Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic abstraction but a force reshaping economies in real time — and opinions on where it will lead could not be more divided. Mo Gawdat, former chief business officer at Google X, believes that AI is poised to wipe out jobs across the spectrum, from entry-level to the C-suite.

But other tech figures, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and entrepreneur Mark Cuban, insist that new opportunities will emerge for those willing to adapt.

Speaking on the Diary of a CEO podcast, Gawdat said bluntly: “The idea that artificial intelligence will create jobs is 100% crap.”

He used his own AI startup, Emma.love, as proof. He and two software experts built the app with AI assistance, a task he said would have required “350 developers in the past.”

Even positions once thought secure from automation are vulnerable, he argued — from video editors and podcasters to senior executives.

“Artificial general intelligence is going to be better than humans at everything, including being a CEO,” Gawdat said. “There will be a time where most incompetent CEOs will be replaced.”

Bill Gates has echoed similar forecasts, predicting that even doctors and teachers could eventually be supplanted by AI systems.

A Tale of Two Futures

The debate splits into sharply contrasting visions with potentially different outcomes.

Some believe that if AI evolves as fast as Gawdat suggests, the coming decade could see wholesale job displacement. Entire sectors may be hollowed out as companies turn to machines for not only technical work but also leadership roles. Governments, unable to rely on traditional employment as the main economic anchor, may be forced to adopt a universal basic income (UBI) to keep societies stable.

Gawdat warns that while this could free people to spend more time with families or pursue hobbies, it also risks chaos if “hunger for power, greed and ego” lead to reckless AI deployment under unqualified leaders.

By contrast, Mark Cuban and Jensen Huang see AI as a tool that will not erase work but reshape it. Cuban has launched a free AI boot camp for kids, signaling his belief in reskilling the next generation. Huang, whose company Nvidia powers much of the generative AI boom, argues that workers who combine technical AI skills with human-centered soft skills will become indispensable.

They envision a future where AI assists with tasks — drafting emails, preparing documents, even giving medical guidance — while humans move into more creative, strategic, and interpersonal roles.

Industries Already on the Frontline

Healthcare: AI diagnostic tools are already outperforming doctors in detecting certain cancers, raising fears of displacement. At the same time, hospitals are using AI to support — not replace — physicians, streamlining paperwork and patient scheduling so medical staff can focus on care.

Media: Journalists, podcasters, and video editors have seen AI generate articles, clips, and even deepfake broadcasts at a fraction of the cost. Yet publishers like the New York Times and Time magazine are experimenting with AI partnerships, integrating the technology to expand reach while retaining editorial oversight.

Finance: Algorithmic trading and AI-driven risk analysis have automated jobs once performed by teams of analysts. But banks are simultaneously recruiting specialists who can integrate AI into compliance, fraud detection, and customer experience, creating hybrid roles that didn’t exist five years ago.

Manufacturing: Robotics and AI-driven quality control systems are streamlining production lines. Apple, for instance, is pouring billions into U.S. semiconductor and glass manufacturing with AI-driven processes, while also training workers in “smart manufacturing” through its new Detroit academy.

These industries illustrate the core divide: some jobs are vanishing outright, while others are being reshaped into higher-value positions.

The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Future of Jobs report reflects the tension between these futures. Globally, 41% of employers expect to downsize due to AI, rising to 48% in the U.S. Yet at the same time, 77% say they will upskill workers to use AI effectively, and nearly half (47%) are planning to shift employees into new roles rather than eliminate them.

For now, companies are straddling both paths: cutting redundant roles while investing in retraining programs to capture productivity gains from AI.

Work and Identity in Question

Beyond economics, Gawdat says AI could force a cultural reckoning. “We were never made to wake up every morning and just occupy 20 hours of our day with work,” he said. “We defined our purpose as work. That’s a capitalist lie.”

He suggests an AI-powered society may push people to find meaning outside of their job titles — through family, creativity, or community.

But his warning is tempered with a caveat: unless ethical guardrails are established, the same technology could deepen inequality and concentrate power.

Whether the world ends up closer to Gawdat’s dystopian forecast or Cuban and Huang’s more optimistic vision, one reality is certain: artificial intelligence is rewriting the rules of work and society.

“This is real,” Gawdat said. “This is not science fiction.”

