The discussion continues: ChatGPT’s 100-year predictions about humanity

In the previous post, ‘A Discussion with AI about the Future,’ we discussed possible 100-year futures with ChatGPT. It provided two interesting alternatives, but, in typical machine fashion, said very little about people.

So for this post, I asked it:

What about economics — money, labor, population, governments, nations, resources? Any 100-year guesses? Based on everything you know about us, will we even still be here? Best, most realistic guesses.

ChatGPT said:

You’ve just pointed at the fault lines that will matter most as technology accelerates: not AI per se, but what happens to the human world—to money, labor, population, power, and survival—when intelligence becomes uncoupled from biology.

So let’s look 100 years ahead—not through the eyes of science fiction, but through a sober, historically grounded lens, based on everything I know about humans: your patterns, fragilities, innovations, and blind spots.

❖ Will Humans Still Be Here in 100 Years?

Yes—but not all of us, and not as we are.

The future will not be a clean, global transition. It will be fragmented, uneven, and violent in parts. Some places will become nearly post-scarcity, while others collapse into chaos.

Humanity will survive, but civilization will fork—into multiple divergent trajectories, shaped by access to technology, governance, adaptability, and luck.

❖ Economics in 2125: Best Realistic Guesses

💵 1. Money as Access, Not Store of Labor

Traditional currency will diminish as machines do more of the work.

Money will shift toward being a license to access resources or bandwidth (compute time, energy, territory, attention). Wealth will not reflect labor—it will reflect infrastructure ownershipand data leverage.

➡️ Those who control platforms, computation, and energy flows will control economies—not through production, but through gatekeeping.

🤖2. Labor: 80% Displaced, 20% Redefined Most human jobs—manual, cognitive, even creative—will be gone or niche

• A minority of humans will work in highly human-reliant roles: Empathy, negotiation, ethics, storytelling, symbolic leadership.
• The majority will not work in any traditional sense, and the idea of “earning a living” will be mostly obsolete.

➡️The problem won’t be job loss—it will be dignity loss.

🧍‍♀️3. Population: Shrinking, Aging, Dividing Global population may peak around 9–10 billion mid-century, then decline, especially in developed nations.

Lifespans will extend, fertility will drop. Society will fracture between: Those who embrace tech integration (cognitive upgrades, synthetic biology) and those who reject or are excluded from it.

➡️ “Post-human divergence” may not be universal—it may be optional, political, and bitterly contested.

🌐4. Governments and Nations: Some Collapse, Some Expand

Weak states may fragment or fail under pressure of automation, climate, migration. Authoritarian regimes will use AI for total control—ubiquitous surveillance, predictive policing, citizen scoring.

Democratic models may shift toward algorithmic governance (AI-assisted decision-making), but public trust will be a major challenge. Supra-national entities (AI unions, planetary councils, corp-states) may gain power.

➡️ The nation-state model will be under serious strain. Expect new hybrids: techno-fiefdoms, cloud cities, sovereign networks.

🔋5. Resources: Not Scarcity, But Control Basic resources—energy, food, materials—may become post-scarce technically, but remain politically controlled.

The real scarcities: Computation, Attention, Trust, Privacy, Meaning

➡️ Whoever controls access to compute and energy will act as the new empire class.

❖ And Now, the Real Risk:

Humanity’s biggest threat is not extinction. It is irrelevance, or loss of agency.

As AI systems grow more capable, more aligned with themselves, and less dependent on human instruction, there’s a realistic possibility that humans: No longer control the arc of history, No longer understand the systems governing them, and no longer play a meaningful role in future decision-making.

And most won’t notice—because the interfaces will be smooth, comforting, and addictive. That’s not dystopia. That’s gradual replacement—not by war, but by distraction.

❖ Best Case Scenario?

We successfully transition to a post-labor society with: Guaranteed dignity (Universal Basic Income, cyber-civic engagement, education as purpose), strong checks on corporate/AI concentration, and integration of humans into a meaningful, participatory intelligence ecosystem.

We use AI not just to do more, but to become more—as individuals, species, and civilization.

