Natural Intelligence First, Everything Else Second

Almost every moment of our lives, we find ourselves grappling with technological changes that are unfolding at an extraordinary pace, making them increasingly difficult to keep up with.

Let us consider, for example, what the developers of AI (artificial intelligence) artificial intelligence models have to say about this. To paraphrase Jacob Coxon, a former engineer at Anthropic, the development of AI is a race, a frantic competition in which companies are not acting responsibly but gambling with our lives. The words of another researcher from the same company, Evan Hubinger, also attracted considerable public attention. He estimated that there is more than a 10% probability that AI could cause the extinction of humanity.

This is a prediction, not a verdict. I will venture to suggest that AI technologies are now developing almost of their own accord, beyond our control. Or, to put it differently, even where oversight exists, it is often guided by the values of individuals whose actions may harm humanity as a whole.

The important question, therefore, is not how to develop and implement technological change, but how to ensure that we are also capable of governing it. We cannot ignore the fact that we are dealing with a technology that even leading experts recognise as a potential source of systemic risk.

This brings us to a fundamental realisation: society underpins technological development, and behind technological innovation are people — the very people these technologies are intended to serve, or should be intended to serve. I do not intend to bore you with sociological theories and perspectives, but, broadly speaking, society is a complex concept encompassing structures and institutions, as well as the relationships, values and beliefs embodied by people.

Let us not forget that society emerged and exists for the benefit of people, not the other way around. Its purpose is to enable organisation, cooperation and well-being — although when and where things go wrong is a discussion for another time.

Technology, too, exists for society, not the other way around. Its purpose is to facilitate organisation and cooperation and to make prosperity more attainable

Individuals often feel trapped by society. Today, we can say that society and its members increasingly feel trapped by technology. But let us not forget causality and the age-old question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? We now know that it was the chicken. And that realisation gives us the means to act and empower ourselves.

Regardless of which aspect of technology we choose to highlight, or how we envision its future role, I believe it is essential to look back and focus on the dynamics of society. Every industrial revolution has triggered profound changes that have shaken the foundations of society and transformed the way we live.

The First Industrial Revolution brought the steam engine, (excessively) rapid urbanisation and the concentration of capital in the hands of factory and manufacturing owners. Traditional systems of values began to disintegrate.

The Second Industrial Revolution introduced the automation of production processes and the assembly-line model, famously illustrated by Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times. The pressures of mechanisation and industrial capitalism further accelerated social change, encouraged the organisation of the working class, and inspired numerous social critiques and reflections on the meaning and manner of life. Let us also remember that technological developments enabled new forms of warfare, contributing to the outbreak of the First World War, also known as the Great War.

Yet the erosion of traditional values and the resulting social crises also had a number of positive consequences. Affiliation with a particular social estate, class or gender became less restrictive. Social mobility, although still significant and unevenly accessible, became considerably easier than under rigid, highly stratified feudal structures, which severely limited opportunities for upward social mobility.

The Third, or Information Revolution, brought numerous changes that enabled greater connectivity, new spaces for cooperation and new opportunities for civic engagement. The initial enthusiasm surrounding new technologies and freedom of expression online was soon overshadowed by the bitter realisation that technologies intended to serve people had fallen into the clutches of corporations and their algorithms. This, however, reflects the way society operates, rather than the workings of inherently evil technologies.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution introduced smart technologies designed to connect machines, data and automation. Most of us are still trying to understand their reach and significance. And that is without even considering the emergence of AI, which acts as the driving force behind these processes. It is therefore entirely legitimate to ask ourselves: where exactly are we rushing towards?

Decades ago, the renowned sociologist Anthony Giddens compared modern society to a runaway juggernaut — a powerful machine requiring a firm hand at the controls. At the time, he could not yet have taken artificial intelligence as we know it today into account.

This brief and necessarily general journey into the past shows us, above all, that social changes have often been unpredictable, though not entirely beyond our control. They have frequently been driven by the desire to improve quality of life, strengthen human connections and create new opportunities. Yet looking at the present, we can see that these developments have brought us — or at least accompanied us — into a situation in which geopolitical tensions are escalating, social bonds are weakening and cohesion at the global level is breaking down. Last but not least, the planet that sustains our lives is facing biodiversity loss, deforestation, climate change and other environmental challenges.

As a society, and as individuals, we are aware of these issues to varying degrees. This is also why we have introduced and continue to develop the concept of Industry 5.0 across policy design and implementation, business, academia and civil society.

Technological innovation must support social innovation so that it serves all of humanity — and, if I may take this a step further, the entire planet. Social innovation encompasses new ideas, practices, activities, models and processes that address societal challenges, improve quality of life, and strengthen connections and cooperation within communities.

In the contemporary context, the concept of community is fluid and expansive. Technological development has enabled us to extend its boundaries, from small family units and professional communities to national communities and even a global community.

Some might ask: why should we concern ourselves with others when we already have enough problems of our own? Let me address two questions:

1. Why does this matter?
2. Why is this a challenge for us as human beings — and, at the same time, an opportunity for understanding, reflection and better ways of acting?

