What if the future of work didn’t include you?
As AI spreads through every industry, corporations promise speed, savings, and productivity. But beneath the hype lies a deeper truth—this isn’t just a technological shift. It’s a human crisis in the making.
The AI Rush: A Short-Term Gain, A Long-Term Human Cost
In the past year, the world has witnessed a relentless acceleration in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) across industries. Promoted by tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, this revolution promises streamlined productivity, reduced time-to-market, and even enhanced creativity. Yet beneath the glossy promise of progress lies a disturbing truth: AI is increasingly being leveraged to reduce headcount and cut costs. But to whose benefit? While companies cite efficiency and innovation, the reality is that these gains often serve a narrow few—executives, investors and shareholders—while the social costs are offloaded onto the many.
This global momentum arguably began with the public release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in late 2022, a turning point that brought generative AI into the mainstream. For the first time, individuals and companies could interact with a system that mimicked human intelligence at scale. What followed was a corporate scramble: AI was no longer a long-term innovation—it became an urgent strategic imperative. Within months, productivity claims turned into mass layoffs. What had once been hailed as a tool to support human effort was now positioned as a replacement for it.
At the same time, venture capitalists flooded the market with investment, fuelling the AI hype further. The allure of Agentic AI—systems imagined to autonomously perform entire workflows—created a dangerous illusion for executives: that complex human labour could now be eliminated entirely. This perception has driven short-sighted decisions in boardrooms, often detached from the current technological reality.
Because here is the truth: Agentic AI is not ready to replace humans. These systems lack consistency across tasks, struggle with ethical nuance, and cannot guarantee precision in domains that require factual reliability, emotional intelligence, or long-term contextual memory. From hallucinated outputs in legal documents to biased recommendations in hiring tools, today’s agents are still deeply flawed. To base business models and livelihoods on their supposed readiness is not just reckless—it’s irresponsible.
Maslow Reversed: A Hierarchy in Decline
Let’s return to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At its foundation lie physiological and safety needs—food, shelter, employment, and security. These are non-negotiable. Yet today, tens of thousands of skilled workers—particularly in the services sector—are being laid off because machines “can now write code.” Developers, designers, marketers, and analysts are becoming expendable, their roles absorbed into dashboards and agents.
The current trajectory benefits only a tiny elite—CEOs, shareholders, and investors who see labour as a cost to eliminate. But what kind of world does this create? When wealth is hoarded at the top and economic participation is stripped from the many, we edge toward systemic collapse.
Imagine a world where only a few can afford a holiday. Who will staff or attend the hotels? Who will enjoy fine dining when restaurants shut down for lack of paying customers? When only executives can afford electric cars, who will fuel the supply chains that support their production?
Even the richest require a functioning social and economic ecosystem to enjoy their wealth. Without it, they are emperors in a crumbling palace.
The Psychological Cost of Displacement
Beyond economics, there’s a deeper cost: the erosion of psychological wellbeing. Human beings are wired for belonging, purpose, and connection—needs that AI, no matter how convincing its imitation, cannot truly meet. Baumeister and Leary (1995) assert that the need to belong is a fundamental psychological drive, requiring regular, emotionally meaningful interactions. Software cannot offer that. At best, it mimics connection. At worst, it replaces it.
As Sherry Turkle (2011) warned, the more we rely on machines for emotional interaction, the more we risk “expecting more from technology and less from each other.” In a world where loneliness is already declared an epidemic, we must tread carefully. Simulated relationships with AI may offer comfort, but they cannot satisfy the reciprocity and vulnerability that real human relationships require.
Research has also linked increased reliance on digital interaction—including social media and algorithmic engagement—to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness, particularly among younger populations (Twenge et al., 2018). The human psyche does not thrive in isolation or artificial engagement—it thrives in community.
A Ticking Clock: What History Has Taught Us
History offers chilling parallels. In pre-revolutionary France, aristocrats flourished while the masses starved. That imbalance led to revolution—not just political, but cultural and moral. We may not see guillotines in our streets, but social unrest, extremism, and political fragmentation are already emerging symptoms of deep economic disparity and displacement.
To ignore the risks of widespread unemployment in the name of progress is not visionary—it is myopic.
A Cautionary Tale: The Collapse of Builder.ai
The recent bankruptcy of Builder.ai, once a Microsoft-backed AI startup valued at over $1 billion, serves as a stark reminder of the perils of unchecked AI enthusiasm. Despite significant investments from prominent firms like Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority, Builder.ai’s downfall was precipitated by a combination of financial mismanagement and misleading representations of its AI capabilities. Investigations revealed that the company engaged in “round-tripping” transactions with VerSe Innovation, artificially inflating its revenue figures without actual services rendered .
Moreover, Builder.ai’s core product, which promised AI-driven app development, was largely powered by human engineers behind the scenes, contradicting its marketing narrative . This discrepancy between the company’s claims and its actual operations underscores the dangers of overhyping AI technologies without delivering on their promises.
The Builder.ai saga exemplifies the broader issue of AI hype overshadowing practical realities. As AI continues to permeate various sectors, it’s imperative for businesses and investors to critically assess the actual capabilities and limitations of AI solutions, rather than being swayed by buzzwords and inflated valuations.
AI Should Aid, Not Replace
Let us be clear: AI can be a powerful ally. Used ethically, it can automate the dull, augment the creative, and offer new frontiers of insight. But it must never be used as an excuse to strip humanity of dignity, income, and meaning.
The current AI rush is not a technological problem—it’s a human values problem. It is being fuelled by ego, materialism, and escapism. Leaders who cling to AI as a silver bullet for profits are often chasing fulfilment in all the wrong places—seeking happiness through dominance and wealth, rather than inner clarity or societal contribution.
When we allow machines to replace the human core of work and community, we regress. We slide down Maslow’s pyramid—away from self-actualisation, away from love and belonging, and back toward mere survival.
This is not the future we need. And it is not the future most of us want.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Twenge, J. M., Spitzberg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Less in-person social interaction with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1892–1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170