WE ARE ALREADY LIVING IN THE DAY AFTER
Remember that 80s disaster movie that simulated what would happen the day after a nuclear holocaust? Well, the atomic explosion of AI has already occurred, and we are already living in the aftermath. We just haven't realized it yet.
8/31/20264 min read
Without resorting to alarmism, yet without treating the subject superficially, the explosion of AI usage is an undeniable and inevitable fact. Anyone struggling to grasp this needs therapy. It is not a question of if or when, but rather to what extent this affects our lives. And don't think this will change if a bubble bursts. As I’ve said before, a bubble creates a series of impacts but does not halt the transformation.
There is something else, too: as I like to say, life doesn't conduct opinion polls. There is no "DataDestiny" asking whether you are comfortable with the changes or what you think about them. That is everyone's own problem. So, it doesn't matter if Uber failed to fully unlock AI's potential or if 80% of companies have yet to see a benefit; AI is already among us—deeply embedded and permeating almost every layer.
From protein structure mapping—which has advanced more in two years than in the previous three hundred—to the development of new materials, AI is already part of the bedrock of our activities and technologies. And we aren't just talking about asking ChatGPT questions, though that may be the entry point; we are talking about profound and likely unparalleled changes. Hence the "Day After" analogy.
A good example: the CEO of Palantir—the guy who meticulously tousles his hair every day to look like a mad scientist—said that only two types of workers will remain: the "hands-on" types who perform manual labor (plumbers, electricians, artisans) and the neurodivergent individuals who break through the barriers of conventional thinking.
I have some doubts regarding the first category: it is becoming increasingly easy to create intelligent machines capable of performing manual tasks, ranging from electrical repairs to shoe manufacturing. Humans might not want to pay a machine for these services, but if the plumber owns their own robot—why not? Let’s not forget that in China, high-voltage power line maintenance is already performed by robots—which strikes me as perfectly logical. In any case, this reminds me of the classic Monty Python’s Flying Circus sketch "The Bicycle Repairman," set in a town where every man is a superman, yet the true hero is the bicycle mechanic—because he is the only one who knows how to do the job.
Regarding the second type, I have no doubts: the more knowledge reaches multiple corners simultaneously—a typical scenario with the spread of AI—the less value it holds, and the more new knowledge must be generated. This requires a human brain that doesn't follow standard patterns. To quote the Russian guru Gurdjieff, knowledge is finite in time and space. So, if a vast number of people have access to the same information, it ceases to be knowledge. It’s a strange concept, yet it makes perfect sense.
It is easy to spot the jobs destined to disappear: those that add nothing new—jobs that exist solely to perpetuate themselves. What do I mean? Any medium-to-large company employs dozens of people whose only purpose is job preservation, filling roles that go unquestioned. If you’ve ever been a vendor, you know the type: the people who stall project approvals by demanding unnecessary tweaks (like changing "doing" to "implementing") or who manufacture obstacles to make their own work seem more valuable (insisting that "we all need to be on the same page, please").
These workflow bottlenecks function much like most traffic lights: they don't organize intersections so much as they slow down the flow. No company striving for efficiency can afford to keep such people on staff, yet until now, they were the only option. Today, however, you can replace them with AI—provided you know how to identify these situations and utilize the technology.
If Alex Karp is right, many people will survive by doing manual labor, provided they have at least some aptitude for it. I’m just not sure the pay will make it worthwhile. The real issue lies with the other profile: the neurodivergent. You don't choose to be neurodivergent, nor is there a course you can take to become one. Of course, reading widely, drawing from diverse sources, and trying to expand the boundaries of your mind helps—but there is more to it than that. An intellectual shift is a far more complex matter.
Since everything is speculation, let’s look at the facts: anyone not using AI for at least half of their activities is falling further behind with each passing day. It isn't just a question of knowing how to use it—or not—but of habit. Even I, an enthusiast of the subject, sometimes catch myself doing something that could be handled by AI. Aside from writing text—which I insist on doing myself—AI can play a role in almost everything at some stage.
That’s when you realize the impact AI can have on your daily routine. It’s a list that keeps growing. Every task you delegate to AI used to be done by a person. Unless you dive deep, you won't grasp its transformative power. Some people think it’s only for asking questions or clearing up doubts. Worse yet, they view it merely as a quick fix or a stopgap measure for the work at hand.
AI is going to change our relationship with tasks—and not just regarding who performs the task, but how is done. Because the execution time is drastically shorter. You simply need to know how to specify tasks and foster learning to generate accumulated knowledge. The knowledge we can create and accumulate with AI bears no relation to human knowledge. AI’s capabilities regarding patterns, calculations, logic, and task repetition far surpass those of humans. We just cannot delegate final decisions. That burden must remain on our shoulders.