The Human Liability: Navigating a Future Where AI Makes Cognitive Labor a Cost Center
Introduction: The Coming Obsolescence of the Human Mind
What if the most expensive and error-prone component in your cognitive workflow was not a piece of software, but the person using it? This question, once the domain of science fiction, is rapidly becoming a central strategic challenge for leaders across every industry. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has ignited a fierce debate about the future of human labor, a debate that is often framed as a simple binary: Is AI a tool for human augmentation, promising unprecedented productivity gains, or is it a force for human replacement, threatening mass unemployment? While the narrative of AI as a productivity-enhancing tool is compelling and demonstrated by companies like Duolingo, a growing body of evidence from high-stakes domains like medicine and transportation suggests a more disruptive outcome is not only possible but probable: a future where, for a growing number of cognitive tasks, human input becomes a net liability.
This report will explore this provocative thesis, that human cognitive labor is on a trajectory to acquire a "negative value." This occurs when the cost, risk, and error rate associated with employing a human for a specific task outweigh the benefits, making their involvement a drag on efficiency, safety, and profitability compared to a fully autonomous AI system. This is not a distant forecast; the data is emerging now, in real-world applications where the stakes are life and death.
To navigate this complex landscape, this analysis will proceed in three parts. First, it will build the case for superhuman AI by examining two critical domains: medical diagnostics and autonomous driving. In these fields, quantitative data increasingly show that AI systems not only match but significantly outperform human experts, to the point where human intervention can introduce, rather than mitigate, error. Second, it will present the powerful counter-argument of AI as a productivity multiplier, using the corporate strategy of Duolingo as a detailed case study to illustrate the "augmentation" model, and exploring its potential societal benefit in the form of a shorter workweek. Finally, the report will explore the profound societal and organizational choices this dichotomy forces upon us, looking to historical precedents like the New Deal and forward-looking organizational theories for potential blueprints to navigate a post-labor future. The conclusion is not that humans will become worthless, but that the nature of their value is about to be fundamentally, and perhaps brutally, redefined. The path forward is not technologically predetermined; it will be forged by the strategic, political, and cultural choices we make today.
Part I: The Case for Superhuman AI and the 'Negative Value' Thesis
The argument that a human worker could represent a net cost—a liability—in a cognitive process hinges on the emergence of a superior alternative. For decades, this was a theoretical proposition. Today, in highly structured, data-rich environments, it is becoming a demonstrable reality. The evidence is not emerging from abstract benchmarks but from fields where precision is paramount and the cost of error is measured in human lives and catastrophic financial loss. Medicine and transportation serve as the vanguard, offering a clear and often unsettling preview of a future where the most rational choice is to remove the human from the cognitive loop.
When the Machine Is the Superior Clinician
The medical field, with its complex diagnostic challenges and vast datasets, has become the primary arena for testing the limits of AI cognition. The results are moving beyond academic curiosity and are beginning to challenge the very definition of medical expertise. A growing body of research indicates that in the specific task of diagnosis, AI is not just an assistant; it is becoming the superior clinician.
Studies comparing Large Language Models (LLMs) to human physicians are consistently demonstrating AI's advanced capabilities. Researchers at Harvard and Stanford have noted that in certain experiments, LLMs display "superhuman diagnostic and reasoning abilities". This is not a marginal improvement. A study involving Microsoft's AI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO) found that the system correctly diagnosed 85% of complex, mystifying cases featured in
The New England Journal of Medicine. In stark contrast, human doctors presented with the same cases achieved an accuracy rate of about 20%. This four-fold increase in accuracy represents a seismic shift in diagnostic power. Furthermore, the AI achieved this superior accuracy at a 20% lower cost on average, as it was more efficient in ordering the necessary medical tests.
The evidence extends into the high-pressure environment of the emergency department (ED). A retrospective analysis directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT with GPT-4 against that of ED resident physicians. Using the final hospital discharge diagnosis as the gold standard, the study found that GPT-4 outperformed the human doctors. Even open-source models are proving formidable. A recent NIH-funded study led by Harvard Medical School found that an open-source AI, Llama 3.1 405B, performed on par with, and in some metrics slightly better than, the leading proprietary model, GPT-4, on a series of diagnostically challenging cases. This suggests that superhuman diagnostic ability is not a niche capability confined to a few tech giants but is rapidly becoming a commoditized technology.