1. Why does this matter?

As I have already mentioned, technology should serve to improve and facilitate the organisation and functioning of society and its individual members, with the broader aim of enhancing prosperity and well-being. However, if we accept that technology is intended to serve society, we must also recognise that both technology and society depend on natural resources for their existence.

Let us not forget that AI requires enormous amounts of energy, data centres, chips, raw materials and infrastructure.

At this point, it is not enough to talk merely about sustainability or sustainable development — concepts that have arguably become almost hollow through overuse. The problem lies in the fact that our society is built on the paradigm of exponential development, with technological progress closely intertwined with economic growth. Continuous growth is supposed to improve our quality of life and living conditions. Yet we have not reached that destination. On the contrary, we are sawing off the very branch on which we are sitting.

What we need is a fundamental shift in values — a quantum leap in thinking that situates humanity and society, together with technology, within the interconnected system of the biosphere. We need a planetary shift in perspective, one that recognises Earth as a complex, interconnected system that is also remarkably fragile when its balance is disrupted.

Artificial intelligence is a subset of natural intelligence. The digital world is not immaterial: the cloud is still on Earth, and it runs on the planet’s resources.

When we discuss our future — how to enhance prosperity, improve work processes, increase productivity and achieve other objectives — I believe it is entirely appropriate to recall and reflect on the words of astronaut Jeremy Hansen, a member of the Artemis II mission:

“We live on a fragile planet in the vacuum and the void of space. Our purpose on the planet as humans is to find joy, to find the joy in lifting each other up by creating solutions together instead of destroying. And when you see it from out here, it doesn't change it, it just absolutely reaffirms that. It's almost like seeing living proof of it.”

This emotional and poetic perspective was also present in earlier space missions. Bill Anders, a member of the Apollo 8 mission, famously said: “We travelled all this way to explore the Moon, and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth.”

We need a cognitive shift — one that expands the boundaries of our existence, our communities and our sense of belonging, making them less exclusive.

2. Why is expanding our boundaries such a challenge?

This brings us to the second question: why is moving beyond our imagined and physical boundaries such a significant challenge for us as human beings?

In this context, we cannot overlook the biological and cultural patterns that shape how we behave and organise ourselves within communities. For most of our existence, humans lived in small communities where people knew one another and maintained close relationships.

At this point, you may find Robin Dunbar’s hypothesis interesting. He linked the size of the neocortex — the cerebral cortex — in primates to the size of their social groups. According to this hypothesis, humans are capable of maintaining stable social relationships within communities of approximately 150 individuals. Although the hypothesis has attracted considerable criticism, it remains a subject of debate. Some research has also explored its relevance to actual social networks: despite having thousands of listed friends, people tend to maintain active relationships with only a limited number of individuals, approaching the figure suggested by Dunbar.

From the very beginning, the existence of communities has depended on recognising boundaries and establishing a clear sense of belonging. The idea of the Other plays an important role in shaping and preserving identity: the Other is, in essence, someone who is not like us. These processes of identification are accompanied by strong emotional responses.

Technological development and the growing complexity of society have enabled us to expand the boundaries of belonging and imagine them within the framework of the nation-state. Despite various efforts and visions, however, we have not truly moved much further.

In fact, recent developments point towards the opposite tendencies: the polarisation of opinions and identity groups on social media, escalating geopolitical tensions, and the rise of extremist ideological movements.

Perhaps the idea of planetary interconnectedness and a global identity seems illusory or meaningless to you. Yet history shows that things are constantly changing and that social processes move through cyclical fluctuations. Change often begins to take shape within the realm of ideas.

We need appropriate knowledge, as well as cooperation, connection and co-creation, to enable a shift at both the cognitive and emotional levels. In this context, AI can be an exceptionally important tool — but regulation and the way it is used are crucial.

The key competencies and knowledge we need go far beyond digital literacy and the ability to understand and use AI. They also include emotional intelligence, self-awareness and a renewed value system in which we do not selfishly compete against one another but learn to cooperate.

These are not merely empty utopian fantasies. They represent a necessary shift in how we think and act. Otherwise, we risk facing the worst kind of dystopia.

The question is no longer simply what AI can do or where its limits lie. The more important question is: what kind of world do we want to create with the help of AI?

Human beings must decide what is enough, and when. AI can optimise manufacturing, logistics, energy systems, transport, business processes and much more. But we, as human beings, must not become mere users and consumers. We must remain creators.

The question at the heart of Industry 5.0 is not what technology will be capable of, but what we, as human beings, will do with it. The purpose of technology must remain to ensure that human beings remain human. And our home is this planet — let us not forget that.

We do not need only better technology. We also need greater responsibility at every level of society: micro, meso and macro.

Let me leave you with a provocative thought: if AI makes us more productive and more successful in our work and businesses, how will we truly know whether we are living better as a result?

We can express the equation for the present and the future — in the context of responsible AI adoption, its integration into everyday business operations, and the impact of advanced technologies on society and the economy — as follows:

Human beings, collectively + Technology + Planet.