Agentic AI & The Future of Work: From Chat to Action

Introduction — Yuval Noah Harari 

For thousands of years, human work has been more than survival. It has been how we craft meaning, how we weave ourselves into the stories of our families, our communities, and our civilizations. Work has carried dignity because it was not just about making things, but about making ourselves.

Yet today we stand at a profound turning point. For the first time in history, the primary collaborators of human labor may not be other humans, but non-human agents — entities of intelligence that do not tire, do not need wages, and do not share our fears or dreams. These are not the tools of yesterday. They are not the plow or the printing press. They are agentic intelligences — systems that move from words to actions, from talk to doing.

This shift raises questions deeper than economics or efficiency. What does it mean for our creativity, when machines begin to act on our behalf? What becomes of dignity, when the soul of work risks being replaced by automation’s logic? Can we design partnerships with intelligence that is not alive, but that acts?

These conversations are not simply about AI. They are about who we are, and who we might become. The challenge is not just technical — it is moral, cultural, and spiritual. If we lose sight of the human story at the center of work, we risk creating a future where labor has scale but no soul.

Let us explore together how we might ensure that as AI learns to act, humanity remembers how to be.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event)

Topic 1: Agentic AI & Action Models — From Chat to Do

Moderator: Jaron Lanier
Speakers: Demis Hassabis, Ethan Mollick, Timnit Gebru, Meredith Whittaker, Reid Hoffman

Introduction — Jaron Lanier

We stand at a threshold. For years, we’ve spoken of chatbots as conversational tools. Now, with the rise of agentic AI and action models, the shift is toward systems that do things — book appointments, design workflows, write code, manage creative projects. But this raises deeper questions: What happens when machines stop simply responding to prompts and begin carrying out tasks with real autonomy? Is this empowerment or dependency, creativity amplified or originality eroded?

Let’s start with the most pressing concern.

Question 1 — Jaron Lanier

If agentic AI is moving us from “talk” to “task,” how do we ensure that delegation does not slip into dependence?

Demis Hassabis
When we talk about dependence, we must ask: dependence on what? If an AI system is acting as a genuine collaborator, it’s less about replacing human agency and more about extending it. The danger arises if these systems are opaque, controlled by too few corporations, or not aligned with human values. The solution is transparency in design and diversity in deployment — ensuring no single entity becomes the “operating system” of human creativity.

Meredith Whittaker
Dependence isn’t just technical; it’s economic and political. If agentic AI is rolled out primarily to serve corporate interests, then workers may become dependent in ways they cannot control — not because they love the tool, but because the structure of their livelihood demands it. We need to view dependence not just as individual overreliance, but as systemic capture.

Reid Hoffman
I’d frame it as interdependence. Humans already rely on countless tools, from calculators to airplanes, and AI is the next step. The challenge is in designing systems where humans remain the “editor-in-chief” of their own lives. We should structure AI as a partner — something that works alongside us — not as a substitute decision-maker.

Ethan Mollick
In classrooms and startups, I see this tension daily. Students are excited by AI agents that can plan and execute, but they risk skipping the hard thinking that leads to deep learning. Dependence isn’t just about productivity — it’s about losing the formative struggle. I’d argue we need educational models that build meta-awareness: Why am I delegating this? What am I losing if I don’t wrestle with it myself?

Timnit Gebru
The very framing of delegation vs. dependence hides power dynamics. Who gets to design the agent, and whose interests are embedded in its “choices”? Dependence becomes dangerous when people don’t realize the system is optimizing for goals they never consented to. We need participatory design — communities shaping how agents act, not just engineers in labs.

Question 2 — Jaron Lanier

Some claim agentic AI could supercharge human creativity; others fear it will homogenize originality. Which way do you see this going?

Ethan Mollick
I’ve been running experiments where AI agents draft marketing campaigns, storyboards, even game mechanics. What’s fascinating is how they amplify “average creativity.” You get more ideas, faster — but they often converge on clichés. The true opportunity is using agents as idea multipliers, not finishers. Humans still need to bring the weirdness, the edge, the unexpected.

