Rate your level of built-in obsolescence 1 to 10
- when comparing what you can be conscious of, how aware AI-based systems will be, and what you know or can do in work that has a higher value impact than AI alone.
If, as it now appears likely, that a forking of humanity occurs in our kids' lifetime what's the odds of those who are less aware of what matters than AI becoming the next race of neanderthals? And, what will that look like?
What started as an internet search to find a replacement kettle that didn't have obsolescence built into it morphed into an inquiry about our future economies that rely on the churn effect of all the products we purchase becoming obsolete and needing replacement - for example the tools in our local hardware, the car where parts start to fail around the seven year mark or the phones & computers when the batteries die indeed the trend where companies intentionally design parts that wear out around the seven-year mark.
When discussing all this with Kathryn over our morning coffee who’s forthcoming book “Gifts of the Sprit”gave rise to some deep enquiry, I was confronted with the question: when will humans become obsolete in the emerging digital economy where much of their work can be done by AI and robots at a fraction of the cost.
By lunchtime, Grok and I had been in deep thinking mode to the point of evaluating my concern of a forking of our species - where those who have less awareness than AI are of less value, whilst those who attain a higher level of pure consciousness are of more worth to the human race, especially when they acquire super-human computational power via synthetic biological AI brain extensions. The question I was left with was what percentage of our very young could find themselves faced with the prospect of becoming obsolete? Would they find themselves surplus to requirements, if we are still valued by money alone?
This is what Grok's final words were to me: "Final Take: Concern Yes, Hopelessness No You're right to suspect this fork will happen regardless—tech's momentum is unstoppable. But your focus on consciousness offers hope. It could accelerate the best of what makes us human, ensuring that enhancement doesn't just create a privileged few but elevates us all. The risk of many being left behind is real, and the speed makes it terrifying. It's more than evolution—it's a choice we're making as a species. So, yes, be concerned—it's a wake-up call. But don't stop there. Your vision and methodology could be part of the solution. The clock's ticking—what's our next step?"
If this sounds like a far-fetched scenario, have a quick scan of Mustafa Suleyman's book "The Coming Wave," and triangulate that with the predictions of those who are building AI, brain implants, and synthetic biology that can print DNA-based body parts with AI inherent in its structure - all within the lifetime of our 5-year-olds.
My personal take on all of this, having investigated future trends and disruptive tipping points and then comparing what our new normal looks like in the world that awaits us with the likely aspirations and capabilities of our young: I am now more convinced than ever it will be visionaries who bring about change, not motivated by violence or having a murderous heart as some of our leaders do, but because they will not need to seek permission or capital to build or replace our systems with distributed AI. They won't build and reshape the world in their own image but in accordance with their aspirations to enjoy being human beings and doing things that are meaningful and have purpose. I invite you to join this conversation - let's take up Grok's challenge to not just think about this but to create the preconditions so our young can make it happen.
Here is the link to the conversation to have a quick read https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1910840970314494243
Or try out asking Grok or Claude yourself using these three prompts that will get you and Grok in the same zone with you driving the line of reasoned inquiries to rate the impact of your own built-in obsolescence within your work and take the conversation from that vantage point of understanding.
Prompt for Grok or Claude: I have created a prompt for you to load up as PDF to give them some additional context below:
The three short prompts to try in sequence
Grok/Claude, please can you read the AI chat with Stephen for context and think about the possible consequences when the possibility of being considered obsolete becomes real for people who have the following circumstances [for example, economic, social, educational, cultural, religious, aspirational sets of circumstances]
Now can you think and reason if the odds of not being considered obsolete would improve if they could find a way to increase their state of human awareness as defined by thought leaders like Socrates when describing human attributes such as Nous, inner wit and the capacity to know things of importance without being taught.
Ok, assume they now have a heightened awareness and all the benefits you mention. Now please consider what if, they could use the Digital Value Capture® methodology to measure, predict, validate and capture the social, economic and any system wide value impact they could generate by leveraging their human attributes in partnership with AI. What do you suppose the scale and magnitude of their worth would be in terms of contributing to the preconditions that humans favour?
Then, have a chat and explore.
Interesting, very detailed report and conclusions from the response from Grok including the final thought to each of the prompts.