However, the most compelling evidence for the "negative value" thesis comes not from studies where AI works alone, but from those where it collaborates with humans. The long-held assumption has been that the optimal model is a human expert augmented by an AI tool. Recent research directly refutes this. An influential MIT-Harvard study examined how radiologists diagnose diseases from chest X-rays. It found that when radiologists were shown AI predictions, they frequently undervalued the AI's correct input, adhering to their own, less accurate initial impressions. Their cognitive biases actively degraded the outcome. The result was a less accurate diagnosis than if the AI had been trusted. Another trial produced even starker results: an AI system working independently achieved 92% accuracy, while physicians using that same AI as an assistant were only 76% accurate—barely an improvement over the 74% they achieved without any AI help.
This phenomenon can be described as an "Intervention Penalty", a quantifiable degradation in performance caused by a human expert overriding a superior AI. The human is not just adding the cost of their salary to the process; they are actively introducing error. This is the very definition of negative value. The logical progression of this reality is a fundamental redefinition of medical expertise. The core competency of a physician may shift away from the act of diagnosis itself—a task increasingly ceded to the machine, and toward the complex orchestration of the diagnostic process. This new role would emphasize skills where AI currently falters: managing the "messy," conversational, and unstructured nature of real-world patient interactions, which studies show can dramatically reduce AI accuracy; arbitrating in ambiguous cases where different AI models provide conflicting advice; and, most critically, developing the calibrated judgment to know
when not to intervene. Expertise becomes less about having the right answer and more about trusting the system that does.
This transition will not be seamless. AI models exhibit their own quirks and limitations. GPT-4, for instance, has shown concerning variability and has even contradicted itself in complex scenarios, while the performance of other models like Claude can degrade when provided with human clinical decisions as guidance. Furthermore, AI's judgment can be warped by its framing; when prompted to act as a health insurance representative versus a pediatric endocrinologist, GPT-4 offered scientifically grounded but morally opposite recommendations for the same patient, highlighting that these systems are not neutral arbiters of fact. Yet, despite these challenges, the trajectory is clear. In the structured, data-driven domain of medical diagnosis, the human is becoming the variable, and the machine, the constant.
The End of the Road for Human Drivers
If medical diagnosis provides the cognitive case for the "negative value" thesis, autonomous driving offers its physical-world equivalent. Driving is a complex task that, like diagnosis, involves perception, prediction, and decision-making under uncertainty. Here, the cost of human error is not just a misdiagnosis but a tangible, violent, and often fatal outcome. The data being generated by autonomous vehicle (AV) fleets, particularly Waymo, presents an irrefutable argument that, from a purely statistical standpoint, the human driver is a public safety liability.
Waymo, formerly the Google Self-Driving Car Project, has accumulated over 96 million rider-only miles, fully autonomous driving without a human safety driver behind the wheel. The safety data from these millions of miles, when compared to human driver benchmarks in the same operating cities, is staggering. A peer-reviewed study confirmed that Waymo's AVs dramatically outperform human drivers across nearly every critical crash scenario.
The company's own safety impact report quantifies this superiority with startling clarity. Compared to an average human driver over the same distance, the Waymo Driver was involved in 91% fewer crashes resulting in serious injury or worse, 80% fewer injury-causing crashes of any kind, and 79% fewer crashes involving an airbag deployment. The improvements are even more pronounced when considering vulnerable road users: Waymo vehicles had 92% fewer crashes with injuries to pedestrians and 78% fewer crashes with injuries to cyclists.
The following table provides a direct comparison of crash rates per million miles driven, illustrating the profound safety gap between autonomous systems and human drivers.
Crash Category
Waymo Rate (IPMM)
Human Benchmark Rate (IPMM)
% Reduction
Serious Injury or Worse Crashes
0.02
0.23
91.0%
Any-Injury-Reported Crashes
0.80
3.96
79.8%
Airbag Deployment Crashes
0.35
1.65
78.8%
Pedestrian Crashes with Injuries
0.03
0.38
92.1%
Cyclist Crashes with Injuries
0.06
0.28
78.6%
Data sourced from Waymo's Safety Hub, June 2025. Rates are for all operating locations combined. IPMM = Incidents Per Million Miles.