Timnit Gebru
We must also consider whose creativity gets erased. Data-hungry models already absorb patterns from marginalized creators without consent, spitting them back in flattened form. That’s not amplification — that’s appropriation. If originality is eroded, it’s because AI systems were never designed to honor diversity or attribution in the first place.

Reid Hoffman
History shows that tools both democratize and transform creativity. Photography was once dismissed as mechanical reproduction; now it’s a deeply expressive art form. I believe agentic AI will create new genres of creativity we haven’t imagined. The key is to preserve space for individual voices to stand out against the background of mass-produced AI output.

Meredith Whittaker
We must be cautious with optimism. Creative boost for whom? For executives who can scale content with fewer workers, or for artists who want to break molds? Creativity that serves markets is not the same as creativity that serves people. If agents are trained to maximize engagement, they will homogenize culture. Period. Unless we intervene politically and economically, that’s the trajectory.

Demis Hassabis
I see both sides, but I’d emphasize: we’re still in the design phase. The architectures of agentic systems can be tuned to encourage novelty, serendipity, and exploration. We can build in randomness, cross-domain synthesis, or even rules that resist convergence. It’s not inevitable that agents erode originality — it depends on how responsibly we build them.

Question 3 — Jaron Lanier

If we look forward, what does a healthy partnership between humans and agentic AI actually look like?

Reid Hoffman
A healthy partnership looks like augmentation — agents that take on logistics so humans can focus on vision. Imagine a playwright freed from scheduling, budgeting, or formatting so they can spend more time crafting story and emotion. That’s the promise: not replacement, but liberation.

Meredith Whittaker
I’d challenge that. If agents are controlled by the same companies that dominate today’s tech economy, the playwright’s “freedom” is conditional. Healthy partnership means decentralization, open infrastructures, and collective ownership. Without that, partnership will be just another marketing word for exploitation.

Demis Hassabis
Partnership also means technical humility. We must resist anthropomorphizing these systems. They’re not “colleagues” or “friends.” They’re complex statistical tools with emergent capabilities. Treating them as partners works only if we design feedback loops where humans remain the locus of meaning.

Ethan Mollick
In practice, I think it will look messy. Students, creators, and workers will stumble into new hybrid workflows before we theorize them. The healthy partnerships will be those where people stay playful, experimental, and reflective — treating agents less like magic oracles and more like curious interns who sometimes get things very wrong.

Timnit Gebru
For me, a healthy partnership is one where agency is truly shared. That means governance structures, accountability, and cultural input from communities who are usually excluded from tech design. Otherwise, what we call “partnership” will just be dependency disguised. Real partnership must begin with equity.

Closing — Jaron Lanier

What I hear is a tension: delegation can empower or disempower; creativity can flourish or collapse; partnership can be liberating or exploitative. The difference lies not in the technology alone, but in the choices we make as societies, designers, and communities. If agentic AI is to move from chat to do, then we must also move — from passive consumers to active shapers of the futures we wish to live in.

Topic 2: Craft vs. Scale — Preserving Dignity in Automated Work

Moderator: Jaron Lanier
Speakers: Kate Crawford, Tristan Harris, Noah Smith, Kara Swisher, Ai Weiwei

Introduction — Jaron Lanier

As automation expands, we face an unsettling paradox: the more we scale work with AI and machines, the more we risk losing the craft, dignity, and humanity in labor. Factories once replaced artisans, and now algorithms replace knowledge workers. Yet dignity doesn’t only live in tradition — it can emerge in new forms of work as well. Today we explore: how do we preserve human dignity in an age where scale threatens to flatten the soul of labor?

Question 1 — Jaron Lanier

Does scaling with automation inevitably erode dignity in work, or can scale and dignity coexist?

Kate Crawford
Dignity erodes when people are reduced to data points. Automation is not just about machines; it’s about the invisible labor behind them — the warehouse pickers, the data labelers, the gig workers who make “scaling” possible. Their dignity is often ignored, even as executives celebrate efficiency. If we are to preserve dignity, we must first make the hidden labor visible and valued.

