Why the future is human ... plus AI | Sal Khan and Esther Perel

Sal Khan expects AI to disrupt many fields, especially work, within five to ten years. Globalization’s effects unfolded over roughly 30 years, he says, while AI could bring comparable disruption in three to five. If jobs change this quickly and society fails to respond effectively, Khan warns, the result could be greater political polarization. The pace of change, not only its scale, is central to the challenge.

Khan argues that education should adapt through personalized, mastery-based learning, so students can address gaps instead of moving on after one graded attempt. He also wants credentials to represent what people know rather than how long they spent in a seat. That means recognizing durable skills such as collaboration, listening, and communication alongside academic knowledge—capabilities employers increasingly seek.

Esther Perel sees relationships undergoing a major makeover. More individualistic models offer people greater freedom than duty-based arrangements, but also demand adaptability, flexibility, and strong communication. Couples may need to negotiate questions such as boundaries around care, whether to have children, and how often to visit parents. Perel treats these not as minor details but as choices people must keep working through as expectations change.

Perel wants people to think about AI as “human plus,” rather than human versus AI, while warning that technology can make intimacy seem manageable, measurable, and disposable. She calls the tendency to treat partners like commodities “romantic consumerism”: people apply return-on-investment thinking to love and assess relationships as though they should deliver predictable returns. Yet, she says, many relationship dilemmas are paradoxes to manage, not problems with a final solution. AI companionship adds another question about commitment without making the underlying tensions disappear.

Contactless habits, Perel argues, reduce opportunities for in-person connection and may encourage people to expect human relationships to be as predictable as apps. She notes that 74% of food cooked in American restaurants is eaten off premises. Against that backdrop, she expects to study the growth of small groups organized around a shared purpose, vision, or activity as people tire of screens. The possibility she raises is not simply a return to older forms of connection, but a renewed appetite for being together around something meaningful.

Khan describes the convergence of AI, biotechnology, and human-genome manipulation as a frightening “singularity” because no one knows what its outcome will be. He anticipates renewed interest in religion or religion-adjacent structures, which can provide rituals and a sense of place in uncertain times. Perel adds that people have lost some religious mechanisms that helped them bear suffering and confront ethical and existential dilemmas. Khan hopes the response to upheaval will also include a shift away from optimizing measurable outcomes such as money and toward thriving and investing more in one another. Money can make a major difference when people are struggling, he says, but its incremental benefit diminishes beyond a point, even as the drive to optimize can continue.