Critically, these already dramatic figures likely understate the true safety advantage of AVs. The comparison is skewed by a significant data-reporting discrepancy. AV operators like Waymo are required to report any physical contact, no matter how minor. In contrast, data for human drivers relies heavily on police reports. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 60% of property-damage-only crashes and 32% of injury crashes involving humans are never reported to the police. This means the human benchmark is artificially low, and the real-world safety delta is almost certainly even larger than the official statistics suggest.
The societal implications of this safety gap are profound. In the United States, human error is the final critical factor in an estimated 94% of traffic collisions. This fallibility results in over 40,000 deaths each year and carries an annual economic cost of $340 billion, equivalent to a "crash tax" of $1,035 for every person in the country. Extrapolating from current safety data, the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles could save an estimated 34,000 to 37,000 lives in the U.S. annually.
This data is poised to trigger a fundamental shift in both public perception and public policy. Currently, AVs are a novelty, and any incident they are involved in becomes a major news story. However, as the statistical case for their superior safety becomes overwhelming, the social and legal license for human driving will begin to erode. The conversation will pivot from "Are autonomous vehicles safe enough?" to "Is it ethical to permit fallible humans to operate two-ton machines when a demonstrably safer alternative exists?" This is not a hypothetical question. Commentators are already anticipating a future public debate around "banning human driving," comparing it to past public health campaigns against smoking in public or driving without a seatbelt.
The economic forces will accelerate this transition. Insurance companies, driven by actuarial data, will find it vastly more profitable to insure AVs, making premiums for human drivers prohibitively expensive. Municipalities and states, facing legal liability for traffic fatalities that could have been prevented by AVs, may begin to mandate their use in specific zones or on certain roadways. The legal framework itself will likely shift, moving toward a presumption of fault on the part of the human driver in any collision involving an AV. The human driver, once a symbol of freedom and control, is being statistically redefined as a risk to be managed and, ultimately, a liability to be eliminated.
Part II: The Augmentation Counterpoint: AI as a Productivity Multiplier
While the evidence from high-stakes domains points toward a future of human replacement, a powerful and more optimistic counter-narrative has taken hold in the corporate world. This view posits AI not as a substitute for human cognition but as its ultimate amplifier—a tool that multiplies productivity, enhances creativity, and frees workers from drudgery. This "augmentation" model does not envision a world without human workers but rather a world where human workers are more effective than ever before. This perspective is not merely theoretical; it is being actively implemented and tested by leading technology companies, with Duolingo's "AI-first" strategy serving as a landmark case study.
The Duolingo Doctrine, More Output, Not Fewer People
In the spring of 2025, the popular language-learning platform Duolingo found itself at the epicenter of the debate over AI and labor. CEO Luis von Ahn announced a company-wide "AI-first" strategy, detailed in a memo that quickly became public. The strategy was bold: the company would gradually stop using contractors for work that AI could handle, begin evaluating employee performance based on their use of AI tools, and restrict new hires to teams that could prove they had exhausted all automation possibilities.
The public reaction was immediate and severe. On social media platforms, users threatened to cancel subscriptions and end long-standing daily streaks, accusing the company of prioritizing profits over people and sacrificing the quality and cultural nuance that human experts brought to language education. Former contractors spoke out about abrupt terminations, and a narrative took hold that Duolingo was callously replacing its human workforce with machines.
Faced with a burgeoning PR crisis, Duolingo's leadership moved to clarify its position. Von Ahn admitted that the initial memo lacked sufficient context and had created the wrong impression. He emphatically stated that the goal was not to replace the company's full-time employees. "We've never laid off any full-time employees. We don't plan to," he clarified in an interview. The strategy, he explained, was to use AI as a tool to "accelerate what we do," empowering the existing workforce to be vastly more productive.
The results of this strategy have been nothing short of spectacular, providing a powerful proof-of-concept for the augmentation model. With AI integrated into its workflows, Duolingo can now produce "four or five times as much content in the same amount of time" with the same number of people. This leap in productivity allowed the company to develop and launch 148 new language courses in a single year, a feat that stands in stark contrast to the 12 years it took to create its first 100 courses. This AI-driven scaling has translated directly into remarkable business growth. The company raised its 2025 revenue forecast to over $1 billion, driven by a 40-51% year-over-year increase in daily active users and a surge in paid subscribers.
