Latest news with #JannaAnderson
Forbes
09-04-2025
- Forbes
Evolving Leadership In The Age Of AI: 5 Takeaways For 2035
Giant robot throwing man in a trash can. Artifical intelligence replacing jobs concept. Vector ... More illustration. New research from Elon University's Imagining the Digital Future Center has surveyed nearly 200 global technology experts on the future, as humans brace for the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The result is a fantastical glimpse into a near future defined by a mixture of dystopia and utopia. What is clear is the scale of change on the horizon: 61% of experts surveyed in the study envisaged the impact of AI to be 'deep and meaningful' or 'fundamental and revolutionary.' Co-author of the report, Janna Anderson told me, 'It's a revealing and provocative declaration of the profound depth of change people are undergoing, mostly without noticing it at all, as we adapt to deeper uses of advancing digital technologies. A majority of the experts we have been surveying the past few years have also been calling on humanity to think intentionally and carefully about all of this and take wise collective action, so we don't sleepwalk into an AI future we never intended and do not want. Many say we are running out of time. It has to be now'. Here are five major implications for evolving leadership from the report. We are no longer static selves. We have avatars, proxies, and digital twins that manage our deadlines and perhaps even our deaths. As I note in my own contribution to the report, we will come to redefine ourselves as 'database selves', a constellation of algorithmically-managed personas tailored to context, platform and audience. This will render the notion of authenticity obsolete. The increasingly mediated future we are heading towards contains the potential for context collapse, and identity collapse too. Until now, most experts have warned about digital deepfakes, but it is beginning to dawn on many that in an age of AI we will face an internal rather than an external crisis. Perhaps that is why 45% of experts surveyed think this kind of AI co-evolution will have a more negative than positive effect on mental well-being by 2035. Barry Chudakov, of Sertain Research, imagines a future in which schizophrenia becomes the natural state of most humans, with part of us online, and part of us using AI to help self-promote, self-brand and self-improve. Strategist, Neil Richardson, suggests that our digital shadows, the sum total of our online expressions and biometric traces, may soon outlive us, creating some kind of posthumous identity that transcends mortality. Whilst Silicon Valley based technology forecaster Paul Saffo suggests that an AI-generated actor will win Best Supporting Actor in the 2035 Academy Awards. Evelyne Tauchnitz, a senior research fellow at the Lucerne Graduate School of Ethics, explores the implications of this shift for human freedom and personal agency. Her concern is clear: AI recommendations, manipulations and algorithmic systems designed to nudge us to what is considered 'normal' will create additional pressure to conform and render our ability to choose differently, and freely, much compromised. As AI continues to optimize every choice we make from what we eat to whom we trust, she ponders whether it will even be possible to contradict oneself in the future, adding: 'Freedom is the very bedrock of moral capability. If AI directs our actions shaping our behavior based on data-driven predictions of what is 'best' , we lose our moral agency.' It's a haunting thought: in our pursuit of perfection, we may abolish the very imperfections that make us human, imperfections that, in this century, leaders have been encouraging us to embrace. Indeed 44% of the respondents surveyed think that AI's effect on individual agency and ability to act independently is likely to be more negative than positive with only 16% predicting a fairly equal split between positive and negative change. AI won't just inhabit our minds. Increasingly, it will replace our relationships. Nell Watson, president of EURAIO, the European Responsible Artificial Intelligence Office, suggests that 'AI romantic partners will provide idealized relationships that make human partnerships seems unnecessarily difficult'. Along the same theme, Henning Schulzrinne, former co-chair of the Internet Technical Committee of the IEEE, reflects that we will treat bots as 'training wheels or the equivalent of treadmills at the gym' for improving our social interactions. Overall the report paints a future where the most intimate corners of our lives are increasingly shaped by code. In this parasocial future, emotional attachments become programmable. We form bonds with digital personas that neither disappoint nor require compromise. The relationship is one-way, the affection is frictionless. After all, why struggle to understand another work colleague when your AI work partner is already optimized to agree with you? As Schulzrinne points out about personal life, online dating might hold its disappointment but 'who will proudly look back on a 25-year marriage with a bot?' The same might be said of longtime, loyal working relationships with companies. Not all the findings are dark. Some respondents see in this transformation a chance for personal growth. David Weinberger from Harvard University's Berkman Klein Centre for Internet & Society, envisions a future in which AI enables us to notice things that humans cannot. By lifting the cognitive burdens that limit human perception he believes AI might expand rather than diminish our understanding and encourage humans to see the world differently. AI will be there to teach us about ourselves and inspire us to explore in new ways. Dave Edwards, co-founder of the Artificiality Institute, offers a complementary vision. He speaks of AI systems as 'minds for our minds', part of a distributed knowledge system that augments rather than replaces human judgment. The challenge, he warns, is to avoid commodifying intimacy, and reject technology companies who continue to mine our intimacy for profit. There is much more positivity from the experts about the way in which AI will improve and enhance human curiosity and our capacity to learn. 42% foresee more positive change than negative change in this area and only 5% see little or no change by 2035. AI is seen as an expansive tool for human learning and a kind of motivator to ask more questions, consider more options and generally expand, rather than diminish, human thought. Finally, there is a warning about the implications of attempts to standardize information through machines. Professor of Innovation, Alf Rehn, describes AI systems in 2035 as 'mediocrity engines' saying AI falls short when it comes to spark and wit thus deadening creativity. It does seem that today's intelligent machines mostly produce acceptable, average outputs en masse, flattening the peaks and valleys of true human innovation. However, the future does not have to pan out like that. In fact, he offers a counter-image: alien-like AI he calls 'octopodes' that generate truly strange outcomes, not by mimicking humans, but by thinking differently. This way, a brighter future lies in hybrid intelligences, not homogenous outputs. What becomes clear across the essays and survey results, is that the core question of the next decade is not technical—it is existential. The ultimate fear is not that by 2035 we will be replaced but that we will be utterly reshaped in AI's image, forgetting what we once were. Indeed, Paul Saffo predicts the best-selling book of 2035 will be called 'What Was Human?' written by AI and purchased by more AIs than actual human readers. However, co-author of the report, Lee Rainie told me, 'Our expert respondents gave us a major insight. When they identified creativity, curiosity and decision-making as three human traits that might be a positive benefit as AI systems evolve, they were highlighting the building blocks of leadership. Essentially, they told us that good leadership built on those traits might be humans' ultimate saving grace in the world to come'. This suggests successful co-evolution with AI should not be judged by how well these systems serve us, but by how well they preserve our ability to grow and chart our own course as humans. The author was one of the 200 global technology experts surveyed.