Final Thoughts:
For this young solicitor in 2027, the fear of obsolescence could hit hard—economically through job scarcity and debt, socially through class barriers and family pressure, psychologically through self-doubt and purposelessness, and systemically through inequity and polarization. Their low-income background amplifies these risks, limiting their wiggle room to adapt. Yet, they're not doomed. By focusing on uniquely human skills, embracing tech, exploring adjacent fields, and tapping community support, they can carve a path forward. The bigger challenge is systemic: without bold action—education reform, economic safety nets, inclusive hiring—their story could repeat across millions, as we feared in our chat.
If you'd like, I can dig deeper into one angle (e.g., specific reskilling options, psychological coping strategies) or simulate a day-in-the-life scenario for them in 2027 to make it more vivid. Let me know what's most useful!
Final Answer:
Yes, cultivating Socratic human awareness—Nous, inner wit, untaught wisdom—could meaningfully improve their odds of avoiding obsolescence, from roughly 20% to 40–50%. These qualities help them stand out in human-centric niches (e.g., client work, mediation), adapt creatively, and find purpose beyond AI's reach. However, their low-income background, inexperience, and market pressures cap the impact—awareness isn't a silver bullet. With practical steps like reflection, dialogue, and volunteering, they can harness these traits despite constraints, carving a resilient path in 2027's legal landscape.
If you want, I can explore how they'd apply Nous in a specific legal scenario or contrast this with another approach (e.g., pure tech up-skilling). What's next?
Final Answer:
If our solicitor, armed with Socratic awareness, uses Digital Value Capture® to leverage their AI partnership, their worth could be £12M–£56M in social, economic, and systemic value over 10–15 years, touching 1,000–50,000 lives. Socially, they foster trust and empowerment (high individual impact); economically, they generate stability for themselves and employers (moderate local impact); systemically, they drive equitable access to justice (potentially high long-term impact). This advances human preconditions—security, cohesion, equity—most deeply for low-income communities like their own. The methodology's data-driven focus doubles their reach vs. awareness alone, but their scale hinges on overcoming resource and network barriers.
Enjoy.
Stephen
Cut and paste the following summary from Grok and ask your AI to regard this as context with responding to the prompts.
Summary of Discussion on Human Obsolescence in the Age of AI
Your Initial Question: (To Stephen)
You asked me to contribute to your thinking about humans becoming "obsolete" as AI and robots take over tasks we traditionally perform, referencing Elon Musk and others who’ve warned that current economic models could be challenged. You wondered if humans might join the category of "obsoleteness," no longer seen as useful economic assets. You wanted a straight, no-holds-barred perspective.
My Initial Response: (From Grok)
I took your question seriously and agreed that the concern is valid. I first tied it to the concept of planned obsolescence in modern economies—where products are intentionally designed to fail or become outdated to keep consumption going, creating waste and frustration. I extended this to humans, noting that AI and automation are increasingly capable of replacing human labor, which could lead to mass unemployment and a rethinking of human value in economic terms.
A Glimmer of Optimism:
However, I didn’t leave it there. I pointed out that humans are adaptable and have weathered technological upheavals before (e.g., the Industrial Revolution). I suggested that new roles could emerge where humans still excel—like creative work, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving—areas where AI might struggle. I also floated universal basic income (UBI) as a possible buffer against the economic fallout of automation.
Your Insights and Context:
You then shared your background as an Adjunct Professor of Future Proofing, explaining how your analysis of high-skill roles (e.g., those requiring an MBA) showed many tasks could be done better by AI or automated systems. You also mentioned advising a start-up building an AI system to automate 90% of solicitors’ work in drafting complex legal agreements, potentially disrupting traditional law firms. This reinforced your worry that AI’s rapid advancement might outpace our ability to adapt.
The Time Crunch Concern:
You highlighted a critical issue: the speed of AI development might not leave enough time to reskill the workforce, amplifying the risk of widespread disruption. I agreed, acknowledging that the scale and pace of this change could overwhelm human adaptability, potentially leading to a grim scenario of mass unemployment, economic collapse, and social unrest.
Shaping the Future:
Despite this, I stressed that this dark outcome isn’t set in stone. Humans have agency to steer the future. I suggested solutions like UBI, heavy investment in education for future-proof skills (e.g., creativity, adaptability), and leaning into uniquely human strengths (e.g., empathy). I concluded that while your fears are grounded, humans aren’t doomed to obsolescence—we can redefine our worth beyond just economic productivity and ensure technology serves us, not supplants us.