The Duolingo saga reveals a crucial dynamic in the corporate adoption of AI. The company's clarification established an implicit "Augmentation Contract" with its high-skilled, full-time employees: AI will be deployed to make you more productive and valuable, not to make you redundant. This contract, however, did not extend to the company's contractors, whose roles were deemed more routine and thus more susceptible to automation. This creates a tiered system of job security, where core knowledge workers are treated as partners in the AI transition, while those in more peripheral or automatable roles are displaced.
This two-tiered approach must be viewed within the broader context of how corporations are communicating their AI strategies. While Duolingo ultimately crafted a successful narrative of augmentation-driven growth, other companies appear to be using AI as a convenient, forward-looking justification for more traditional, and less palatable, business decisions. When Salesforce announced it was using AI to replace 4,000 customer support jobs, industry analysts were skeptical, suggesting that AI was a "fig leaf" or a "scapegoat" to mask underlying revenue pressures and a desire to project an image of innovation to Wall Street. Similarly, the CEO of Klarna was accused of overstating AI's role in workforce changes to make the company more appealing to investors. In some cases, senators have even accused major tech firms of using AI as a pretext for laying off American workers only to hire cheaper foreign labor on H-1B visas. Duolingo's story, therefore, is not just about a successful AI implementation; it is about a successful communication strategy that has, for now, aligned the interests of the company with its core workforce, demonstrating a path where AI-driven productivity leads to corporate growth rather than mass layoffs.
The AI Dividend, The Four-Day Workweek
If the augmentation model championed by Duolingo holds true on a macroeconomic scale, its logical societal consequence is not mass unemployment but a fundamental re-evaluation of the nature of work itself. If technology allows us to produce the same or even greater economic output in significantly less time, the productivity gains could be distributed back to workers not just as higher wages, but as a "time dividend," the gift of a shorter workweek.
This idea is gaining traction among some of the most influential figures in technology and politics. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has predicted that AI will eventually enable a three-day, or even two-day, workweek, arguing that "the purpose of life is not just to do jobs". This sentiment is echoed by other tech leaders, including Zoom CEO Eric Yuan and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who foresee AI paving the way for three- or three-and-a-half-day workweeks. On the political front, Senator Bernie Sanders has become a vocal proponent of this vision, introducing legislation for a 32-hour workweek and arguing that the immense productivity gains from AI should benefit all workers in the form of more leisure time, rather than simply enriching corporate executives and shareholders.
This is not merely a utopian fantasy. Large-scale pilot programs of a four-day workweek have produced compelling, real-world evidence of its benefits. The world's largest trial, conducted in the UK across more than 60 companies, yielded transformative results. The study found that a shorter workweek led to a 71% drop in burnout, improved mental and physical health, and better work-life balance. Crucially, these wellness benefits did not come at the expense of performance. On the contrary, company revenue during the trial period rose by an average of 35% compared to the same period in the previous year. Similar successful trials have been conducted in countries like Iceland and Japan, demonstrating that working fewer hours can lead to higher productivity and better business outcomes.
AI provides the technological catalyst to make this a widespread reality. The dramatic efficiency gains it offers can resolve the central tension for businesses considering a shorter week. Furthermore, framing the four-day work week as an "AI dividend" can serve as a powerful strategic tool for companies. For a workforce that is understandably fearful of AI-driven job displacement, offering to share the productivity gains in the form of a "time dividend" can change the narrative from one of threat to one of mutual benefit, accelerating the adoption of new AI tools.
Despite this compelling logic, the transition to a shorter workweek faces significant headwinds, revealing a deep-seated productivity paradox at the heart of modern work culture. The primary obstacle is not technological or economic, but cultural. Many organizations remain tethered to "old habits, fear of change, and a deep cultural belief that work should look hard". In this paradigm, hours logged at a desk are used as a crude proxy for value and commitment, and managers fear that a reduction in hours equates to a loss of control.
There is also a significant risk that AI, rather than liberating workers, will simply be used to ratchet up performance expectations. A 2024 study found that the introduction of AI tools can inadvertently increase workloads by creating pressure for higher output and faster turnaround times. Employees at some firms already report that instead of working less, the integration of AI means they are now "expected to produce even more". This points to the ultimate paradox of the augmentation age: we are developing a tool with the power to grant humanity unprecedented leisure, but our cultural and corporate systems may default to using that power to create a state of perpetual, hyper-efficient work. The debate over the four-day workweek is, therefore, more than just a conversation about scheduling; it is the first major battleground over how the immense spoils of the AI revolution will be distributed.
