I spent a full day with marketing agency owners trying to navigate this age of AI.

I understand the panic… but I also think many people are framing the wrong fear. The loudest version of that fear is still stuck on a few questions… What can AI replace? Which tasks disappear? Which parts of our work get hollowed out? Which workers become obsolete? And, yes, those are real concerns. They are already feeling it. Their clients (and even themselves) are already using AI as both a tool and a justification.

The AI jobs debate is starting to feel a little too binary.

Either the machines take everything… or everything somehow works itself out. One side talks about mass unemployment like it’s inevitable. The other talks about AI as if history guarantees that new technology always creates more jobs than it destroys. Somewhere between those two extremes is probably where reality lives… and reality tends to be much messier, and unevenly distributed, than the headline version. AI is creating a meaning and relevance crisis for people whose value is built primarily on task execution. That feels closer to reality. For decades, a huge amount of professional value came from being able to execute knowledge work efficiently. Writing reports. Building presentations. Coding. Researching. Summarizing. Analyzing. Organizing information. Producing deliverables. Translating complexity into outputs. Entire careers were built around being more informed, more capable and more productive than the next person.

Now we’re entering a moment where “intelligence” itself is starting to feel abundant.

And when something becomes abundant, value does not disappear… it moves elsewhere. That’s the part of the AI conversation that I think we’re struggling to fully absorb. We keep asking what AI can replace instead of asking what becomes more valuable when “intelligence” gets cheaper. Because AI will absolutely compress tasks. It will expose shallow work. It will punish people and organizations that confuse output with value. It will destabilize certain roles. It will make some companies dramatically more profitable. It will create entirely new expectations (and work) around productivity.

But at the exact same time… it may also make deeply human capabilities much more economically important.

The people who thrive may not be the people who simply “use AI” because eventually everyone will. That advantage will disappear quickly. The real advantage may belong to people who can still relate, persuade, interpret, contextualize, frame problems, exercise judgment, build trust, lead teams, calm uncertainty, create meaning and make other humans feel understood in increasingly automated environments. This feels very connected to my thinking around The Intimacy Economy. The more automated work becomes… the more valuable human connection may become. Not sentimentally… economically. You can already see early versions of this everywhere. Experiences where people are not simply paying for efficiency… they’re paying to feel seen, understood, reassured or connected. Think… hospitality… coaching… therapy… luxury… healthcare… community-driven businesses… even high-trust advisory work.

The human layer becomes the differentiator… and the irony here is brutal.

At the exact moment these relational skills may become more valuable… we also seem to be weakening them culturally. People spend less time together. Younger generations socialize less in person. Work becomes more remote. Dating becomes more digital. AI companions simulate intimacy. We may be entering an economy that increasingly rewards emotional intelligence while simultaneously eroding the conditions required to develop it. Ezra Klein drives this home in his editorial, Why the A.I. Job Apocalypse (Probably) Won’t Happen for The New York Times. The danger may not be mass unemployment… the danger may be mass disorientation. A world where many people still technically have jobs… but the economic logic underneath their value starts quietly shifting beneath their feet. A world where some workers become dramatically more leveraged while others slowly realize the skills they spent years optimizing are becoming commoditized.

And there’s another issue sitting underneath all of this that I’m most unsure about… the next generation of business leaders.

Even if AI does not eliminate massive numbers of jobs, it may hollow out the entry-level layer where people learn how to become valuable in the first place. Junior work is often repetitive, administrative and a necesary evil in learning how to become experienced… and it’s also where judgment gets formed. You become a better marketer by doing mediocre strategy first. You become a better writer by writing bad drafts. You become a better consultant by sitting in meetings where you barely understand what’s happening.

If AI eats too much of the junior layer… where do experienced humans come from?

Because the good version of AI is not a world where humans become obsolete. The good version is a world where intelligence becomes cheaper while humanity becomes more valuable. Where machines handle more execution so humans can spend more time on creativity, relationships, care, insight, leadership and meaning. The bad version is not necessarily mass unemployment. It’s a world where efficiency keeps scaling while humans slowly lose their sense of relevance inside systems optimized around output. So maybe the smartest thing we can do right now is stop preparing for a world with no jobs. And start preparing for a world where value itself is being redefined in real time. Because intelligence may be getting cheaper… but being deeply, thoughtfully, meaningfully human?

That may be becoming the most valuable work of all.

This is what Elias Makos and I discussed on CJAD 800 AM.

Before you go… ThinkersOne is a new way for organizations to buy bite-sized and personalized thought leadership video content (live and recorded) from the best Thinkers in the world. If you’re looking to add excitement and big smarts to your meetings, corporate events, company off-sites, “lunch & learns” and beyond, check it out.