If AI soon surpasses humans in most intellectual and manual tasks, will our natural limitations be viewed as disabilities by comparison?

 

In a competitive, deregulated market, the calculus is simple: if AI can outperform humans in most intellectual and manual tasks, replacing workers becomes a rational business decision. Machines don’t need health insurance, don’t take sick days, and don’t unionize. They deliver consistent output, scale instantly, and reduce overhead. From this vantage point, human limitations aren’t just inefficiencies—they’re liabilities. Framing those limitations as “disabilities” isn’t far off when productivity is the only metric that matters.

 

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

 

Markets follow incentives, and incentives are shaped by people—by policy, by public demand, by collective values. If we want AI to serve humanity rather than displace it, we must redirect its development toward people-centered goals.

 

AI doesn’t have to be a force of exclusion. It can be a tool for inclusion, equity, and shared prosperity—if we choose to make it so. The future isn’t just shaped by algorithms; it’s shaped by us.

​