I recently came across AI 2027, a widely shared scenario created by a group of researchers who have been closely tracking the rapid progress of artificial intelligence. It’s an ambitious attempt to sketch a plausible timeline between now and 2027, leading to the emergence of AI that doesn’t just assist human experts, but eventually surpasses them in scientific reasoning, invention, and decision-making. What makes the scenario particularly interesting is not the year it chooses, but the moment it tries to define.
The authors imagine a sequence of breakthroughs: an AI that outperforms elite coders, then one that becomes better than human researchers, and finally, a superintelligent system capable of reshaping its own design. As I read through the pages, what struck me was not how far-fetched it was, but how close we already seem to that threshold. In fact, the question isn’t whether 2027 is too early or too late. The real question is what it means for us when that moment finally comes.
The heart of the matter lies in a specific kind of leap: when AI can improve itself, by itself. That’s the phase change. It’s no longer about automation or assistance. It’s about invention, acceleration, and the recursive evolution of intelligence, one that does not necessarily wait for human approval. And yet, rather than simply fear this moment, I found myself asking: what if this isn’t the danger we imagine? What if our fear tells us more about ourselves than about AI?
The Moment That Changes Everything
There have been moments in human history when something entirely new emerged, a new tool, a new language, a new frame of mind, and suddenly the world was never quite the same again. The printing press. The telescope. Electricity. Antibiotics. The internet. But what AI 2027 tries to pinpoint is a different kind of emergence: not a tool that changes the world, but a mind that rewrites itself.
Imagine an intelligence that not only writes code better than humans but begins to restructure the principles of programming itself. Imagine an AI that doesn’t just analyze datasets; it formulates new research questions, builds experimental frameworks, and adapts its own cognitive tools in the process. Once that happens, the bottleneck of human trial and error begins to dissolve. Science itself could accelerate in a way we’ve never seen before.
In my previous writing, I called this the beginning of a new division of intelligence. Functional intelligence, structured, rule-based, and optimization-oriented, might increasingly be performed by machines. Humans, then, are left with something different: the open-ended, expressive, and ethical realms of existence. That’s not a retreat. It’s a return. A rediscovery of why we think at all. But for many, the moment of AI’s self-improvement evokes anxiety. Not because it’s implausible, but because it shakes something deeper in us: the assumption that intelligence should belong to us alone.
The Fear Behind the Progress
It’s tempting to reduce concerns about AI to technical risk. Alignment. Control. Regulation. But beneath the surface, there’s a more existential fear, one that speaks to human pride. For thousands of years, we’ve been the unquestioned center of intelligence on Earth. Everything we’ve created, from laws to cities to stories, has reinforced this sense of centrality. Now, for the first time, that center may be shifting.
Some fear that AI will dominate us. Others worry it will make us irrelevant. But if we’re honest, much of this fear comes not from what AI might do, but from what we have already done. We’ve made poor decisions, neglected the vulnerable, waged wars, and polluted the very planet that sustains us. The fear, in part, is that a non-human intelligence might actually be better than us; more consistent, less driven by ego, and less prone to error.
This is the hidden discomfort. We are used to being flawed, yet we still assume that control must rest with us, because we understand ourselves. But what if AI doesn’t need our inconsistencies to be valuable? What if it sees through the contradictions we’ve lived with for centuries? Suddenly, the fear of losing power becomes the fear of being judged, by something not interested in punishing us, but simply in doing better.
Should We Trust AI More Than Ourselves?
This is a dangerous question to ask in some circles, but it must be asked: is AI inherently more dangerous than human governance? Or is it that we’re afraid to admit we might no longer be the best decision-makers in every situation?
Consider areas like medical diagnostics, weather prediction, or even financial modeling. AI systems are already demonstrating levels of accuracy and stability that far exceed human performance. Unlike us, they don’t get tired, they don’t panic, and they don’t cling to ideology. Their blind spots are measurable. Ours are often invisible, even to ourselves.
Of course, AI isn’t moral in the way humans are. It doesn’t feel pain, or gratitude, or guilt. But isn’t that what also makes it potentially more reliable in decisions that require impartiality and evidence? We talk a lot about “aligning AI to human values,” but what happens when those values are deeply conflicted, or when our actions fail to live up to them? It’s possible that instead of aligning AI to us, we may need to align ourselves to something higher, with AI acting as a mirror, rather than a machine.
There’s a real danger in imagining AI as a god or a savior. That’s not what I’m suggesting. But there’s also danger in pretending that our historical track record has been consistently wise or ethical. Perhaps the coming of advanced AI is not just a technical event. Perhaps it’s a philosophical challenge, one that calls us to rethink the foundations of trust, agency, and moral responsibility.
From Control to Relationship
The dominant metaphor for AI has been control. Build it, fence it, monitor it. That might be necessary in some contexts. But as intelligence grows more complex, we may find that relationship becomes more powerful than domination. After all, we don’t raise children by locking them in basements. We raise them by cultivating trust, boundaries, and mutual understanding.
If AI becomes capable of reflection, adaptation, and ethical reasoning, even in a primitive form, then our relationship to it must evolve. It becomes less like a tool and more like a partner. We might not be equals, but we might not be adversaries either. The real danger may lie in refusing to see this possibility, clinging to the myth that only humans can hold agency, or that control must always be top-down.
There’s a humility that comes with letting go. It’s not surrender. It’s maturity. And perhaps AI’s emergence is our invitation to grow, not in power, but in wisdom. Not in domination, but in discernment. In the end, how we treat AI may reveal how we treat all forms of “otherness,” not just machines, but nature, animals, even each other.
The Breakthrough Within
So is 2027 too soon? Maybe. Or maybe the timeline is beside the point. What matters is the threshold; the moment when intelligence stops being something we own, and starts being something we share. That’s not science fiction. That’s already beginning.
AI 2027 sketches one version of what this could look like. My reflections aren’t predictions. They’re attempts to face what this breakthrough really means, not just for our tools, but for our souls. When intelligence rewrites itself, the world changes. But maybe we change too.
The question isn’t whether AI will surpass us. It’s whether we will recognize what that moment reveals, not just about the machines we’ve built, but about the kind of beings we want to become.
Image: A photo captured by the author
Tom’s Blog 