The speed of technological change has already surpassed our ability to comprehend it. Artificial intelligence has ceased to be merely a tool for automating routine tasks and has transformed into a force that calls into question the very essence of humanity's role in the world. For the first time in history, we are facing an existential challenge to our own competitiveness.
This transformation raises fundamental questions. Where is the line between augmenting humans and replacing them? Who bears responsibility for decisions made by algorithms? And how do we preserve our values in a reality where free will itself may be under threat? These dilemmas became the central theme of the discussion titled "I, Robot?" Moderated by futurist and founder/managing partner of MINDSMITH Ruslan Yusufov (Russia), leading international visionaries attempted to define humanity's place in the emerging technological reality unfolding before our eyes.
Valley of Death for Beginners
The soothing mantra of tech giants about "partnership" and "human augmentation" shatters against the harsh reality of the job market. In practice, AI is displacing junior professionals, creating what Konstantin Vishnevskiy from HSE University (Russia) describes as a paradoxical "valley of death." A system that blocks entry into professions for newcomers deprives them of the chance to become experienced experts who should ultimately manage this very system. This creates not just a skills gap but the foundations for a new caste society. Social elevators grind to a halt, and we risk ending up with a closed techno-elite still capable of controlling technology and a growing class of "redundant people" whose upward path is cut off by algorithms from the very start.
There Is No Vaccine
A telling diagnosis of the current situation came from Jenan Al-Shehab of ELECTRODIS Tech (Kuwait), who drew an analogy with the recent past — the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue is not the danger itself but our total unpreparedness for AI. As with COVID-19, humanity has encountered a phenomenon for which there were no ready protocols or social immunity. Our legal and ethical systems, designed for a slower world, now find themselves in the position of healthcare systems at the start of the pandemic: overwhelmed, operating in constant overload, and reacting to crises that have already occurred rather than preventing them. As Fadwa AlBawardi (Saudi Arabia) noted, this situation is exacerbated by the fact that the "spreaders" — tech corporations — are profit-driven and deliberately accelerate implementation while ignoring side effects. The result is a society that does not control technology but merely treats its consequences, always several steps behind.
Who Is the Real Robot Here?
Empathy has long been considered one of humanity's unique advantages. But even this boundary is blurring. Machines have no feelings, but their simulated support is often more effective than real human interaction: available 24/7 and free of judgment. This comfort quickly becomes habitual, posing an ever-greater threat. As Jenan Al-Shehab pointed out, algorithms give you not what is useful but what you want to hear, trapping you in a cocoon of your own misconceptions.
The logic of delegation extends to corporate decisions: "bad" actions, like layoffs, can be offloaded onto emotionless machines, while "good" ones remain with humans. However, the question "Do you think Elon Musk has feelings?" resonated most with the audience. The problem is not that machines are becoming more like humans but that those with the power to shape our future increasingly act more ruthlessly than soulless algorithms.
The Invisible Robotization of Consciousness
Perhaps the most alarming threat raised during the discussion was not job replacement but the unnoticed reprogramming of human consciousness itself. Fernanda Bruno from MediaLab.UFRJ (Brazil) highlighted how modern platforms are designed to collect and analyze our unconscious reactions. At the core of this model lies a controversial and dangerous belief: that a mass of unexamined data reveals the truth about a person better than they can themselves. This creates a new form of power—invisible and total. The discussion exposed the central paradox of the digital age: when asked, "Do you want to live in a world where your desires are anticipated?" most would say "yes." But this is merely a pretty wrapper for another question: "Don’t you want to become a slave to an algorithm that shapes your perception of reality?" Thus, under the guise of perfect service, free will is replaced by algorithmic determinism, and we risk voluntarily transforming into the very bio-robots we once feared.
Who Writes the Script?
The discussion offered no simple solutions but crystallized key guidelines for moving forward. Experts agreed that a healthy symbiosis between humans and machines is impossible without fundamental ethics embedded in code. This ethical framework, in turn, demands clear accountability from all players—from corporations to governments. And the only defense against a global monopoly on thought and the preservation of cultural values is genuine techno-diversity. This is not just a buzzword but a call to resist the global monoculture imposed by a handful of platforms — an appeal to create multiple independent, culturally and ethically sovereign technological ecosystems capable of preserving the diversity of human experience.
Ultimately, the greatest challenge today is not technological but humanitarian. The key question is not whether machines can think like humans but whether we have the will and awareness to avoid acting like machines ourselves.
