Realizing the Generative AI Opportunity: Are You Kidding Me?

AWS sponsored this study from the Harvard Business Review. And like the 2025 Future of Jobs report released by the WEF, it missed the bus when it comes to the latest developments in AI (mostly from China) and the recent geopolitical realignments.

But seriously, are we being sold an AI-powered utopia or just another elite wealth grab?

Generative AI—the latest shiny object in the corporate tech arsenal, promising a future where robots handle all the boring and dangerous stuff while we, the former working class, sip piña coladas and “pursue our passions” (which, according to LinkedIn influencers, means opening a wellness blog). Goldman Sachs, with its usual unwavering optimism, projects a $7 trillion boost in global GDP and a 1.5 percentage point productivity increase over the next decade thanks to AI. Lovely.

Except there’s a slight problem. A tiny little oversight. A question so fundamental that even a malfunctioning ChatGPT instance could generate it: If millions of jobs get obliterated, who exactly is going to buy all this productivity?

The AI Job Displacement Olympics: White vs. Blue Collar Edition

Yes, AI, AI agents, and AI-powered robotics will accelerate automation, faster than you can say “pivot to a new career.” Unlike previous waves of automation that primarily hit manufacturing jobs, AI has its sights set on everyone—from factory workers to middle managers to graphic designers who thought their jobs were safe because “creativity can’t be automated.” (Spoiler: It can, and it has.)

Upskilling and reskilling, the buzzwords corporate execs love to throw around, sound great in theory—except that STEM education is already trailing behind reality at the pace of a dial-up connection. The public sector, which is responsible for education, has about as much money to compete with the private sector as a lemonade stand competing with Coca-Cola. Tech firms hoard AI talent with six-figure salaries, while public education institutions are still struggling to find someone willing to teach computer science for $50K and free cafeteria lunches.

But Hey, Let’s Talk About the Real Winners: The AI Elite

Let’s assume, for a moment, that AI does deliver on its productivity promise. Costs go down, efficiency goes up, and businesses are rolling in profits. Wonderful! But again—who’s going to buy the goods and services produced by all this AI-powered efficiency if half the workforce has been replaced by chatbots and warehouse robots?

If history has taught us anything (spoiler: it hasn’t), it’s that productivity gains rarely trickle down. The 20th century saw industrial automation turn factory workers into former factory workers, and yet CEO pay soared while real wages stagnated. This time, instead of manual laborers, it’s everyone on the chopping block. And where does all that AI-driven wealth go? Straight to the elites who own the capital.

Jeff Bezos isn’t going to suddenly start buying ten thousand AI-generated shoes just because his AI-powered warehouses made them cheaper. And no, venture capitalists aren’t going to “invest in communities” out of sheer benevolence. If AI-driven job loss spirals out of control, who’s left to buy anything? The other robots?

Goldman Sachs' AI-Fueled Growth: Let’s Take It With a Sack of Salt

Goldman Sachs happily predicts that generative AI will grow global GDP by 7%. Because, of course, when has Goldman Sachs ever been overly optimistic about anything? (Subprime mortgage crisis, anyone?) Their 7% growth model assumes seamless AI adoption, smooth economic transitions, and a total absence of, you know, geopolitical reality.

Enter the United States, a country currently flirting with economic isolationism and a brand of nationalism that makes the 1930s look like a pre-game warm-up. The idea that the U.S. is going to lead a golden AI-fueled future while increasingly retreating from global cooperation is, let’s say, optimistic at best, delusional at worst.

Meanwhile, China, often underestimated by Western analysts, has a decades-long AI strategy that includes massive state-led investments, aggressive data accumulation, and—most crucially—actual long-term planning. While the U.S. is busy debating whether AI should be regulated at all, China is methodically setting itself up to be the AI superpower of the 21st century. It doesn’t take a neural network to predict what happens next.

Reflection: AI Is a Superpower—But Who Controls It?

AI isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a superpower like my ADHD. And like all superpowers, it matters who wields it and how it's wielded (like in a D&D game). Yeah, AI alignment is a thing. If left unchecked, AI’s economic benefits will go straight to the top 1%, while the rest of us fight over side gigs and dream about universal basic income that will never come.

So, before we pop the champagne on AI-driven GDP growth, maybe we should ask: Is this growth for everyone, or just another elite wealth grab with an upgraded user interface? Because if we don’t get this right, our future might just be a hyper-efficient dystopia where AI creates abundance that no one can afford. This is a classic wicked problem if there ever was one.