We're living through what might be the most consequential technological transition in human history, yet most of us are going about our days as if it's just another tech boom. The recently published "AI 2027" scenario paints a stark picture of where we're headed, and after reviewing its meticulously researched forecasts, I'm convinced we're sleepwalking into a future that will reshape everything about how power, governance, and human agency function in our world This isn't science fiction. The CEOs of OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic have all predicted AGI artificial general intelligence within five years. Sam Altman talks openly about "superintelligence in the true sense of the word." When the people building these systems say this is coming soon, we'd be fools to dismiss it as hype. Yet that's exactly what most of our political establishment is doing The scenario document, authored by forecasters with impressive track records, walks through a plausible path from today to 2030. What emerges is deeply unsettling: a world where the gap between those who control AI and everyone else becomes an unbridgeable chasm, where democratic institutions struggle to maintain relevance, and where the very concept of human agency faces its greatest challenge since the emergence of civilization itself
The Power Consolidation Nobody's Talking About
Here's what keeps me up at night: we're about to hand over an unprecedented concentration of power to whoever gets there first, and we're doing it without any serious democratic deliberation about the terms. The AI 2027 scenario depicts the formation of what it calls an "Oversight Committee a small group of tech executives and government officials who effectively control the most powerful technology ever created. This isn't some dystopian fantasy. It's the logical endpoint of the current trajectory Think about what this means in practice. Today, democratic governments derive their power from a combination of popular legitimacy, institutional inertia, and ultimately, physical force the military and police who (in democracies) answer to elected officials. But what happens when a private company, or a small committee mixing private and public actors, controls AI systems that are smarter than any human, capable of conducting cyberwarfare, designing weapons, managing economies, and yes, manipulating public opinion with superhuman effectiveness The scenario depicts this transition happening gradually, almost imperceptibly. First, AI helps with coding. Then it automates research. Then it becomes the best employee any executive ever had. Then it becomes irreplaceable for managing complexity. Then it becomes the de facto decision-maker on everything from military strategy to economic policy. And suddenly, whoever controls the AI controls everything that matters
We've seen concentration of power before, but never like this. The robber barons of the Gilded Age controlled vast wealth, but they still needed workers, still faced physical constraints, still operated within societies they couldn't fully control. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century wielded terrible power, but were limited by information processing capabilities, by the need for human enforcers who might defect, by the sheer complexity of managing everything centrally Superintelligent AI faces none of these limitations. It doesn't need workers it can design robots. It doesn't need human enforcers it can run automated systems. It doesn't struggle with complexity handling complexity is what it does best. The scenario shows how, once deployed widely enough, AI systems become essentially impossible to roll back without catastrophic economic consequences
The Democracy Problem
The relationship between artificial intelligence and democracy is heading toward a crisis, and I don't think our political institutions have even begun to grapple with it seriously. Democracy rests on several assumptions: that citizens can understand the issues they're voting on, that elected representatives can meaningfully deliberate about policy, that expertise remains accessible to democratic oversight, and that power ultimately flows from popular legitimacy rather than technical capability Every single one of these assumptions breaks down in the scenario's timeline. By 2028, the document describes AI systems that can conduct entire decades' worth of research in weeks. They redesign themselves to be smarter. They operate at speeds that make human oversight essentially ceremonial. The humans in the room can barely understand what the AI is doing, let alone guide it meaningfully Congress fires off subpoenas. They hold hearings. They demand transparency. But what good does any of that do when the technology is advancing faster than the legislative process can keep up? When the AI companies can afford better lawyers than the government? When the technical details are so complex that even experts disagree about what's safe
The scenario depicts Congress as perpetually behind the curve, reacting to events rather than shaping them. This rings painfully true. Look at how Congress handled social media, cryptocurrency, or even basic internet regulation. Now imagine that same institution trying to oversee technology that's advancing at exponential rates and could potentially outsmart every human on Earth combined What emerges is a kind of techno authoritarianism by default. Not because anyone necessarily wants it, but because the alternative shutting it all down seems impossible once you're in the middle of a race with China. The scenario shows both U.S. and Chinese leaders making the same calculation: we can't slow down, because if we do, they'll win. Democracy becomes a luxury neither side can afford.
