One recent rainy afternoon, I found myself in an unexpected role—philosophy teacher to a machine. I was explaining the story of the Bhagavad Gita to a leading large language model, curious to see if it could grasp the lessons at the heart of one of the world’s most profound philosophical texts. The LLM’s responses were impressively structured and fluent. They even sounded reflective at times, giving a sense that the AI model knew that it was itself part of this millennia-long conversation.
Yet there was something fundamental that was missing from all the answers the machine gave me—the lived experience that gives wisdom its true weight. AI can analyze the Gita, but it does not feel Arjuna’s moral dilemma or the power of Krishna’s guidance. It does not struggle with duty, fear, or consequence, and it does not evolve through a process of personal growth. AI can simulate wisdom, but it cannot embody it.
The irony wasn’t lost on me. One of humanity’s oldest philosophical texts was testing the limits of our newest technology, just as that technology challenges us to rethink what it means to be human.
Technology is just one part of the story
As a founder of several technology companies and an author on innovation, I’ve followed AI’s evolution with both excitement and trepidation. But it was as a father that I first truly understood how important this technology will be for all of us.
When my son was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare blood cancer, I spent hundreds of hours using LLMs to find and analyze sources that might help me understand his condition. Every flash of insight I gained and every machine hallucination that steered me down the wrong path left a permanent mark on me as a person. I began to see that the technical challenges involved in implementing AI are just one part of the story. Much more important are the philosophical questions this technology raises when it leaves its imprint on our lives.
Arjuna, Krishna, and the Morality of Inaction
In the Bhagavad Gita, the warrior Arjuna faces an impossible choice. Seeing his family and teachers arrayed on the battlefield across from him in the opposing army, he lays down his weapons. Unwilling to harm those he loves, he believes that inaction will absolve him of responsibility for the deaths that will take place when the armies clash.
His charioteer, the god Krishna, disagrees, sharing an invaluable piece of wisdom that still resonates today: “No one exists for even an instant without performing action; however unwilling, every being is forced to act.”
Arjuna may think that his refusal to participate in the battle removes him from the moral fray just as it does from the physical conflict. But Krishna shows him that this is not so. Sitting out the battle will have consequences of its own. Krishna may not kill those he values on the other side, but without his protection, many on his own side will fall. His choice not to act is an action with consequences of its own.
Decisions (and Nondecisions) Have Consequences
This mirrors our predicament with AI. Many people today wish they could opt out of the AI revolution entirely—to disengage from a technology that writes essays, diagnoses diseases, powers weapons of war, and mimics human conversation with often unsettling accuracy. But as Krishna taught Arjuna, inaction is not an option. Those who want to wash their hands of the problem empower others to make decisions on their behalf. There is no way to rise above the fray. The only question is whether or not we will engage wisely with AI.
This wisdom extends beyond individual choices to organizational and societal responses. Every business decision about whether to adopt AI, every regulatory framework that governments consider, every educational curriculum that addresses (or ignores) AI literacy—all are actions with consequences. Even choosing not to implement AI is itself a significant action with far-reaching effects. As Krishna taught Arjuna, we cannot escape the responsibility of choice.
AI As a Mirror of Society—and Business
AI systems, and LLMs in particular, hold up a mirror to humanity. They reflect back at us all the human-created content they have been trained on, both the good and the bad. And this has ethical, social, and economic implications.
If AI-driven recommendations reinforce past trends, will innovation and sustainability suffer? If algorithms favor corporate giants over independent brands, will consumers be nudged toward choices that consolidate market power? AI doesn’t just reflect history—it is shaping the future of commerce. As such, it requires careful human oversight.
Recently, I conducted an experiment with a major retailer’s recommendation engine. The algorithm consistently steered me toward established brands with large advertising budgets, even when smaller companies offered better products or alternative options that might have interested me. This algorithmic preference wasn’t malicious—it simply optimized for historical purchasing patterns and profit margins. Yet its cumulative effect could make it harder for innovative, purpose-driven companies to gain visibility, potentially slowing the adoption of alternative business models.
AI and Philosophy
AI-driven automation is also transforming the workforce, reshaping entire industries, from journalism to customer service to the creative arts. This transition is bringing new efficiencies but it also raises critical questions: How do we ensure that the economic displacement of human workers does not widen inequality? Can we create AI systems that augment human work rather than replace it?
These are not just technical questions but questions with deeply philosophical ramifications. They demand that we think about issues such as the value of labor and the dignity of work. At a time when so much attention is being paid to bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States, they also have an intensely political dimension. Will reshoring matter if these jobs, and many more, are automated within just a few years?