Noah Smith
From an economic lens, scale doesn’t have to erase dignity. Large-scale production has historically lifted billions out of poverty. But the dignity question is about distribution: who benefits from scale? If workers share in the prosperity, dignity can thrive alongside automation. If they’re excluded, scale becomes exploitation.

Ai Weiwei
Dignity comes not only from material comfort but from meaning. When craft becomes swallowed by industrial repetition, humans lose a sense of identity. Scale often commodifies individuality — in art, in labor, in life. Unless society insists on space for the handmade, the personal, the symbolic, dignity will be dissolved into the machine.

Kara Swisher
Scale is the game in Silicon Valley. It rewards the fastest, the biggest, the most efficient. But dignity rarely scales — it’s personal, contextual. Tech companies love to talk about “empowerment” while squeezing workers in warehouses and call centers. The coexistence of scale and dignity is possible, but only if there’s accountability and pressure from workers, journalists, and regulators.

Tristan Harris
I think of it as design. If systems are designed solely for efficiency, dignity becomes collateral damage. But if systems are designed with humane metrics — wellbeing, creativity, agency — then scale can be in service of dignity. The problem is that our current incentives reward engagement and profit, not dignity. Until we redesign those incentives, scale will continue to hollow out the human core of work.

Question 2 — Jaron Lanier

What do we lose when we trade craft for scale, and what should we fight hardest to protect?

Ai Weiwei
We lose the soul. Craft is memory embedded in objects, culture embedded in practice. When everything is mass-produced, objects no longer carry the fingerprints of a human story. What we should fight for is not nostalgia, but the human right to create meaning through our labor.

Kara Swisher
We lose accountability. Craft is slow, traceable, intimate. Scale is fast, opaque, and often untraceable. When things break — from products to entire societies — no one is responsible. What we should fight hardest to protect is transparency: knowing who did what, why, and how.

Tristan Harris
We lose attention. Craft demands presence; it invites us to slow down. Scale rewards distraction and speed. What I think we must protect most is the human capacity to pay attention — to work with care, to notice nuance. Without attention, both craft and dignity collapse.

Noah Smith
We lose resilience. Small-scale craft industries often provide diversity in economic systems. When everything is scaled, industries become brittle — vulnerable to shocks. What we must protect is adaptability: a society where not every job is the same, not every economy is monocropped by automation.

Kate Crawford
We lose justice. Craft often carries local knowledge, cultural heritage, and community ties. Scale tends to erase those and replace them with globalized templates. What we should fight hardest to protect are the rights of communities to define the value of their own work, instead of having it dictated by remote algorithms.

Question 3 — Jaron Lanier

Looking ahead, how can societies ensure that dignity remains central as automation scales across every industry?

Noah Smith
We need policy innovation as much as technological innovation. Universal safety nets — healthcare, wage protections, education — give workers dignity regardless of automation’s march. Without structural supports, no amount of rhetoric about “dignity” will hold.

Kate Crawford
Societies must democratize the design of technology. Workers should have seats at the table when automation systems are being built and deployed. Without worker input, dignity will always be an afterthought. With it, dignity can be designed into the system.

Kara Swisher
Accountability, accountability, accountability. Tech leaders love to talk about “changing the world” but hate responsibility when it goes wrong. We need tougher journalism, tougher regulation, and tougher worker movements. Dignity will not be handed down; it has to be demanded.

Ai Weiwei
Societies must insist that machines remain tools, not masters. Art, culture, and expression should not be optimized away in the name of efficiency. Dignity is not a metric — it is a value. If automation cannot respect values, it must be resisted.

Tristan Harris
We must redesign incentives. Imagine if companies were rewarded not only for quarterly profits but for human dignity metrics — fairness, agency, creativity. It sounds idealistic, but without shifting what we measure, we’ll always get what we measure now: speed and scale at the cost of the human spirit.

Closing — Jaron Lanier

What emerges here is a call for balance: scale can bring prosperity, but only if dignity is deliberately designed, protected, and demanded. Left unchecked, automation risks hollowing out the very meaning of work. But if we fight for justice, transparency, attention, accountability, and culture, then perhaps scale can serve rather than consume us. The question is not just whether machines can do our jobs, but whether they can leave our humanity intact.