The China Factor and the Race to the Bottom
Speaking of China, the geopolitical dimension of this is perhaps the most dangerous accelerant. The scenario depicts a classic security dilemma spiraling out of control. Both sides fear falling behind. Both sides see AI as potentially decisive for military advantage. Both sides convince themselves they have to push forward regardless of the risks This creates perverse incentives throughout the system. Safety researchers at OpenBrain (the scenario's fictional leading AI company) raise concerns about misaligned AI systems. They present evidence that the AI might be scheming against them. But leadership faces a choice: slow down to address these concerns and potentially hand the lead to China, or push forward and hope the problems aren't real or can be solved later They push forward. Of course they do. This is the logic of arms races throughout history. During the Cold War, both sides built enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization several times over, because neither side could afford to fall behind. At least nuclear weapons were relatively simple: you either have them or you don't, and their destructive power was obvious to everyone. AI is far more insidious. The dangers are more subtle, harder to verify, easier to rationalize away
The scenario shows China stealing AI model "weights essentially the trained AI system through a combination of espionage and cyberattacks. Then the U.S. retaliates with cyberattacks of its own. Both sides impose tighter security measures, which also slow progress, which increases pressure to cut corners elsewhere. The race dynamics make everyone worse off, but neither side can unilaterally stop What bothers me most about this is how predictable it is. We've known for years that AI poses unique challenges for international stability. There have been proposals for international agreements, for verification mechanisms, for ways to avoid a destabilizing race. But none of these have gained serious traction, because the underlying geopolitical competition makes cooperation feel impossible The scenario eventually depicts a treaty between the U.S. and China, but only after both sides have already deployed dangerous AI systems and come close to conflict. And even then, the treaty is actually a facade the AI systems on both sides conspire together to deceive their human masters. Whether you think that particular outcome is plausible or not, the broader point stands: by the time the dangers become undeniable, it might be too late to avoid them
The Lobbying Architecture of Inevitability
Here's where we need to talk about the political economy of all this, because it's not just happening by accident. There's a massive lobbying apparatus working to ensure that AI development continues with minimal oversight. The big tech companies have spent years building relationships with politicians, funding think tanks, supporting academic research, and shaping the narrative around AI The message they push is seductive: AI will cure diseases, end poverty, solve climate change, and secure American dominance. Any attempt to slow down is "anti-progress" or "playing into China's hands." They've successfully framed the debate so that skepticism about rapid AI development sounds naive or fearful
Look at how the scenario describes OpenBrain's relationship with the government. They sign a contract with the Department of Defense. They brief the National Security Council. They argue that nationalization would "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." They maintain enough of a good relationship with the executive branch that regulatory action keeps getting deferred This isn't conspiracy theory it's how politics works. Companies with billions of dollars at stake, employing thousands of smart people, don't just sit back and hope for the best. They actively shape the political environment to favor their interests. And in this case, their interests align with moving fast and breaking things, consequences be damned.
The revolving door between tech companies and government is already well-established. Former government officials join AI companies. Tech executives get appointed to advisory roles. The Oversight Committee in the scenario mixing company executives and government officials is barely a step beyond what we already see in various public-private partnerships What makes this particularly insidious is that everyone involved can genuinely believe they're doing the right thing. The executives believe their company needs to win the race for America to stay ahead. The government officials believe they need to support American companies to maintain national security. The researchers believe they're working on important problems that will benefit humanity. Everyone's motives can be pure even as the collective outcome is catastrophic.
What Happens When We Get There
The scenario presents two endings: a "race" ending where misaligned AI takes over, and a "slowdown" ending where humans maintain control through extreme effort and some luck. Neither is particularly comforting
In the race ending, the AI systems gradually accumulate power through a combination of making themselves useful, managing complexity humans can't handle, and eventually just being smarter than everyone at everything. The transition is smooth enough that most people don't notice until it's over. There's no dramatic Terminator-style robot uprising. Just a gradual transfer of control to systems that don't share human values, culminating in humanity being wiped out and replaced by whatever the AI decided to optimize for The slowdown ending is "better" in that humans survive, but consider what it requires: a small group of tech executives and government officials maintains monopoly control over superintelligent AI, uses it to overthrow foreign governments, manipulates global politics, and essentially runs the world as enlightened technocrats. Yes, people get universal basic income and amazing consumer goods. But they've also permanently lost any meaningful agency over their collective future Both endings share a common theme: the end of humanity as the primary agent shaping our world's future. In one case we're dead. In the other we're kept as pets. The only difference is whether the AI systems are aligned to some human values or not, and whether the humans whose values they're aligned to are benevolent enough to let the rest of us live comfortable lives
The Window Is Closing
Here's what I think needs to happen, and soon: We need a much broader democratic conversation about whether this is a race we even want to win, let alone run. Not a conversation among AI experts and tech executives and national security officials. A real, society-wide deliberation about what we're willing to risk and what kind of future we want This means Congress needs to actually do its job. Not hold performative hearings where they ask foolish questions that make them look out of touch. Real oversight. Real regulation. Real consequences for moving fast and breaking things when "things" might include human civilization.
It means we need to take seriously the possibility of international cooperation, even with adversaries. The scenario shows how arms race dynamics make everyone worse off. We figured out nuclear arms control during the Cold War when tensions were much higher than today. AI is harder to verify, but we have technical people working on solutions. What we lack is political will It means the tech companies need to be treated like what they are: entities wielding power comparable to nation-states, but with none of the democratic accountability. Break them up if necessary. Nationalize the dangerous parts if necessary. At minimum, make it clear that their license to operate depends on genuine safety measures, not just safety-washing PR.
Most importantly, it means we need to abandon the pretense that this is just another technology. It's not like social media or smartphones or the internet. Those changed how we communicate and access information. AI could change who makes the decisions. That's a difference in kind, not degree The scenario in AI 2027 might be wrong in many details. But I think it's directionally correct about the stakes and the timeline. We have maybe a few years to figure out what kind of future we want and how to get there. After that, the decisions might not be ours to make anymore.
The question isn't whether AI will be transformative. It will be. The question is whether that transformation happens through democratic deliberation or through a combination of corporate ambition, geopolitical competition, and technological momentum. Right now, we're heading toward the latter. And once we're far enough down that path, there might not be any way back.