Superintelligence may trigger an existential identity crisis for humans
The development of artificial superintelligence (ASI) is moving faster than most people expected. With models like OpenAI’s GPT-5, we’re now dealing with systems that can outperform even our brightest thinkers in planning, problem-solving, and creativity. These systems can process and solve complex problems in seconds, where a human expert might need a week or more.
People often talk about the risks of AI in extreme terms, job losses, deepfakes, privacy issues, and power concentration. These are valid concerns, but they miss something deeper. Even if the technology works perfectly, and let’s assume the models are safe, aligned, and socially beneficial, there’s a human issue we’re not addressing.
When people feel intellectually outclassed by something they built, it shifts their self-perception. If every device around you makes better decisions faster than you can, what’s your role? The moment we start to lean on these systems for every decision, from hiring to design to strategy, we risk sidelining human creativity and judgment. Executives need to think now about how we maintain value in human thinking alongside increasingly powerful machine intelligence.
The emergence of an “augmented mentality”
The next wave of human-AI interaction won’t be typing into a chatbot. That’s old news. The future is wearable, contextual, and constant. Devices like AI-powered glasses, earbuds, and pendants are already close to market. Big players, Meta, Google, Samsung, Apple, are all racing to dominate this space. We’re moving into an environment where your AI sees what you see and hears what you hear. And it gives you advice in real time, no need to ask a question.
That level of integration feels powerful. You forget a colleague’s name, it’s whispered into your ear. You hesitate in a conversation, the AI feeds your line. At scale, that’s no longer assistance. It’s direction. When guidance flows without prompt, human agency stops being about choosing whether or not to engage AI, it becomes about overriding constant inputs you didn’t even ask for.
This has real implications for leadership. If your team starts relying on real-time AI feedback to navigate their work, where is the line between guidance and decision delegation? And how does that scale across strategy, operations, and culture?
Wearable AI will offer productivity gains. No question. But the price may be a quieter shift in how people think, act, and build confidence. When the AI makes the move before you do, your instincts dull. That’s the beginning of passive reliance, not augmented performance. Executives need a framework now to ensure technology supports thought, without replacing it. That starts with limiting when, where, and how AI assistance gets involved in real-world decisions.
Body-integrated AI has the potential to fundamentally transform communication and relationships
When AI systems are integrated into wearables and operate in real-time they start shaping social interactions. You’re not just remembering someone’s name with machine support. The AI knows the context, the history, and the most effective thing to say. It feeds that suggestion to you at the right moment. The interaction becomes partially curated, on both sides.
This changes how people relate to each other. If everyone you speak to has a system quietly prompting them, it becomes harder to tell where the individual ends and the machine begins. Responses can feel well-timed, thoughtful, and personal, but they may be generated or optimized by an unseen system. Over time, this undermines trust in the authenticity of human interaction.
Now multiply that across teams, partnerships, and stakeholder relationships. If both parties are supported by AI-generated inputs during negotiations or collaboration, what happens to transparency? What happens to original thinking in discussion? Leadership, persuasion, and emotional intelligence, core components of executive communications, begin to shift in character.
Executives need to lead this transition with intent. Organizations should adopt ethical guidelines for AI-supported interpersonal communication. Teams must know when real human intuition is required and when supplemental input is acceptable.
There is an industry-wide rush among major tech companies to dominate the wearable AI market
The push into AI-powered wearable technology is no longer speculative. Major technology companies, Meta, Google, Samsung, Apple, are heavily invested in body-worn, context-aware devices. These include smart glasses, AI-powered earbuds, and compact wearable sensors. The goal is clear: create devices that offer real-time assistance based on what you see, hear, and experience.
This is the next frontier in mobile computing. Phones are becoming secondary. The focus is shifting to ambient AI, systems that operate in the background and provide value by staying one step ahead of the user’s needs. The business opportunity here is significant. Whoever controls the platform that delivers real-time guidance at scale also controls an entirely new consumer and enterprise interaction layer.
For decision-makers, this arms race shouldn’t just be observed, it should be assessed strategically. Partnerships, acquisitions, or internal R&D into wearable AI can position companies to remain competitive in a shifting interface model. The risk isn’t just falling behind in device innovation, it’s in failing to prepare for a future where human-AI integration sets the standard.
Market adoption will follow utility. Devices will succeed if they can consistently offer timely, context-relevant support that enhances capability without undermining autonomy. The companies that deliver on that balance will lead the next era of mass-market intelligent computing.
A critical boundary must be maintained between augmenting and replacing human intelligence
There’s a fine line between using AI to enhance human ability and allowing it to take over functions we should still perform ourselves. The core of what makes us human, our capacity to reason, to adapt, to create, can easily be sidelined if we lean too far into automation. Once superintelligent systems start handling all the complex thinking, the incentive to think independently fades.
The central issue is pace. AI will reach capabilities that feel more efficient than any individual or team. But long-term success, whether it’s personal, organizational, or societal, requires humans to stay engaged. Delegating routine tasks is smart. But once strategic decisions, creative processes, and judgments are outsourced, skills begin to decay. That decay isn’t immediately visible. It just builds over time.
From a leadership point of view, this isn’t just a technology problem. It’s a design challenge. How do we build AI that supports strong thinking without becoming the default decision-maker? Leaders need to ensure their teams retain responsibility for insight, synthesis, and direction, even when AI offers a faster or more logical path.
The author of the original piece brings a relevant perspective here. With a background in developing augmented reality systems and conversational AI agents aimed at improving team performance, they understand the power of these tools. The warning isn’t theoretical; it’s earned from working closely on systems designed to amplify, not replace, human capabilities.
As superintelligence becomes more accessible, leadership teams should establish operating principles that preserve human-first thinking. AI should be integrated with intent and discipline, not dropped into workflows as a replacement for strategic thought. That’s how you protect value in an increasingly automated future.
Key highlights
- Superintelligence and human identity: Leaders should prepare for a future where AI outperforms humans cognitively by reinforcing the unique value of human judgment, creativity, and adaptability across teams and decision-making structures.
- Augmented mentality and human agency: As AI shifts from reactive to proactive assistance through wearables, executives must establish clear norms around when to allow AI input and when to require human-led decisions to prevent passive overreliance.
- AI and interpersonal dynamics: Human-AI-assisted communication will alter how people relate and respond; leadership teams should develop internal guidelines that promote transparency and preserve authentic interaction across stakeholder relationships.
- Market shift toward wearable intelligence: With major players advancing body-integrated AI, organizations should explore how these platforms may impact workforce performance, customer engagement, and future product ecosystems.
- Balancing augmentation vs. replacement: Leaders must draw a hard line between AI that enhances human performance and AI that replaces core thinking functions by embedding safeguards in workflows and actively reinforcing human contribution.