Part III: A Fork in the Road: Societal Blueprints for a Post-Labor Future
The divergent paths of AI—one leading to human obsolescence, the other to augmented productivity—present society with a fundamental choice. The outcome will not be determined by the technology itself, but by the social, political, and organizational structures we build around it. If the "negative value" thesis proves dominant and large-scale labor displacement occurs, we will require a societal response on a scale not seen in generations. Conversely, even in an augmentation scenario, the nature of work will be so profoundly altered that our existing organizational models may no longer be fit for purpose. Exploring both historical precedents and forward-looking theories can provide blueprints for navigating this uncertain future.
Echoes of the Past—Lessons from the New Deal
Should AI-driven displacement become as widespread and disruptive as its most ardent prophets predict, the most relevant historical parallel is not a previous technological revolution, but a full-blown economic collapse: the Great Depression. The subsequent response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, offers a powerful, albeit imperfect, blueprint for how a society can mobilize a large-scale, government-led effort to redefine "work" and the role of the public sector in a time of profound economic crisis.
The scale of the crisis in the 1930s was staggering. At its height in 1933, the unemployment rate in the United States reached nearly 25%, with 12.8 million people out of work. The initial government response under President Herbert Hoover, which focused on encouraging private sector action and limited public works, proved wholly inadequate to stem the economic freefall. Roosevelt's New Deal represented a paradigm shift, fundamentally expanding the role of the federal government in the economic and social affairs of the nation.
At the heart of the New Deal was a sprawling collection of "alphabet agencies" designed to provide direct relief and, most importantly, to create jobs. This effort was not monolithic; it was a diverse portfolio of programs tailored to different needs. The Public Works Administration (PWA) funded large-scale, capital-intensive infrastructure projects like dams, bridges, and schools. In contrast, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which became the largest New Deal agency, focused on smaller, more labor-intensive, and quicker-to-start projects, such as building roads, parks, and sewer systems. Meanwhile, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) provided jobs for unemployed youth focused on environmental conservation and the development of public lands.
Critically, the New Deal's definition of valuable work extended far beyond construction and manual labor. The WPA, in particular, included a significant public service component that provides a fascinating precedent for a post-AI economy. It funded a wide array of projects that employed people based on their existing skills, including writers, musicians, actors, and artists, through initiatives like the Federal Writers' Project and the Federal Theatre Project. It also created jobs in so-called "welfare activities," such as sewing projects, school lunch programs, and public health work, which provided employment primarily for unskilled women.
This historical example suggests a path forward for a society grappling with the displacement of cognitive labor. The original New Deal responded to a crisis in industrial and agricultural work. A "New New Deal" for the AI era would need to respond to a crisis in knowledge work. A direct parallel of simply funding more infrastructure projects would be insufficient. The real lesson lies in the less-remembered, service-oriented aspects of the WPA. These programs implicitly recognized that there is societal value in work that is not tied to industrial output—work that relies on creativity, empathy, community service, and human connection.
As AI automates an ever-widening range of analytical, administrative, and logistical tasks, these uniquely human, non-automatable skills become society's most precious resource. A modern New Deal would, therefore, be a mechanism to deliberately shift economic resources and social prestige toward these domains. It would not just be about creating jobs for the displaced; it would be a platform for funding and validating the very work that AI cannot do. This could take the form of a national care corps for the elderly, universal pre-kindergarten education, expanded mental health services, grants for community organizers and local artists, and a large-scale environmental restoration corps. Such a program would represent more than just an economic stimulus; it would be a conscious societal re-prioritization of what constitutes a valuable human endeavor in an age of increasingly intelligent machines.
Redefining 'Work' in an Age of Agentic AI—The Dunbar's Number Organization
Whether AI leads to mass displacement or widespread augmentation, one outcome is certain: the nature of human work within organizations will be transformed. As AI agents take over routine cognitive tasks—from data analysis and report generation to software coding and customer service queries—the competitive advantage for human teams will shift decisively toward the activities that AI cannot replicate: building high-trust relationships, fostering deep collaboration, navigating complex social dynamics, and generating truly novel ideas through unstructured interaction. To thrive in this new environment, organizations will need to be redesigned not around the logic of the machine but around the inherent cognitive and social limits of the humans within them. The anthropological concept of Dunbar's Number provides a compelling, science-based framework for this new organizational paradigm.
Proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, the theory posits that there is a cognitive limit to the number of people with whom an individual can maintain stable social relationships. This limit, dictated by the size of the human neocortex, is approximately 150 people. This is the number of people you could join for a drink uninvited without it feeling awkward. Within this broad circle, Dunbar identified a series of nested, more intimate layers: a core group of about 5 close friends, a sympathy group of 15, and a wider circle of 50 good friends.
When applied to organizations, Dunbar's Number explains an intuitive reality. When a group or company grows beyond 150 people, the informal, trust-based social bonds that hold it together begin to break down. It becomes impossible for everyone to know everyone else, communication becomes fragmented, and formal hierarchies, rules, and silos must be introduced to maintain order. Some highly innovative companies have intuitively grasped this principle. W. L. Gore & Associates, the maker of Gore-Tex, famously caps its factories at 150 employees. Once a facility approaches that number, the company builds a new one nearby, ensuring that a small-community feel, where everyone knows each other by name, is preserved.
This principle of designing for human social limits also operates at the team level. Jeff Bezos's famous "two-pizza team" rule at Amazon—that no team should be so large that it cannot be fed by two pizzas is a practical application of Dunbar's smaller circles of 5 to 15 people, a size that is optimal for fostering the psychological safety, high trust, and rapid communication necessary for innovative work.
In an AI-powered future, these principles become paramount. The future of effective knowledge work is likely not the lone individual "augmented" by an AI assistant, but rather the small, high-trust "agentic team" operating within Dunbar's cognitive limits. In this model, the unit of production and innovation shifts from the individual to the team. The team is augmented not just by tools, but by a suite of dedicated AI agents that act as extensions of the group's collective intelligence. These agents handle the scalable, transactional, and data-intensive work running analyses, drafting reports, simulating scenarios, managing logistics—freeing the human members to focus entirely on the complex, creative, and social problem-solving that generates true breakthroughs. The organization of the future may look less like a rigid pyramid and more like a fluid "lattice" or network of these small, cohesive, and highly effective agentic teams. It would be an organization designed to harness the one thing AI cannot replicate: the unique power of human social intelligence.
Conclusion: From Negative Value to Invaluable Humans
The rise of Artificial Intelligence has placed modern society at a profound fork in the road. One path, illuminated by stark data from fields like medicine and transportation, leads to a future where human cognitive labor in an increasing number of domains becomes a liability—a source of error, cost, and risk that is rationally minimized or eliminated. This is the world of the "negative value" human, where superhuman AI performance renders human oversight not just unnecessary, but counterproductive. The other path, championed by corporations like Duolingo and envisioned by proponents of a shorter workweek, leads to a future of human augmentation, where AI acts as a powerful multiplier of productivity and creativity, unlocking unprecedented economic growth and the potential for greater human leisure.
The critical takeaway from this analysis is that the ultimate destination is not a matter of technological determinism. The future of work will not be handed down by an algorithm; it will be the cumulative result of deliberate human choices. It will be shaped by corporate strategies that must weigh the short-term gains of automation-driven cost-cutting against the long-term value of a skilled and motivated workforce. It will be defined by public policies that must decide whether the immense wealth generated by AI will be concentrated in the hands of a few or distributed broadly in the form of social safety nets, investments in human-centric work, or a "time dividend" for all. And it will be realized through new organizational philosophies that recognize that as machines take over machine-like work, the most valuable human contributions will stem from the very social and cognitive traits that make us unique.
The challenge of the AI era, therefore, is not to engage in a futile race to teach humans to compete with machines at machine-like tasks. That is a battle that, in the long run, humanity is destined to lose. The true and urgent challenge is to begin the difficult work of restructuring our economy, our companies, and our societal values to fully recognize, reward, and cultivate the skills that are uniquely and enduringly human. The unsettling prospect of human labor having a "negative value" in one context may be the very catalyst we need to finally appreciate the invaluable nature of human connection, creativity, empathy, and community in all others. The obsolescence of the human-as-computer may be the dawn of the age of the human-as-human.