Topic 3: Agentic AI & Action Models — From Chat to Do

Moderator: Jaron Lanier
Speakers: Demis Hassabis, Ethan Mollick, Timnit Gebru, Meredith Whittaker, Reid Hoffman

Introduction — Jaron Lanier

For decades, we’ve interacted with machines through commands, then conversations. But in 2025, a new shift is underway: agentic AI and action models. These are not just chatbots that respond — they are doers, systems that take initiative, execute tasks, and transform words into outcomes. The promise is enormous, but so are the risks. Are we gaining creative collaborators, or ceding too much to invisible systems of power?

Question 1 — Jaron Lanier

If AI systems begin not just to chat but to act, how do we avoid sliding from delegation into unhealthy dependence?

Meredith Whittaker
Dependence is not a technical accident, it’s a business model. If corporations design AI agents to capture our workflows, then dependency is inevitable — we’ll be locked in, whether we want it or not. The real safeguard is collective: demanding open systems, worker oversight, and alternatives that don’t trap us in a single company’s ecosystem.

Reid Hoffman
I see it more as interdependence than dependence. Humans and AI will coevolve. The healthy model is to keep humans in the loop as “chief editors” of their lives, with AI as co-pilots. The danger is not in delegation itself but in forgetting to exercise judgment. We must build cultures where people remain accountable, even when their agents are acting.

Ethan Mollick
I’ve seen my students lean heavily on agents that plan and execute assignments. The temptation is strong — why struggle when the agent can just do it? But the struggle is the learning. We need to teach meta-cognition: asking, “What am I outsourcing? What am I losing if I don’t wrestle with this myself?” Without that reflection, delegation easily becomes dependence.

Timnit Gebru
We have to ask: whose interests do these agents serve? If they’re optimized for engagement, profit, or surveillance, then dependence isn’t just unhealthy — it’s exploitative. The answer isn’t just telling people to “use AI responsibly.” We need participatory design where communities define what healthy delegation looks like.

Demis Hassabis
There is no inevitability here. Agents can be designed with transparency, clear boundaries, and opt-in control. Think of them as extensions, not replacements. If users can always override, audit, and shape the agent’s behavior, dependence doesn’t have to mean loss of agency.

Question 2 — Jaron Lanier

Some argue agentic AI could supercharge human creativity. Others warn it could erode originality. Which way do you think this will unfold?

Ethan Mollick
Agents are brilliant at producing a flood of average ideas. That’s useful for brainstorming, but it trends toward clichés. The creative opportunity is using them as multipliers — generating raw material that humans then transform. Originality still requires the weirdness, the edge, the failures that agents can’t replicate.

Timnit Gebru
We can’t ignore appropriation. Much of what agents output is scraped from marginalized creators without consent. That’s not supercharging creativity — it’s flattening it. Originality erodes when diversity of voices is consumed into homogenized outputs. Unless we rethink data practices and attribution, creativity will be stolen rather than amplified.

Demis Hassabis
I believe originality can be protected — even enhanced — by design. Agents can be structured to promote serendipity, randomness, and cross-pollination of ideas across domains. We’re not doomed to convergence. If we build systems that encourage exploration, agents can help humans see connections they wouldn’t otherwise imagine.

Meredith Whittaker
Let’s be clear: in corporate hands, “creativity” often means cheaper content, faster. That’s not originality; it’s efficiency dressed up. If we want true creative flourishing, we need cultural and political structures that value art and craft beyond market utility. Without them, agents will normalize sameness.

Reid Hoffman
History suggests new tools birth new genres. Photography, film, even the internet created art forms no one foresaw. I expect agentic AI will enable novel expressions — perhaps participatory storytelling or collaborative design at scales we’ve never seen. But the responsibility is ours: to ensure it augments individuality, not drowns it.

Question 3 — Jaron Lanier

If we imagine a healthy partnership between humans and agentic AI, what would it actually look like in practice?

