Based on research, if AI continues to get smarter, this will happen.
 |
| AI VS Human |
If AI
keeps getting smarter and is widely deployed, most expert analyses point to
large productivity gains and economic growth, deep changes in labor markets and
power structures, heavier dependence on data- and algorithm-driven systems, and
a non‑zero chance of severe systemic or even existential risks that require
active governance. Outcomes are not fixed: technical design choices,
regulation, and social responses over the next 10–30 years will strongly shape
whether advanced AI is broadly beneficial or destabilizing.
Economic trajectory
As AI
models improve and diffuse across sectors, forecasters expect a substantial
boost to productivity and GDP, especially through automation, better
prediction, and new products and services. Studies using macroeconomic models
estimate that AI could add trillions of dollars to global output by 2030–2050,
with some scenarios projecting around 3–4% of global GDP in 2030 attributable
to AI and over 10 trillion dollars in extra global growth by 2050 under rapid
adoption.
At the
same time, empirical and theoretical work warns that productivity gains may
coexist with wage stagnation for some workers, higher capital–labor inequality,
and regional divergence if complementary skills and institutions lag behind
technology. Economists note that automation can initially suppress wage growth
and investment if labor’s share falls, and that without policy responses,
benefits may concentrate among firms and countries that already have capital,
data, and talent advantages.
Illustrative economic forecasts
|
Dimension |
Key expectation if AI keeps advancing |
|
Global GDP level |
Multi‑trillion‑dollar increase by 2030–2050, with
AI’s share of growth rising over time. |
|
Productivity |
Strong gains from automation, data‑driven
decision‑making, and new AI‑enabled products. |
|
Inequality |
Higher risk of income and regional inequality
without countervailing policy. |
|
Labor demand mix |
Reduced demand for routine work, higher demand
for AI‑complementary skills. |
Labor, education, and everyday work
Technical
and empirical studies find that AI is especially good at pattern recognition,
prediction, and many cognitive “routine” tasks, which means more white‑collar
work is exposed than in earlier automation waves. Research on AI in
forecasting, finance, customer service, and software shows that systems can
already match or exceed human performance in specific tasks, and progress in
model capabilities suggests this domain coverage will expand.
Experts
expect:
- Significant task
displacement rather than instant whole‑job replacement, with many jobs
being redesigned around AI tools.
- Higher demand for skills in
data, AI oversight, human-AI interaction, and fields that are hard to
codify, such as care work, complex crafts, and some creative roles.
- Stress, de‑skilling, and
“dehumanisation” risks in workplaces where AI systems tightly monitor or
manage workers, unless governance and design choices protect autonomy and
well‑being.
Social, political, and information effects
As AI
becomes embedded in platforms, infrastructure, and public services, its social
effects compound. Expert surveys highlight both major upsides healthcare
triage, early‑warning systems, personalized education and serious concerns
about autonomy, bias, and surveillance. Analysts anticipate:
- More pervasive algorithmic
decision‑making in credit, hiring, policing, and welfare, with associated
risks of opaque discrimination and lock‑in if systems are not well‑regulated.
- Powerful generative tools
that make hyper‑realistic misinformation, deepfakes, and persuasion
campaigns cheaper and more scalable, potentially straining democratic
processes and social trust.
- Strategic leverage for
states and firms that control frontier AI infrastructure and data,
influencing geopolitics, cyber conflict, and standards‑setting.
Long‑term and existential risks
A strand
of technical and philosophical literature focuses on “AI existential risk” or
AI x‑risk: low‑probability, high‑impact scenarios in which very advanced,
misaligned AI systems could cause irreversible catastrophe. Arguments here
hinge on the possibility of artificial general intelligence (AGI) or
superintelligent systems that outperform humans across most cognitive tasks and
can act autonomously in the world.
Key points from expert debates:
- There is deep disagreement
about when, or whether, such systems will be developed, and about how hard
safety and alignment problems will be in practice.
- Some researchers emphasize
“decisive” risks rapid capability jumps, self‑improvement, or loss of
control over key infrastructure while others stress “accumulative” risks
where many smaller failures gradually erode institutions and resilience.
- Policy scholars increasingly
argue that, regardless of exact timelines, the combination of strategic
incentives, rapid scaling, and system complexity justifies early
investment in safety research, evaluation, and governance mechanisms.
Governance, scenarios, and what shapes outcomes
Futures
work and Delphi‑style expert exercises on AI progress emphasize that outcomes
depend less on a single “intelligence threshold” and more on how institutions
manage compounding capability increases. Scenario analyses typically explore:
- High‑coordination path: Strong safety research,
global standards, and regulation slow deployment in high‑risk domains
while encouraging beneficent uses, yielding broad economic gains with
managed risks.
- Unregulated race path: Competitive pressure leads
firms and states to deploy more capable systems before they are fully
understood or governed, raising the odds of systemic failures, misuse, and
possible catastrophic accidents.
- Fragmented path: Different regions adopt
divergent rules and technical norms, producing uneven benefits and risks
and making cross‑border risk management harder.
For students thinking ahead, the research record suggests focusing on adaptable, AI‑complementary skills, understanding data and model limitations, and engaging with debates on AI ethics and governance, because those human choices will heavily influence what “AI getting smarter” actually means for societies and individual lives.
References:
Artificial
Intelligence and Economic Development. (2023). Artificial Intelligence
and Economic Development, 1–18. National Center for Biotechnology
Information. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10005923/
IDC.
(2024, September 17). Artificial intelligence will contribute $19.9
trillion to the global economy through 2030. International Data
Corporation. https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS52600524
MacCarthy,
M. (2025, June 3). Are AI existential risks real—and what should we do
about them? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-ai-existential-risks-real-and-what-should-we-do-about-them/
Existential
risk from artificial intelligence. (2015). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_intelligence
Pew
Research Center. (2018, December 10). Artificial intelligence and the
future of humans. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-humans/
IBM.
(2024, October 10). The future of AI: Trends shaping the next 10 years.
IBM Think. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/artificial-intelligence-future
KPMG
International. (2025). Generative AI and economic growth.
KPMG. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2025/gen-ai-economic-growth.pdf
Asian
Online Journal. (2024). Economy and empirical research perspectives
towards artificial intelligence. Asian Online Journal of Economics. https://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/Economy/article/download/6270/2919
The
blended future of automation and AI: Societal and ethical impact. (2023). Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X23000374
Cihon,
P., Maas, M. M., & Kemp, L. (2023). Existential risk from
artificial general intelligence. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/computer-science/existential-risk-artificial-general-intelligence
Gruetzemacher,
R., Whittlestone, J., & Toner, H. (2021). Forecasting AI progress:
A research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521003413
Khan,
I. (2025, November 18). The future of artificial intelligence:
2030–2050 strategic outlook (2025 ed.). https://www.iankhan.com/the-future-of-artificial-intelligence-2030-2050-strategic-outlook-2025-edition-2/
Zhang,
X., Li, Y., & Wang, J. (2023). The blended future of automation and
AI: Societal and ethical impact. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X23000374
Potential
for near-term AI risks to evolve into existential risks. (2025). BMJ (or
relevant journal as per article metadata). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035420/
Existential
risk narratives about AI do not distract from its real harms. (2025). BMJ (or
relevant journal as per article metadata). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12037001/