Sources used in the report
reddit.com
Paper by physicians at Harvard and Stanford: "In all experiments, the LLM displayed superhuman diagnostic and reasoning abilities." : r/OpenAI - Reddit
Opens in a new window
time.com
Microsoft's AI Is Better Than Doctors at Diagnosing Disease - Time Magazine
Opens in a new window
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ChatGPT With GPT-4 Outperforms Emergency Department Physicians in Diagnostic Accuracy: Retrospective Analysis - PMC
Opens in a new window
hms.harvard.edu
Open-Source AI Matches Top Proprietary LLM in Solving Tough Medical Cases
Opens in a new window
erictopol.substack.com
When Doctors With A.I. Are Outperformed by A.I. Alone - Ground Truths
Opens in a new window
newsroom.uvahealth.com
Does AI Improve Doctors' Diagnoses? Study Finds Out - UVA Health Newsroom
Opens in a new window
hms.harvard.edu
How Good Are AI 'Clinicians' at Medical Conversations? | Harvard ...
Opens in a new window
harvardmagazine.com
AI is Making Medical Decisions — But For Whom? - Harvard Magazine
Opens in a new window
waymo.com
Safety Impact - Waymo
Opens in a new window
growsf.org
Waymo robotaxis are safer than human drivers | GrowSF.org
Opens in a new window
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Comparison of Waymo rider-only crash data to human benchmarks at 7.1 million miles
Opens in a new window
ravin.ai
How AI is Making Autonomous Vehicles Safer
Opens in a new window
en.wikipedia.org
Impact of self-driving cars - Wikipedia
Opens in a new window
iihs.org
Fatality Facts 2023: Yearly snapshot - IIHS
Opens in a new window
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov
The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2019 (Revised) - CrashStats - NHTSA
Opens in a new window
nhtsa.gov
NHTSA: Traffic Crashes Cost America $340 Billion in 2019
Opens in a new window
reddit.com
Waymo's latest research shows its self-driving cars have 80-90% fewer accidents than human drivers, and in future could possibly save 34,000 U.S. lives annually if they replaced all human-driven cars. : r/Futurology - Reddit
Opens in a new window
aharaadvisors.com
Autonomous Cars Could Save More Than 30000 Lives - Ahara Advisors
Opens in a new window
damfirm.com
Waymo Accidents | NHTSA Crash Data [Updated 2025]
Opens in a new window
marketingtrending.asoworld.com
Duolingo's 'AI-First' Strategy Triggers Backlash Over Jobs and Quality
Opens in a new window
artificialintelligence-news.com
Duolingo shifts to AI-first model, cutting contractor roles - AI News
Opens in a new window
thehrdigest.com
Duolingo's AI-First Strategy Rears Its Head—Should You Follow Suit? - The HR Digest
Opens in a new window
solutionsreview.com
How Duolingo's AI-First Strategy Lost the Human Touch - Solutions Review
Opens in a new window
webpronews.com
Duolingo's AI Shift Sparks Backlash Amid Revenue Growth
Opens in a new window
reddit.com
Can you explain why you are all deleting your Duolingo accounts? - Reddit
Opens in a new window
hrgrapevine.com
Duolingo CEO clarifies layoff plans after AI memo controversy | HR Tech and People Data
Opens in a new window
techbuzz.ai
Duolingo CEO walks back 'AI-first' memo amid job fears | The Tech Buzz
Opens in a new window
qz.com
Duolingo's CEO says workers need a 'mind shift' about AI - Quartz
Opens in a new window
coincentral.com
Duolingo Embraces AI Without Job Cuts, CEO Confirms - CoinCentral
Opens in a new window
intellectia.ai
Duolingo CEO: We're enhancing employee productivity 'four or five times' with AI instead of resorting to layoffs. | Intellectia.AI
Opens in a new window
completeaitraining.com
Duolingo uses AI to boost output 4-5x, lifts 2025 revenue forecast to ...