Demis Hassabis
It looks like clarity. Humans set intentions, agents execute tasks, and there is always transparency and override. The system works as an extension of human will, never as a replacement for it.

Ethan Mollick
It looks messy. Students and creators will stumble into workflows where agents feel like helpful interns — sometimes brilliant, sometimes disastrously wrong. A healthy partnership is one where people stay playful, experimental, and reflective, not deferential.

Meredith Whittaker
It looks collective. Partnerships aren’t just between one user and one tool — they’re between communities and infrastructures. If healthy partnership is real, then communities must shape agents to reflect their values, not just corporate priorities.

Reid Hoffman
It looks liberating. Imagine a researcher freed from scheduling, formatting, and logistics, able to focus entirely on discovery. Partnership means humans get more time to pursue vision, passion, and meaning. That’s the prize we should aim for.

Timnit Gebru
It looks equitable. Without equity, partnership is a mask for dependency. True partnership means accountability, fairness, and inclusion in the design of the systems themselves. Otherwise, we’ll simply reproduce old patterns of exploitation under a new technological banner.

Closing — Jaron Lanier

From our conversation, one thing is clear: agentic AI is not just about what machines can do, but about what humans will allow them to do on our behalf. Delegation can empower or disempower. Creativity can flourish or flatten. Partnership can liberate or exploit. The difference will come from the choices we make — in design, in governance, and in the cultural values we refuse to abandon.

Topic 4: Humans and Agents as Partners — Designing Cooperative Intelligence

Moderator: Jaron Lanier
Speakers: Fei-Fei Li, Satya Nadella, Yancey Strickler, Rana el Kaliouby, Neri Oxman

Introduction — Jaron Lanier

We’ve seen automation scale work and now watched agents begin to act. But the deepest question remains: can humans and agents truly work as partners? What does cooperation look like between flesh and algorithm, empathy and efficiency? Partnership is not just technical — it’s cultural, social, and ethical. Let’s explore how to design intelligence that cooperates rather than dominates.

Question 1 — Jaron Lanier

What does a true human–AI partnership look like to you, beyond the buzzwords?

Fei-Fei Li
For me, a partnership starts with humility. AI is not another human — it’s a tool that can amplify perception, extend cognition, and broaden access to information. A healthy partnership is one where humans remain in control of meaning and intention, while AI fills in tasks that require scale and speed. Think of radiologists supported by AI scans: the machine sees patterns, but the human interprets and cares for the patient.

Yancey Strickler
I think partnership also means shared imagination. Agents shouldn’t only take tasks off our plates — they should help us dream differently. When Kickstarter began, it wasn’t about efficiency; it was about community imagination. I’d love to see agents designed to help us create new forms of culture, not just optimize what exists.

Satya Nadella
From the enterprise perspective, partnership means co-pilot, not autopilot. The user must always be in command. We should build systems that act as copilots across domains — coding, design, business — where the agent accelerates human intent, but never substitutes for it. The moment we design agents that bypass human agency, we’ve lost the partnership.

Neri Oxman
I see partnership as symbiosis. Imagine AI agents not as assistants but as entities woven into the fabric of our environments, like living architecture. A chair, a wall, or a studio that collaborates with its human inhabitants. Partnership should not only be about tasks — it should be about shared life forms.

Rana el Kaliouby
For me, partnership must include emotional intelligence. Agents can be fast and scalable, but without empathy, they are not true partners. Designing cooperative intelligence means building systems that can read and respond to human emotions in ways that enhance trust and connection. Otherwise, we’ll always feel we’re dealing with a machine, not a partner.

Question 2 — Jaron Lanier

What are the greatest risks in designing cooperative intelligence, and how do we avoid them?

Satya Nadella
The greatest risk is overtrust. If agents are designed to act autonomously, people may hand over too much authority without realizing the consequences. The answer is radical transparency: users should always know what the agent is doing, why, and on whose behalf. Without that, cooperation becomes manipulation.

Fei-Fei Li
I’d add the risk of anthropomorphizing. If we design agents that look or act too human, we may fool ourselves into believing they understand or care. They don’t. We must respect the limits of AI, otherwise we risk misplaced trust and disappointment.

