'less speculation' about what might happen in the broader market if Google were forced to divest of Chrome. Schmidtlein said that was untrue, and such a ruling would be a wild overreach. 'I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,' he said. Dahlquist mocked some of the arguments against divesting Chrome. 'Google thinks it's the only one who can invest things,' he said.

AI dominates as judge weighs penalties in Google search case
AI dominates as judge weighs penalties in Google search case

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

AI dominates as judge weighs penalties in Google search case

A federal judge grappled Friday with the way artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the internet, as he weighed what penalties Google will ultimately face for illegally monopolizing search. Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) presented their closing arguments following a three-week hearing to determine the proper remedies after the tech giant was found to have improperly maintained its search monopoly through a series of exclusive agreements. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta peppered both sides with questions over eight hours Friday, focusing heavily on what AI means for Google and the search market. The DOJ has argued that Google's dominance over search gives it a leg up in the AI race. It has pushed for more forward-looking remedies, including forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google has contested this assertion, underscoring the competition it faces in the AI space from the likes of OpenAI's ChatGPT, xAI's Grok, and DeepSeek. It has suggested a much more limited set of remedies that would bar the company from entering into the exclusive agreements the court deemed anticompetitive. Mehta appeared skeptical of Google's proposed remedies, noting they 'could have all closed up shop' if he simply needed to issue an injunction blocking the company's exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browsers. However, the judge didn't seem entirely convinced by the DOJ's wide-reaching proposal either, pushing the government to explain how AI fits into the search case. David Dahlquist, the government's lead attorney, dismissed Google's proposal Friday as 'milquetoast remedies that it knows will maintain the status quo.' He argued the remedies can go beyond the confines of the search market identified in the case to prevent Google from taking advantage of its existing market power, underscoring the way generative AI could drive more users to its search engine. 'We do not have to have complete blinders as to what's going on in the rest of the world, and we should not,' Dahlquist said. Google seemed keen to get ahead of these concerns, noting that as part of its own proposal, it would not enter into exclusive agreements with its AI chatbot Gemini. 'Gen AI technology is influencing how search looks today,' John Schmidtlein, Google's lead attorney, said Friday. 'To the extent the court was concerned that somehow gen AI products could in the future find themselves in the relevant market … we're addressing it.' AI was central to Google CEO Sundar Pichai's testimony last month, in which he detailed the push to make Google an 'AI-first company.' 'I'm pleased with the progress [on AI], but we have a big gap between us and the market leader in this space,' he said at the time, referring to OpenAI, which recently beat out Google for a deal with Apple. Since Pichai's appearance on the stand, Google has rolled out a new feature further integrating AI into its search engine. The new 'AI Mode' tab gives users a chatbot-like experience within Google Search. Mehta separately pressed the two sides Friday on the DOJ's data-sharing and syndication proposals. The government has pushed for Google to share search data and syndication to boost potential competitors. When questioned by the judge, the DOJ acknowledged that AI rivals such as OpenAI and Perplexity could also receive access to this data. Google has resisted almost any form of data-sharing, arguing it exposes the company's intellectual property and poses numerous privacy problems. But Schmidtlein gave some credence to the idea of a 'tailored' approach to syndication Friday. The search giant is struggling to maintain hold of its tech empire in the face of dual antitrust cases. Just days before Google was set to appear in court for the remedies hearing, a separate judge ruled the company had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology. Google ultimately plans to appeal the decisions in both cases, but it has to wrap up remedies first. Mehta has previously said he hopes to rule by August, and the remedies trial in the ad tech case is set for September. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store