As AI becomes more capable, we must also ask whether our reliance on it weakens human creativity and problem-solving skills. If AI generates ideas, composes music, and writes literature, will human originality decline? If AI can complete complex tasks, will we become passive consumers of algorithmic output rather than active creators? The answers to these questions will depend not just on AI’s capabilities but on how we choose to integrate this technology into our lives.
The Middle Way
Public sentiment toward AI swings between utopian optimism and dystopian dread, and I have witnessed this same polarization firsthand in boardrooms and policy discussions. Some see AI as a panacea for global problems—curing diseases, reversing climate change, creating prosperity. Others fear mass unemployment, autonomous weapons, and existential threats. I have seen senior leaders chasing the latest technology without thinking about how it can help deliver on the company’s mission while others reject out of hand the possibility that AI could do more than automate a small number of IT services.
The Buddha taught the virtue of the Middle Way: a path of balance that avoids extremes. Between the fascination of the AI maximalists and the fear of the AI Luddites lies a more balanced approach—one informed by both technological innovation and ethical reflection.
We can strike this balance only if we start by asking what values should guide the development and implementation of AI. Should efficiency always take precedence over human well-being? Should AI systems be allowed to make life-and-death decisions in healthcare, warfare, or criminal justice? These are ethical dilemmas we must confront now. We cannot afford to sit idle while these questions are answered in a piecemeal way depending on what seems to be most convenient at the moment. If we allow unreflective answers about AI usage to become deeply embedded in our social structures, it will be all but impossible to change course later.
The Path Forward
Jean-Paul Sartre, the influential French existentialist philosopher, argued that human beings are “condemned to be free”—our choices define us and we cannot escape the need to impose meaning on life through those choices. The AI revolution presents us with a new defining choice. We can use this technology to amplify distraction, division, and exploitation, or we can take it as a catalyst for human growth and development.
Transcending what we are now does not mean finding an escape from our humanity but rather finding a way to fulfill its potential at the highest possible level. It means embracing wisdom, compassion, and moral choice while acknowledging our limitations and biases. AI should not replace human judgment but rather complement it—embodying our highest values while compensating for our blind spots.
As we stand at this technological crossroads, the wisdom of ancient philosophical traditions offers valuable guidance, from the Bhagavad Gita and Buddhist mindfulness to Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Socrates’s self-reflection. These traditions remind us that technological progress must be balanced with ethical development, that means and ends cannot be separated, and that true wisdom involves both knowledge and compassion.
Just as the alchemists of old sought the philosopher’s stone—a mythical substance capable of transforming base metals into gold—we now seek to transform our technological capabilities into true wisdom. The search for the philosopher’s stone was never merely about material transformation but about spiritual enlightenment. Similarly, AI’s greatest potential lies not in its technical capabilities but in how it might help us better understand ourselves and our place in the universe.
A more human future
This journey of philosophical reflection cannot be separated from technological development; it must be integral to it. We must cultivate what the ancient Greeks called phronesis—the practical wisdom that can guide action in complex situations. This wisdom enables us to navigate uncertainty, to accept that we cannot predict every outcome of technological change, and yet to move forward with both courage and caution.
By balancing innovation with caution, efficiency with meaning, and technological progress with human values, we can create a future that enhances rather than diminishes what is most valuable about being human. We can build AI systems that amplify our creativity rather than replacing it with mechanistic outputs, that expand our choices rather than constraining them, that deepen our human connections rather than substituting virtual alternatives.
In doing so, we may finally realize what philosophers have sought throughout history: not just mastery over nature, but wisdom about how to live well in an ever-changing and uncertain world.
Login to add comment
Other posts in this group
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed i
When government officials accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, in a Signal group chat discussing U.S. military plans, all hell broke loose. The Atla
It really is mind-blowing how much incredible stuff we can do with images these days.
’Twasn’t long ago, after all, that advanced image adjustments required pricey desktop-computer software and s
Rasmus Hougaard is the founder and managing partner of Potential Project. In 2019 he was nominated by Thinkers50 as one of the eight most important leadership thinkers in the world. He writes for&
Almost 23 years ago, an employee at Apple described Steve Jobs to me as one of the world’s few “rock star CEOs.” At the time, I didn’t understand why anyone would talk about the head of a company
Millennials were told the 2008 recession was a “once in a generation” economic crisis. Almost two decades later, déjà vu has struck.
While the U.S. market rose following Pres
Meta is set to face off against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Monday in an antitrust trial that could force the social media giant to divest Instagram and WhatsApp.
The closely wa