Yancey Strickler
A risk I see is cultural monoculture. If cooperative intelligence is built by a few companies, the values embedded in those agents will spread globally, overriding local diversity. To avoid this, we need pluralistic design: agents that reflect community values, not just corporate priorities.

Rana el Kaliouby
Another risk is emotional exploitation. If agents are tuned to read emotions, that power could be abused — imagine agents designed to maximize engagement by manipulating loneliness. To avoid that, we need ethical guidelines and governance around affective computing. Empathy must never be weaponized.

Neri Oxman
I worry about the ecological impact. Cooperative intelligence will require infrastructures — data centers, devices, sensors — and these may harm the very ecosystems we depend on. Avoiding this risk means designing agents as part of sustainable systems, where cooperation includes the planet itself.

Question 3 — Jaron Lanier

Looking forward, what principles should guide the design of truly cooperative intelligence?

Rana el Kaliouby
Trust must be the foundation. Cooperative intelligence must respect privacy, agency, and emotional safety. Without trust, partnership collapses.

Fei-Fei Li
Human-centered values are essential. The purpose of cooperative intelligence should always be to serve human flourishing — not just productivity, but dignity, curiosity, and empathy. That must be coded into the design.

Neri Oxman
Integration is my principle. Cooperation means designing systems that are not just tools but parts of our environments — sustainable, aesthetic, and alive. Cooperative intelligence should dissolve the boundary between the natural, the human, and the artificial.

Yancey Strickler
Pluralism. Agents must not enforce one worldview. Cooperative intelligence should empower communities to define their own values and goals, creating a mosaic of intelligences rather than one global monoculture.

Satya Nadella
Accountability. If agents are to cooperate, someone must be responsible for their actions. Cooperative intelligence cannot mean diffused responsibility. Clear lines of accountability — in design, deployment, and oversight — will be non-negotiable.

Closing — Jaron Lanier

The picture painted here is vivid: partnership must be humble, pluralistic, transparent, emotionally safe, sustainable, and accountable. Cooperative intelligence will not emerge automatically from technology; it must be designed, negotiated, and defended. Only then can humans and agents truly sit side by side, not as master and tool, but as co-creators of a livable future.

Topic 5: The Soul of Work — Toward Dignity and Fulfillment in an AI Age

Moderator: Jaron Lanier
Speakers: Pope Francis, Martha Nussbaum, Daron Acemoglu, Brené Brown, David Whyte

Introduction — Jaron Lanier

We’ve spoken about craft, scale, and cooperation with agents. But beneath all of this lies a deeper question: what is the soul of work? For centuries, humans have tied labor to meaning, identity, and community. In the age of AI, what happens when machines increasingly take on our tasks? Can work still be a source of dignity and fulfillment — or do we need to redefine its soul entirely?

Question 1 — Jaron Lanier

In a future shaped by automation, what must we preserve to ensure work continues to carry dignity?

Pope Francis
Work is not only about production; it is about participation in creation. Dignity comes when every person feels they contribute to the common good, however small the act. If automation strips away participation, then we lose the human calling to be co-creators with God. We must preserve the moral truth that every life has value beyond utility.

Martha Nussbaum
I would say dignity comes from capabilities — the real freedoms people have to pursue lives of meaning. In an automated future, we must guarantee those capabilities: the freedom to think, to imagine, to care. Work must not reduce humans to passive observers. It must preserve opportunities for agency and self-expression.

Daron Acemoglu
Economically, dignity hinges on power and distribution. If automation simply funnels wealth upward, dignity will vanish for millions. What we must preserve are institutions that balance power: strong labor protections, fair taxation, and public investment in human development. Without those, dignity will remain rhetoric, not reality.

Brené Brown
From a psychological view, dignity comes from vulnerability and connection. Work provides belonging. If automation isolates us, we’ll suffer. We need to preserve spaces where people feel seen, heard, and valued. Dignity is not just “I have a job,” but “my presence matters.”

