What If Technology Does Not Determine the Future — But We Do?

Servinomy: 16/09/2026

The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist (Apocalyptic Optimist) explores what artificial intelligence could mean for future generations. The maker speaks with scientists, entrepreneurs and other experts, moving between the enormous promises and potential risks of AI.

That is precisely what makes the documentary interesting from a Servinomy.eu perspective. Not because AI is unimportant or inherently dangerous, but because it illustrates how easily technology can become the starting point when we think about the future of humanity.

What will AI be capable of? How intelligent will it become? Which jobs will disappear? Which problems might it solve? These are important questions.

But perhaps one question should come first: What kind of future do we actually want?

Human history shows a recurring pattern. New technologies create new possibilities, and only afterwards do we fully discover their social, ethical and sometimes harmful consequences. The Industrial Revolution, the car, nuclear energy, the internet and social media have all transformed society. Often, broader social reflection followed only after the technology had already become deeply embedded in our lives.

That does not necessarily make us foolish. Curiosity, innovation and experimentation are fundamental human qualities. Technology has also improved human life in countless ways.

But it does raise a fundamental question: Have we become better at deciding what we can do than at deciding what we ought to want?

Interestingly, the documentary itself ultimately returns to human responsibility. The important question is not only what AI will do to humanity, but what people will choose to do with AI.

This points towards a different understanding of progress. Technological progress is about what becomes possible. Human progress is also about what we value, how we want to live together and what kind of future we want to create. A more powerful technology, therefore, does not automatically mean a better future.

Perhaps we should reverse the order more often: What kind of future do we want? What values belong to it? And which technologies can help us create it?

This is not an argument against technology. It argues against allowing technology to become an end in itself.

Technology increasingly determines what we can do. The fundamental question is whether we still determine what we want to do.

The same pattern also appears within organisations. Here too, the discussion often starts with technology. What can AI do for us? Which platform should we implement? Which processes can we automate? How can we make better use of our data?

These are useful questions in themselves. But when technology becomes the starting point, people risk adapting to the system rather than the system supporting people.

It is pointless to make the wrong thing more efficient. Efficiency only creates value when it serves an effective purpose. When technology becomes the starting point, we often ask: "How can we adapt our organisation to this technology?" When people are the starting point, we first ask a different question: "What are we trying to achieve as an organisation, and how can people, processes and technology best work together to achieve it?"

Perhaps this is the same lesson that The AI Doc offers us at a societal level. Technology is powerful. Precisely because of that, we need to be careful that its possibilities do not automatically become our objectives.

Technology should help us determine how to do something more efficiently—not determine what we effectively want to achieve. Effectiveness before efficiency. People initiate. Processes facilitate. Technology supports.

That applies to society. It applies to organisations. And ultimately, it applies to ourselves.