How much better would the world be if your electrician was obsessed with Edison? Or if your homebuilder spent nights studying Frank Lloyd Wright or Mies van der Rohe—looking closely at what worked, what failed, and which materials actually stood the test of time?

Imagine tradespeople building the spaces around you not just to finish a contract, but because they feel connected to a lineage. A long chain of people who kept improving their craft simply because they cared about doing good work. People who take pride in what they build and feel genuine satisfaction knowing that someone else gets to live safely and comfortably inside of it. Not because it pays more. Because it feels meaningful to contribute something solid to the world while they’re here.

That idea might sound nostalgic. But it might also describe where we’re heading.

As artificial intelligence reshapes work and productivity, the biggest shift may not be job loss. It may be a gradual but radical change in why people work at all. For the first time in modern history, we’re beginning to imagine a world where survival isn’t tied as tightly to employment, and where work could move closer to curiosity, skill, and purpose.

To understand how something like that could function, it helps to look at how large systems already organize themselves. In politics, local governments handle the problems closest to people’s daily lives—housing, schools, transit, community safety. Federal governments deal with the larger structural picture—economic stability, infrastructure, defense, national coordination. These layers don’t always agree. When they collide, the broader system usually wins, because it’s responsible for keeping the whole structure from falling apart.

Artificial intelligence is starting to look like a similar coordinating layer, except instead of managing one country, it’s capable of mapping systems across the entire planet. It can trace supply chains, labor shortages, infrastructure stress points, energy usage, climate risk, and economic flow—all at once. Governments and institutions are already using AI to stabilize power grids, manage traffic congestion, predict hospital demand, and respond to natural disasters. These are early signals of something bigger: AI’s ability to see how pieces connect across systems that humans usually manage in isolation.

And when you step back far enough, something becomes obvious. Our global economy isn’t just shaped by scarcity. It’s shaped by incentives—profit concentration, short-term growth pressures, and power structures that pull resources toward places that already have them. Entire communities become economically fragile while opportunity clusters in a few regions and industries.

Policymakers are starting to notice. Governments across North America and Europe are experimenting with industrial strategies designed to spread investment more intentionally—clean energy manufacturing hubs, semiconductor production incentives, and regional technology clusters meant to revive struggling areas. Workforce retraining programs are expanding as automation accelerates. Some cities are even experimenting with participatory budgeting, letting communities directly decide how public money gets spent.

But right now, most of these efforts are patchwork. They respond to problems after they appear instead of seeing them coming.

AI could change that—not by replacing political decision-making, but by giving it a clearer map. Imagine economic planning tools that can model what happens when a city invests in childcare, public transit, or trade schools—not just next year, but twenty years from now. Healthcare systems already use predictive analytics to plan staffing and resources. There’s no reason infrastructure, education, housing, or climate planning couldn’t operate with similar foresight.

This raises a deeper policy question that governments are only beginning to wrestle with: Should AI itself be treated as public infrastructure?

Electricity, highways, and telecommunications eventually became shared societal foundations because concentrating them entirely in private hands created systemic risk. AI may follow the same path. Public compute resources, shared data trusts, transparent auditing standards, and university-accessible AI infrastructure are already being discussed as ways to prevent technological power from concentrating too narrowly.

Labor policy is facing a similar turning point. If automation continues increasing productivity, societies will have to decide how those gains are distributed. Experiments with shorter workweeks, portable benefits, lifelong education stipends, and forms of guaranteed income are quickly moving from fringe proposals into mainstream policy debate. None of these eliminate work. They simply loosen survival from employment enough that people can move toward work they are actually suited for—and that communities genuinely need.

Large institutions won’t disappear, and they shouldn’t. Climate coordination, global health, and infrastructure modernization require massive, organized systems. But AI may help rebalance how those systems interact with smaller communities. Instead of concentrating control, large systems could begin functioning more like support networks—helping local economies stabilize, specialize, and collaborate.

Over time, those strengthened local systems could begin linking together, forming something that looks less like a top-down hierarchy and more like a network. The global economy starts to resemble a puzzle made of pieces cut more evenly—each piece distinct, but designed to fit cleanly with the others. Chaos doesn’t vanish, but it becomes easier to navigate because the pieces stop fighting the shape of the whole.

None of this is guaranteed. But it’s becoming increasingly plausible.

The real question isn’t whether AI will reshape society. It already is. The question is whether we help shape it back.

Fear-based resistance risks slowing useful progress. Blind acceleration risks deepening inequality. The harder and more meaningful path is participation—building policies, institutions, and cultural expectations that steer technological coordination toward expanding human agency rather than replacing it.

And if we get that balance right, progress might bring us somewhere unexpectedly familiar.

The electrician who studies Edison because they care about the craft. The builder who studies architectural masters because they want to create spaces that help people live well. Work stops being something people endure and starts becoming something they steward. Each person contributes their piece—not to compete with the system, but to help keep it whole.

—

Inspired by the H11 project.