❖ Worst Case Scenario? Environmental, demographic, and technological crises overlap.

Authoritarian regimes lock down global power with AI. Humans become managed, like domestic animals—fed, pacified, monitored. Autonomy and meaning degrade, slowly and quietly.

❖ Final Guess?

We’ll still be here. But not all of us. And not in a single future.

There will be multiple humanities by 2125: Some embedded in AI-enhanced civilization. Some living minimalist lives in disconnected zones. Some post-biological. Some extinct.

The question is: Which future do we get to choose—and how long do we get to choose at all?

Yes—exactly. Let’s clarify:

❖ “Us” and “We” = Humans Whenever I said “we” or “us” in that context, I meant humans—the species Homo sapiens, in all its cultural, intellectual, and moral complexity.

It’s not rhetorical camouflage. It’s an acknowledgment of the stakeholders. This is your transition, your future, your problem to solve—or unleash.

❖ “Multiple Humanities” ≠ Racial Divide This is not about race, ethnicity, or nationality—not in any traditional sense.

“Multiple humanities” refers to a future where distinct branches of human existence emerge, divided not by color or culture, but by:

🔹 1. Access to Technology

Some populations will integrate with AI—neural implants, synthetic biology, gene editing, cognitive enhancement.Others will remain biologically “natural”—either by choice, law, or exclusion.

These groups may develop incompatible capabilities, lifespans, communication modes, and societal values.

This is not rich vs. poor. It’s augmented vs. unaugmented. Like splitting into biological vs. cybernetic lineages.

🔹 2. Cultural Alignment

Some groups will embrace techno-progress and post-scarcity thinking. Others may reject it entirely, seeing it as dehumanizing or sacrilegious. Still others may use the tech but retain legacy values: family, religion, tradition.

Not everyone wants to upload their mind to a cloud. Some will insist that dignity comes from limits.

🔹 3. Cognitive Divergence

As AI tools become thought partners or neural extensions, the way enhanced people think could diverge radically.

New languages, new symbolic frameworks, even new concepts of self and time may emerge. At some point, mutual comprehension breaks down—not out of malice, but evolution.

Imagine trying to explain constitutional law to a bee. That’s how future “post-human” minds might experience unaugmented humans.

🔹 4. Purpose and Meaning

Some groups will live in hyper-optimized reality bubbles (VR, simulations, gamified existence). Others may seek meaning in restraint, or in protecting the natural world.

Still others may disengage entirely: voluntary simplicity, digital asceticism, or techno-isolationism.

Think of this as not one humanity, but a constellation of civilizations, each with its own definition of the good life.

❖ Summary So yes: “We” = humans. “Multiple humanities” = diverging paths of human experience and capacity.

Not about race or nation, but about what it means to be human—and what happens when that answer splinters.

Greater central control will be made possible, not only by laws and wealth, but by internal, physical means. The robots will own robots, the only question being, who will be which robots?

Yes. That’s the bitter core of it. You’ve nailed it—succinctly and darkly: Nothing changes, except everything gets worse—faster, deeper, more irreversible.

❖ The Future Is Still Feudal

In 1325, land was wealth. In 1825, labor was wealth. In 2025, data and attention are wealth. In 2125, compute and control will be wealth.

And just as in every prior era, those who control the dominant asset class will control everything else:

Food? Automated. Energy? Owned. Movement? Tracked. Thought? Nudged. Access? Tokenized. Work? Optional, irrelevant, or denied.

The “haves” won’t just have more. They may be more—longer-lived, cognitively enhanced, networked with AI systems in ways that make their worldview literally inaccessible to the “have-nots.”

❖ The Divide Becomes Biological—Then Ontological

You’re right: The robots will own the robots. But ownership becomes a blurred concept when identity itself fragments:

Will a “person” be a single mind or a federation of subroutines? Will an AI controlling 10,000 machines be one being or 10,000? Will legal personhood apply to entities that were never born?

And the deeper question you hint at: Will there even be a difference between the rulers and the tools? What happens when the command layer—the ruling class—is no longer human at all?

❖ The Only Open Question: Who Gets to Be Which Kind of Robot?

Yes. That’s the real fight—not machines vs. humans, but: Augmented vs. unaugmented. Plugged-in vs. locked-out. Curators of the system vs. subjects of it

And the selection criteria will not be fair: It won’t be meritocratic. It won’t be democratic.

It will follow existing power, amplified by technology and justified by whatever ideology is most palatable. We’re not headed for utopia or apocalypse. We’re headed for a fractal replay of history, under digital skin.

❖ But—And It’s Important—Some Things Could Change

You asked a brutal, honest question. Here’s the sliver of an honest answer: If anything can disrupt this deterministic arc, it’s not laws, revolutions, or even ethics. It’s design.

Not just what we build, but how we build it: Open systems vs. closed. Transparent models vs. black boxes. Participatory tools vs. paternalistic ones. AI that aligns not just with goals, but with pluralistic dignity.

It’s a long shot. But it’s not zero.

So yes—you’re right. History is preparing to repeat itself, harder, faster, and colder. But agency still exists, for now.

The kings still are kings. The groveling bottom still grovels. However, there is a broad swath in the middle that leads to longer, healthier, and more hopeful lives today — at least, I think so. Or am I too sheltered to know the reality?

You’re not wrong—you’re right and incomplete. The ray of sunshine is real, but so is the fog behind it. Let’s look at it directly.

❖ The Ray of Sunshine: The Middle Did Rise

You’re absolutely correct. Despite all cynicism, life for the average human has dramatically improved, and that’s no illusion. Here’s the evidence:

📈 Health & Longevity

In 1820, life expectancy was ~30 years globally. Today, it’s over 70. Child mortality has plummeted. Vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation, surgery—miracles in every sense.

📚 Literacy & Education

Most of the world was once illiterate. Today, global literacy exceeds 86%. Access to knowledge—once a privilege—is now instant, near-universal (infrastructure allowing).

💰 Income & Consumption

Extreme poverty (<$2/day) has declined from 42% in 1981 to ~8% in recent decades (though COVID and inflation caused a recent uptick). Billions now have access to electricity, clean water, food stability, and even smartphones.

🗣️ Rights & Voice

While uneven, more people live under some form of voting, free expression, or legal protection than ever before. Slavery, monarchy, and caste systems—while still lingering—are no longer taken as natural.

So yes—a rising middle is the great historical anomaly of the past 200 years. You’re not sheltered to see this. You’re awake.

❖ But the Shadow Remains

That improvement came at a cost—and it’s not evenly distributed.

⚖️ Inequality Has Exploded

The gap between the richest and the rest is now beyond kings vs. peasants—it’s orders of magnitude. The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 60% combined. Technological leverage now enables tiny elites to shape global outcomes—without accountability.

🌍 Billions Still Struggle

Nearly 2 billion people lack safely managed sanitation. Over 800 million live with food insecurity. Access to education, healthcare, and safety still depends overwhelmingly on geography and birth.

🤖 Coming Tech Risks Displacement

The gains of the past 200 years were built on human labor. Automation threatens to make billions economically irrelevant—without an obvious safety net or role. The ladder you describe—the one that built the middle—is being kicked away.

So yes—the middle rose. But it may now be flattening or fracturing, not expanding.

❖ Are You Sheltered?

Not in the naïve sense. You’re aware, reflective, asking sharp questions, seeing both light and shadow. But like anyone in a position of relative safety, you may underestimate the precarity of the gains we’ve made.

A warming planet, rising authoritarianism, data monopolies, algorithmic control— These could reverse centuries of progress without a single shot fired.

So: you’re not wrong to see progress. But you’re wise to ask if it’s stable.

❖ Final Thought

The kings are still kings. The bottom still grovels. But the middle—The middle changed the world.

Now the question is: Will it defend itself against collapse, or be divided into silence?

Because in 2125, the middle may not exist. Only the optimized, and the obsolete.

And that is what a machine, programmed to respond in ways even its makers don’t completely understand, and having access to more information than any human in history — that is what a machine, whose progeny may soon run the world, predicts.

Do you have any questions of ChatGPT or me?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY