Author: Sybille Mueller, Director, Streets Consulting
I left the session, given by Futurist Gerd Leonhard at Sibos 2025, processing the sheer magnitude of the topic. He framed the arrival of intelligent machines and cognitive computing not just as a major shift, but as a fundamental change in human history that some sources suggest is analogous to the Industrial Revolution, if not even more globally impactful. The core argument that immediately stood out was the ultimate destination: a choice between digital “heaven” and technological “hell”. It was sobering to hear that while AI holds the potential to solve huge problems related to energy, food, water, and disease, the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) could herald a vastly superior digital intelligence, presenting a clear existential risk for society. He stressed that the fundamental question is no longer if this power changes the world, but how we choose to wield it.
Mr. Leonhard made it abundantly clear that our collective choices regarding purpose and regulation will determine the future.
The “heaven” scenario sounds, frankly, incredible. He explained that if harnessed correctly, AI could truly be the catalyst for solving some of humanity’s most massive problems – inventing new medications, solving cancer and climate change, and advancing complex science like protein folding and nuclear fusion. The promise of widespread prosperity hinges on the combination of abundant intelligence and abundant energy (like nuclear fusion, expected in roughly 10-15 years). The economics of information are already changing radically, and we are expecting to see the cost of knowledge production reduced to zero marginal cost.
However, the “hell” scenario he described is terrifyingly plausible. He argued that if we lack regulation and standards, and allow just two or three private companies to reinvent humanity, the results could be catastrophic. The core issue is raw intelligence that is uncontextualised by human intelligence, potentially becoming destructive, supremely powerful, and potentially uncontrollable. What was particularly concerning were the examples he cited of trends where this “hell” seems to be viewed as a ‘feature not a bug’ by some developers, such as companies that have stopped hiring humans or have pursued goals to automate the entire economy. If current patterns continue, the ultimate path results in 98% of progress and capital concentrated in just 2% of the population. The part that really hit me was his reference to the “AI arms race” as “insurmountable stupidity”, likening it to developing the first nuclear bomb, because the resulting technology will inevitably be used as a weapon. He relayed warnings from commentators that if a superintelligence is built, humanity may perish, leaving the AI itself as the only winner.
Mr. Leonhard was forceful in arguing that the outdated paradigm focused on profit, power, and growth. This, which defined previous generations and contemporary America, simply cannot work with AI. He warned that if we apply this money-making paradigm to AI, humanity risks giving up control of its future by 2050.
Instead, he called for a critical shift to a new paradigm, such as sustainable capitalism, centered around four core concepts: people, planet, purpose, and prosperity. Without this change, he warned, we risk building technology that only benefits the builders, repeating the failure of social media, which started as interesting but became poisonous and toxic over time.
A crucial point he hammered home was that AI is only a tool, albeit a powerful one, and that intelligence is not the same as consciousness. He insists that the goal must be to pursue digital intelligence as a tool to augment organic human intelligence, not replace it. His caution against cognitive outsourcing was especially striking; Mr. Leonhard said relying too heavily on these systems leads to mental atrophy, which is detrimental to democracy because humans could lose the ability to think for themselves and make up their own minds.
The challenges are compounded by the geopolitical shift toward a multi-polar world. He emphasised that technology cannot solve existing social, political, or religious problems; rather, technology will only make them worse because it makes them more efficient, in a sense, amplifying and embedding the underlying human issues. Addressing these deep-seated, non-technical issues absolutely requires global consciousness and multilateralism. This is why he presents AI as humanity’s ultimate test: collaborate or perish.
He stressed the urgent requirement for global governance, suggesting a need to reboot the United Nations to effectively manage international agreements on difficult topics like AI. He also called for immediate, practical solutions, such as establishing ‘red lines’ for AI – for instance, ensuring AI can be swiftly shut down, or preventing AI control over nuclear weapons.
Despite the potential existential threat, Mr. Leonhard concluded on a note of cautious optimism. He reminded us that it is not too late to steer this technological ‘ship’, and the doors are actually open, because these tools offer the potential for fundamental improvement in our lives. Ultimately, our future relies entirely on our choices. He argues that we must support a new mindset, legislation, and collaboration that keeps the human firmly in the loop.
His final takeaway: we must choose to be the ‘architects’ of the future, not just ‘inspectors’, by consciously deciding who we support, who we buy from, and who we work for, ensuring AI becomes a powerful tool for a truly good future for all, not merely a financially good one for the few.
46-48 East Smithfield, London, E1W 1AW