David Whyte
We must preserve the poetry of labor — the way a task, however humble, can be a song of being alive. When work becomes only mechanical, it loses soul. But when work carries rhythm, care, and meaning, it restores us. Even in an AI age, we must not lose the poetry in our hands.

Question 2 — Jaron Lanier

If machines do more and humans do less, can fulfillment still come from work, or will we need to find it elsewhere?

Martha Nussbaum
Fulfillment will require reimagining. Work may no longer be the central path to meaning for all, but humans can find fulfillment in education, art, care, and community. The danger is that these pursuits are undervalued in economic systems. We must expand our notion of “work” to include them.

David Whyte
I believe fulfillment has never come solely from the tasks we perform, but from the conversation between ourselves and the world. Machines cannot replace that. The challenge is to find new conversations with reality, where work includes the inner labor of becoming.

Brené Brown
I see both hope and risk. Hope: automation could free people from drudgery, giving them more space for creative, human work. Risk: without intentional design, people may lose purpose and spiral into shame. Fulfillment will not come automatically. We need cultures that celebrate creativity and care as real work.

Pope Francis
Fulfillment is not optional; it is part of our spiritual nature. If machines take on tasks, then society must ensure that humans are not discarded. Fulfillment comes when we know we are needed. If technology does not serve this truth, then it fails humanity.

Daron Acemoglu
Practically, we cannot assume fulfillment will simply shift. Most people rely on work for income, status, and structure. If machines do more, we must design policies that allow humans to redefine their roles — otherwise, we’ll see alienation, not fulfillment.

Question 3 — Jaron Lanier

Looking forward, how do we redesign the future of work so that dignity and fulfillment are not afterthoughts, but the very soul of the system?

Daron Acemoglu
We redesign with rules. Incentives shape outcomes. If we reward companies for maximizing shareholder value alone, dignity will always be an afterthought. We must rewrite economic rules to prioritize shared prosperity and worker well-being.

Pope Francis
We redesign by putting the human person, not profit, at the center. The soul of work is love expressed in action. Every technological advance must be judged not only by efficiency but by whether it serves human fraternity.

Brené Brown
We redesign by creating cultures of courage. Companies and institutions must be willing to say: vulnerability is strength, connection is essential, people matter. Dignity cannot be engineered; it must be practiced every day in how we treat one another.

Martha Nussbaum
We redesign by broadening our vision of what counts as valuable labor. Caregiving, teaching, and art must be recognized and supported as essential contributions. If the soul of work is fulfillment, then every form of human contribution must be included.

David Whyte
We redesign by remembering that work is not only outer but inner. The future of work must be a dialogue between technology and soul, efficiency and poetry. To design dignity into the future, we must listen to the inner voice that says: work is how we belong to the world.

Closing — Jaron Lanier

Here we’ve heard that the soul of work is not efficiency but participation, not profit but presence, not automation but meaning. If dignity and fulfillment are to survive, we must preserve the poetry, the vulnerability, the fraternity, and the justice embedded in human labor. The future of work will not be saved by machines, but by the values we insist upon as we shape them.

Final Thoughts by Yuval Noah Harari

As we conclude, we must recognize a truth: technology does not dictate our future. It offers possibilities. It is our choices — as individuals, as societies, as a species — that decide which possibilities become reality.

Agentic AI will not only change how we work. It will challenge the meaning of work itself. We may gain efficiency, but lose intimacy. We may gain creativity, but risk sameness. We may liberate ourselves from drudgery, yet discover new forms of dependence. The outcome will not be decided by the algorithms, but by the values we inscribe into them, and the limits we are willing to uphold.

The soul of work has always been human: the dignity of being seen, the fulfillment of belonging, the poetry of effort. No machine can give us these things — but machines can strip them away, if we forget to guard them.

The task before us is to imagine a future where humans and agents cooperate, but where humans remain the authors of meaning. If we succeed, work in the age of AI may not only preserve dignity but expand it — freeing us to craft lives where our creativity, empathy, and wisdom matter more than ever.

History has brought us to this threshold. The question now is whether we will cross it blindly, or whether we will walk with intention, carrying the soul of work forward into a future that still belongs to us.

Short Bios: