Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

Honestly, going from "AI will automate the boring stuff" to "doing cardio to keep data centers alive" is quite the plot twist. But you nailed it. Abundance without a clear purpose is just chaos in a fancy package. The goal should always be about AI expanding what we can do, not making us feel obsolete. Such a needed reminder for everyone building in this space right now!

This is exactly the conversation we need to have. AI should reduce human struggle, not human value. The future should be about collaboration between humans and machines — not replacement.

Interesting AI can make us job less so alternative can we go back to primitive farming or gardening to keep ourselves engaged and healthy

Pascal BORNET The real question is not job displacement but value reallocation. As AI handles execution, human focus must shift toward judgment, meaning, and system direction.

The deeper issue for me is that there is still a long distance between an LLM and a reliably deployable worker-like system, so I would be careful with any clean narrative about AI simply "doing most of the work". The more plausible near-term path is narrower: specialized systems supporting bounded and repetitive tasks, while shifting a great deal of effort into verification, integration, exception handling, and governance. In many cases the work does not disappear. It moves. And that is before the larger complexity problem even begins. Economic roles, institutional structures, incentives, and social expectations do not reconfigure in straight lines. They interact, adapt, and generate second- and third-order effects that are hard to model in advance. So I agree with the importance of the question, but I think we should be careful with simplified futures. If greater prosperity is possible, that would be an extraordinary gain. But getting there requires much deeper thinking than the current wave of hype, fear, or linear extrapolation usually allows.

Pascal BORNET As automation expands, human value will shift toward judgment, creativity, relationships, and meaning. The future economy must reward contribution beyond repetitive productivity alone.

Hey Pascal, your thoughts on purpose and dignity in work really hit home. How do you think AI can best support our creativity and sense of community?

"I used to worry AI would take our jobs. Now I worry it will make us do cardio for the data centers.” Pascal, this 2036 vision is both hilarious and haunting. We automate everything for efficiency, only to find ourselves running on treadmills to cool the machines that replaced us. It’s the ultimate irony, humans reduced to physical support roles while AI handles the “important” thinking. The deeper point lands hard: if we don’t deliberately design for human meaning, creativity, and judgment, we risk creating a future where we’re busy but purposeless. The best path forward is human-centered AI, using automation to free us for higher-value work, not to eliminate the need for humans entirely. Question for the thread: In this 2036 scenario, would you rather be the one running the treadmill, or the one still fighting to keep meaningful work? What’s one thing we should protect today?

People rarely panic about automation during the first productivity gains. The tension shows up later when career ladders shrink, apprenticeship work disappears, and contribution starts feeling disconnected from economic value across entire functions. Which human capability becomes harder to develop after AI absorbs the beginner stage?

I thought AI slop online couldn't get any worse, proven wrong by this. If there was to be any policy as a priority it should be "responsible usage". The carbon footprint alone of this nonsense video is enough to ban it. And yes I have a great soh, thanks.

The gym analogy is funny, but honestly, not impossible. :) It highlights a very real economic direction: if AI takes over production, we will soon have a massive amount of cheap, unqualified workforce desperate for any income. You can bet that entrepreneurial brains are already thinking about how to turn this massive new resource to their advantage. Whoever finds the most efficient, creative, and perhaps unexpected ways to leverage this 'human abundance' will become the next business monsters. Don't you think?

"If AI takes over the work, what role do humans play?" The real misunderstanding is this: We’ve confused work with the purpose of being human. For decades we defined human value almost exclusively through economic output — as if our primary role is to produce. That was never the full truth. Work provided structure, status, and income, but it was never humanity’s essence. The purpose of the human is not to labor. It is for example to judge wisely, create meaning, build relationships, and take moral responsibility — things AI can simulate but not genuinely embody. When we reduce human purpose to “work,” we set ourselves up for the exact existential crisis you describe. The coming shift isn’t about humans becoming obsolete. It’s about finally freeing ourselves from this narrow definition.

The real shift is not AI replacing humans. It is AI exposing how much of our work was never truly value creation in the first place. The future will belong to people who can think clearly, solve real problems, and build systems, not just stay busy Pascal BORNET

Using AI-generated videos or voices to make it appear as if celebrities or billionaires are endorsing a brand without their permission can create serious legal and ethical issues. Innovation in marketing is great, but consent and authenticity matter too.

The gym membership line is gold but the question underneath it is dead serious. Work is not just economic; it is existential. The answer is not to keep humans busy for the sake of it - it is to redesign what contribution means in an AI-augmented world. At FREEDOMAi, we believe freedom starts with AI but only if we build it with human dignity at the center. #IAmAI #FutureOfWork #HumanCenteredAI

@Pascal, the cardio-as-fuel framing is brilliant because it exposes how reductive the "AI replaces humans" narrative really is. The B2B version I see: boards greenlight massive AI investments, then realise they have no answer for what 40% of the workforce actually *does* next Tuesday. Adoption stalls not because the tech fails, but because the social contract inside the company fractures. The companies getting this right are designing for human contribution upfront, not retrofitting dignity as a change management afterthought.

AI impacts work, but human compliance expertise is crucial. Navigating TTB and state alcohol licenses demands nuanced interpretation and strategic judgment. AI aids, yet final oversight is human.

Perhaps the next era of human value will not be defined by repetitive productivity... ...but by our ability to:-> imagine-> empathize-> collaborate-> make ethical decisions-> continuously reinvent ourselves The future should not be:“Humans serving machines.” It should be:“Machines amplifying human potential.” That may become one of the most important leadership, societal, and philosophical conversations of the AI era.

Imagine explaining your job in 2036: “I don’t build products anymore - I generate electricity for AI during high-intensity cycling sessions.” 😄 Somewhere HR is already preparing a wellness program around it. If AI does most of the work, humans should probably do more of what machines still struggle with: creating meaning, building relationships, asking better questions, and deciding what is actually worth doing. Efficiency solves tasks; purpose still needs people.

The spin class economy is more plausible than I'm comfortable admitting. But the real question buried here — what should humans remain responsible for, not just capable of — is the one most AI strategies haven't answered yet. Replacing tasks is easy to measure. Redesigning participation is not.