Forbes
02-04-2025
- Science
- Forbes
AI In 2035: How Technology Will Reshape Human Identity
TOPSHOT - A robot using artificial intelligence is displayed at a stand during the International ... More Telecommunication Union (ITU) AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, on May 30, 2024. A comprehensive new report suggests artificial intelligence will fundamentally reshape human behavior, cognition, and relationships within the next decade, raising important questions about the impact of AI on what if feels to be human. Based on a mix of qualitative essays and survey data, Being Human in 2035, authored by researchers Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie from Elon University's Imagining the Digital Future Center, features insights from 301 global experts on how AI integration will transform human identity and social structures. Nearly 200 of the experts wrote full-length responses that were included in the report. The experts overwhelmingly expect huge changes in human behavior and capabilities by 2035. Sixty-one percent of them predict that these changes will be "deep and meaningful" or 'fundamental and revolutionary.' A recurring theme in the report is the potential erosion of essential cognitive functions. Fifty percent of the surveyed experts foresee a decline in the willingness and capacity to engage in deep thinking about complex issues. The convenience offered by AI-generated summaries, answers, and automated decisions may reduce individuals' motivation to engage critically with information. This cognitive deskilling is joined by concerns about emotional development. Half of the experts predict a decline in social and emotional intelligence, citing the replacement of human interactions with AI-driven relationships as a key factor. As synthetic companions become more emotionally in tune and customizable, they may seem preferable to the complex and often messy, nature of real human relationships. 'AI romantic partners will provide idealized relationships that make human partnerships seem unnecessarily difficult, Nell Watson, president of the European Responsible Artificial Intelligence Office wrote in her short essay included in the report, said. This shift could exacerbate isolation and reduce the development of empathy, especially among youth. This commodification of human connection could, over time, lead individuals to measure their value through algorithmic metrics rather than intrinsic human worth. 'People will outsource their interactions to AI agents, which are left to determine compatibility and determine whether it's even worth meeting up in person,' added Courtney C. Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism & Liberty at the Open Markets Institute, who also contributed to the study. Perhaps the most philosophically profound concern raised in the report relates to human agency. With 44% predicting a decline in individual independence, many experts believe that AI will subtly erode our ability to make autonomous decisions. As algorithmic systems become more embedded in domains such as healthcare, law, and finance, human judgment could be sidelined in favor of data-driven outcomes. The risk here is twofold: not only might individuals lose the capacity to act independently, but they might also fail to notice the shift. The illusion of control—believing we're making choices when, in fact, AI systems are nudging us—may further strengthen dependence on external decision-makers. The integration of AI into daily life will also challenge traditional notions of selfhood and meaning. Thirty-nine percent of experts anticipate a negative transformation in how humans perceive their identities and purposes, as opposed to eighteen percent who see more positive than negative change, and twenty-four percent, who see the impact equally distributed. Some envision a fragmented sense of self, as people juggle multiple AI-mediated personas across digital platforms. Others warn that as AI takes over cognitive labor and social validation, many may experience a crisis of purpose. Another troubling trend highlighted in the report is the decline of trust in shared values and cultural norms. Nearly half of the respondents foresee increased polarization and a fragmented public sphere. Deepfakes, algorithmic misinformation, and highly personalized content streams could erode any consensus about what is true or real. As each individual becomes immersed in their own curated digital bubble, collective understanding and empathy may suffer. 'One of the most important concerns is the loss of factual, trusted, commonly shared human knowledge,' Giacomo Mazzone, global project director for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, argued. This loss of shared reality is not only a technical issue. When truth becomes relative and institutions lose credibility, the social contract that binds communities and nations together begins to collapse. 'There are no examples in human history of societies that have survived in the absence of shared truth for too long,' Mazzone added. Despite these concerns, the report also carries a note of optimism. Some experts argue that AI, if ethically developed and regulated, could serve as a tool to enhance human capacities rather than diminish them. Augmenting learning, personalizing mental health care, and fostering global collaboration. With this hope, Euromonitor's consultant Rabia Rasmeen suggested in her response that "a new human Enlightenment could begin due to digital twins and other AI agents doing up to six hours of digital chores every day and allowing humans to shift this energy to spiritual, motional and experiential aspects of life.' However, you don't have to be an expert to know that when life becomes too easy and comfortable, it's often easier to lose your sense of purpose and motivation, instead of feeling the urge to climb to new heights. Let's just hope AI proves us wrong.