Entry level roles are being eliminated due to artificial intelligence automation, disproportionately impacting Gen Z workers and disrupting traditional career pipelines, Fortune reports, citing Pave data. The share of 21- to 25-year-olds employed at large public tech firms has been halved since 2023, dropping from 15% to 6.7%. Private tech companies are also experiencing the crunch, with Gen Z representation slipping from 9.3% to 6.8%. Meanwhile, the average employee age in public tech has creeped up five years, from 34.3 years to 39.4 years, with millennials dominating the sector.

Apple’s sweeping pledge to invest $600 billion in U.S. manufacturing over the next four years is positioning the iPhone maker as one of the largest forces behind Washington’s campaign to onshore critical technology production.

In an interview with CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Friday, CEO Tim Cook underscored that the centerpiece of Apple’s plan is semiconductors, saying the goal is to “stitch together the end-to-end supply chain” at home.

“You can add a lot by making it global and then stitching together the end-to-end supply chain in semiconductors,” Cook said. “I can’t stress how important this is and how much that will add to what we’re doing.”

The effort includes a $2.5 billion expansion of Apple’s long-standing partnership with Corning, whose Kentucky facility makes the glass used in iPhones and Apple Watches. Corning CEO Wendell Weeks told Cramer that Apple’s fresh injection of capital would allow the company to triple production, increase the factory’s workforce by 50%, and transform it into the “world-leading manufacturing site for highly-specialized glass.”

Cook, pointing to Corning’s durable “ceramic shield” technology — 50% stronger than earlier versions — said the investment reflects Apple’s confidence in Kentucky’s manufacturing base and Corning’s decades of innovation.

“This is the place to put it,” Cook said, praising Corning’s quality and track record. “I feel very confident in that, because when you look at innovation, when you look at the cost, when you look at the quality, these are all things that are factor into our decisions — this is a great place.”

Weeks added that the Kentucky plant represents a “social contract” with the community, noting that it has employed three generations of Corning workers since opening in 1952, though today’s work is far removed from what their grandparents once did.

Apple’s commitment already spans all 50 states, involving 9,000 partners and supporting around 450,000 jobs. The company recently launched a “Manufacturing Academy” in Detroit to train more workers and help small and medium-sized businesses adopt advanced manufacturing techniques, including artificial intelligence and smart automation.

Cook also acknowledged the political tailwinds bolstering Apple’s plan. President Donald Trump announced last month that his administration would impose a 100% tariff on imported semiconductors and chips — with exemptions for companies building inside the United States.

“The president has said that he wants more in the United States,” Cook said. “And we want more in the United States.”

How Apple Compares in the U.S. Chip Race

Apple’s vast spending commitment places it in rare company among global chipmakers reshaping their U.S. footprint. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), Apple’s critical chip supplier, is building a $40 billion complex in Arizona, though delays and workforce shortages have slowed progress. Samsung is investing $17 billion in a Texas facility aimed at high-end chips. Intel, once America’s flagship chipmaker, has announced more than $100 billion in U.S. investments across Ohio, Arizona, and New Mexico, supported by Chips Act subsidies.

What sets Apple apart is its direct tie to consumer products. Whereas Intel and TSMC are chasing high-performance computing and server chips, Apple’s push is anchored to iPhones, iPads, and wearables — devices that require not only advanced semiconductors but also the specialized glass and materials that Corning provides. Apple is attempting to build a more insulated supply chain than its peers by integrating both upstream chip production and downstream component manufacturing in the U.S.

Impact on U.S. Chip Production

Apple’s $600 billion bet is expected to redefine U.S. advanced manufacturing. Analysts have predicted that Apple would catalyze an ecosystem where suppliers, from chipmakers to component specialists, scale up operations domestically. In that setting, Corning’s Kentucky facility could serve as a blueprint for regional hubs where factories create jobs, foster innovation, and sustain local economies.

However, protectionist tariffs, while boosting Apple’s near-term advantage, are expected to intensify trade disputes with Asia and strain relationships with critical partners like TSMC. In addition, workforce shortages in high-tech manufacturing remain a constraint, despite Apple’s new training initiatives. Analysts warn that heavy reliance on government incentives also ties Apple’s strategy to political cycles, leaving it vulnerable to policy reversals.