Opens in a new window
aimagazine.com
Duolingo's 'AI-First' Strategy: Explained - AI Magazine
Opens in a new window
aiapps.com
AI & Education Market Update | Duolingo Revenue & AI Development 2025
Opens in a new window
chiefaiofficer.com
How Duolingo's AI-First Strategy Drove 51% User Growth and $1 Billion Revenue Forecast
Opens in a new window
odsc.medium.com
Duolingo Stock Soars 30% as AI Drives Record User Growth and Revenue Forecasts
Opens in a new window
investors.duolingo.com
Duolingo Reports 41% Revenue Growth, 46% Subscription Revenue Growth and Record Profitability in Second Quarter 2025; Raises Full-Year Guidance
Opens in a new window
salesforceben.com
Is AI an Excuse? Why Salesforce's Layoffs Tell a Bigger Picture ...
Opens in a new window
rebootdemocracy.ai
How Tech Oligarchs Are Using AI Hype to Push Mass Layoffs - Reboot Democracy
Opens in a new window
webpronews.com
Senators Accuse Tech Giants of AI Layoffs to Hire Cheaper H-1B Workers - WebProNews
Opens in a new window
thehrdigest.com
Could AI be the Path to Shorter Workweeks? Zoom CEO Yuan Believes So - The HR Digest
Opens in a new window
justthink.ai
Bill Gates: Is a 3-Day Workweek the Future? - Just Think AI
Opens in a new window
m.economictimes.com
AI will cut your workweek to 2 days, says Bill Gates—but warns it may shrink your paycheck too! - The Economic Times
Opens in a new window
worklytics.co
AI's Impact on Workweek | Worklytics
Opens in a new window
hrgrapevine.com
Zoom chief predicts three-day workweeks and role extinction with AI - HR Grapevine
Opens in a new window
reddit.com
Zoom's CEO agrees with Bill Gates, Jensen Huang, and Jamie Dimon: A 3-day workweek is coming soon thanks to AI : r/Futurology - Reddit
Opens in a new window
youtube.com
Should AI Mean a 4 Day Workweek? - YouTube
Opens in a new window
slashdot.org
Bernie Sanders Says If AI Makes Us So Productive, We Should Get a 4-Day Work Week
Opens in a new window
reddit.com
Bernie Sanders says that if AI makes us so productive, we should get a 4-day workweek
Opens in a new window
legal.io
Senators Weigh Whether AI Can Shorten the Workweek - Legal.io
Opens in a new window
greatplacetowork.com
Why the 4-Day Workweek Should Be Part of the AI Conversation | Great Place To Work®
Opens in a new window
reddit.com
Why We Still Don't Have A 4-Day Workweek Even Though Research Repeatedly Proves The Benefits : r/economy - Reddit
Opens in a new window
fdrlibrary.org
Great Depression Facts - FDR Presidential Library & Museum
Opens in a new window
en.wikipedia.org
Great Depression - Wikipedia
Opens in a new window
hoover.archives.gov
The Great Depression | The Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum
Opens in a new window
loc.gov
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal | Great Depression and World War II, 1929-1945 | U.S. History Primary Source Timeline | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress
Opens in a new window
news.stanford.edu
The Great Depression demonstrated the indispensable role of government - Stanford Report
Opens in a new window
everycrsreport.com
Job Creation Programs of the Great Depression: The WPA and the CCC - Every CRS Report
Opens in a new window
depts.washington.edu
Public Works: Rebuilding Washington - Great Depression Project
Opens in a new window
monthlyreview.org
Lessons from the New Deal Public Employment Programs - Monthly Review
Opens in a new window
fdrlibrary.org
www.fdrlibrary.org
Opens in a new window
officespacesoftware.com
The Rule Of 150: How To Design For Dunbar's Number - OfficeSpace
Opens in a new window
en.wikipedia.org
Dunbar's number - Wikipedia
Opens in a new window
modelthinkers.com
Dunbar's Number - ModelThinkers
Opens in a new window
medium.com
Dunbar's number — the law of 150. New York author, Malcolm Gladwell's… | by Esther Sugihto | Medium
Opens in a new window
theagileelephant.com
Dunbar's Numbers and Organising for Social Business - Agile Elephant
Opens in a new window
sync.com
How to Assemble the Ultimate Dream Team With Dunbar's Number(s) - Sync
Opens in a new window
psychsafety.com
Dunbar's Number, Psychological Safety and Team Size
Opens in a new window
mckinsey.com
The agentic organization: Contours of the next paradigm for the AI era - McKinsey