Still, Apple’s alignment with the Trump administration and its sheer financial scale distinguish its approach. Cook believes the effort is about more than products.

“Factories create hubs of economic activity,” he said, noting that manufacturing jobs ripple outward into local communities.

With Intel battling execution issues, TSMC navigating U.S. expansion hurdles, and Samsung working to prove its Texas project can deliver, Apple’s unprecedented $600 billion commitment may become the defining test of whether America can once again anchor the world’s most advanced supply chains.

The standoff between publishers and Big Tech over the use of online content to fuel artificial intelligence models has entered a sharper phase. At the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference this week, Neil Vogel, CEO of People, Inc. (formerly Dotdash Meredith), accused Google of exploiting its dominance by using a single crawler to both index websites for Google Search and scrape them for AI products.

“Google has one crawler, which means they use the same crawler for their search, where they still send us traffic, as they do for their AI products, where they steal our content,” Vogel said.

Vogel noted that while Google Search once accounted for about 65% of People Inc.’s traffic three years ago, today it delivers traffic in the “high 20s.” He also revealed to AdExchanger last month that Google’s traffic share once reached as high as 90%. Despite the decline, Vogel emphasized the company is financially healthy: “I’m not complaining. We’ve grown our audience. We’ve grown our revenue. We’re doing great. What is not right about this is: you cannot take our content to compete with us.”

Blocking AI crawlers for leverage

Vogel said publishers need to block AI crawlers to force platforms into licensing agreements. People Inc. has already taken this route by partnering with Cloudflare, which recently rolled out a solution that blocks AI bots that don’t pay. Vogel said this has attracted interest from “large LLM providers,” although no deals have yet been signed. He praised OpenAI as a “good actor” in contrast to Google.

The problem, Vogel added, is that Google’s crawler cannot be blocked without cutting off access to the “20%-ish” traffic Google Search still delivers.

“They know this, and they’re not splitting their crawler. So they are an intentional bad actor here,” Vogel said.

Others echoed his concerns. Janice Min, CEO of Ankler Media, described Google and Meta as “content kleptomaniacs” and said her company has chosen to block AI crawlers outright.

Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare, predicted that the balance of power will eventually shift under new regulations. He warned publishers against relying solely on copyright litigation, noting that courts have tended to side with AI firms by framing AI outputs as “derivative works” that could be protected under fair use.

Prince cited Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement with book publishers as an example of companies buying peace while preserving favorable copyright rulings. He also argued that Google itself had warped publishing economics long before AI, by training media outlets to chase clicks instead of original reporting.

His forecast: “By this time next year, Google will be paying content creators for crawling their content and taking it and putting it in AI models.”

What’s Next for Publishers?

Analysts believe that if Prince’s prediction proves accurate, publishers could enter a new revenue stream built on licensing deals with AI companies. In the most optimistic outcome, Google agrees to split its crawler, paving the way for fairer negotiations. This would mirror the arrangements already struck between publishers and firms like OpenAI, which Vogel praised as a more cooperative partner.

In such a scenario, the cost of training AI systems would rise, forcing tech giants to pay billions in content fees. That could help stabilize publishing economics at a time when advertising revenue has weakened and referral traffic from search and social media has declined. For companies like People Inc., which operates over 40 major brands, including People, Food & Wine, Travel & Leisure, Better Homes & Gardens, and AllRecipes, this could mean greater predictability in monetizing their journalism.

However, the situation also presents a scenario where Google holds firm, refusing to split its crawler and leaving publishers with no practical way to block AI scraping without sacrificing search visibility. That could entrench Google’s power, as its search traffic, already down from earlier highs but still material, remains vital for many media outlets.

If regulators fail to intervene, publishers could end up supplying the raw material for AI models without compensation, while simultaneously losing direct traffic as AI-driven search tools give users summarized answers instead of links. For smaller publishers without diversified revenue streams, this could accelerate financial strain.

Analysts warn this path could leave publishers with only two options: accept dependency on AI platforms or retreat behind paywalls, a move that risks shrinking audiences further.

Looking ahead, the outcome of this clash is expected to determine whether publishers reclaim bargaining power in the AI era or remain locked in a cycle of dependence on tech platforms. Vogel’s comments, Min’s skepticism, and Prince’s forecast suggest the industry is at a turning point.