The "Godfather of AI" recently spoke uncomfortable truths about workplace displacement that many of us aren't ready to hear. His insights were enlightening, powerful, and deeply unsettling – particularly when viewed through the lens of a parent watching their child navigate an increasingly uncertain job market.

My daughter Amelia, a film and media student at a Russell Group University, calls AI "unethical." Her generation sees it as a thief of opportunity, a barrier to the future they were promised. Having witnessed peers penalised by AI detection systems despite never using the technology, and facing a job market where graduate roles are disappearing before they can even interview, her frustration is understandable.

But here's the uncomfortable truth we must confront: this isn't AI's fault. It's ours.

The student reality: crisis in real time

From Amelia's perspective, the damage is already done. According to the ONS (2025), the UK job vacancies have plummeted from 835,000 in March-May 2019 to just 736,000 in March-May 2025, falling below pre-COVID levels. While other economic factors have also contributed to this decrease, this is simultaneously encouraging companies to embrace AI adoption at the expense of human workers. Richard Partington (2025) writes, major employers like BT openly discuss using AI advances to justify cutting up to 55,000 jobs. For students investing in education while accumulating debt, these statistics represent more than economic data – they represent futures under threat.

"If AI is such a 'useful tool,' then why are the institutions preparing me for the workplace condemning its use in academic work?" Amelia asks. Universities prohibit AI in essays, calling its use 'academic misconduct,' yet the very workplaces students are preparing for increasingly rely on these systems. This contradiction creates a bewildering landscape where students are simultaneously told to avoid AI and that AI will replace them.

On top of that, Generative AI systems have unfiltered access to human work and data, giving statistics and ideas with seldom credit to their sources. It recombines and reprocesses what already exists in the public domain, which raises a question around innovation. In academic study, there is a focus to understand the works of ‘greater minds.’ What if those ‘greater minds’ used AI to generate their ideas?  Would we not progress as a society, as we won’t be innovating and instead risk intellectual stagnation?  Without authentic innovation and original thinking, society loses its capacity for breakthrough discoveries and paradigm shifts that drive real progress.

The ethical concerns run deeper than employment. Generative AI systems access everything from family photos to children's videos, renowned novels to social media posts, creating an "amalgamation of human work, but devoid of the human element." For a generation raised on digital literacy and consent awareness, this feels fundamentally wrong.

The strategic view: tools vs intent

From a change leadership perspective, AI isn't malicious, it doesn't "decide" to take jobs. People do. Leaders, hiring managers, and strategists rushing toward efficiency often apply AI like duct tape over every problem without asking crucial questions: is this the right solution? What's the human cost?

The issue isn't just job loss, it's job design and the narrow way we define work. If we treat positions as sets of repetitive tasks, AI will inevitably outperform humans. But if we believe work encompasses creativity, growth, empathy, judgment, curiosity, and meaningful contribution, we must build roles and cultures reflecting those values.

The graduation cliff

Graduates aren't meant to be robots or plug and play productivity machines. Their value lies in potential, in learning, evolving, and accepting responsibility. True succession planning invests in humans who will shape the future.

When we hollow out entry level roles because AI performs them faster, we rob talent of their launchpad. We're not just displacing current jobs; we're removing the runway for future professionals. Recent graduates hear "Well, AI can do that" before interviews even begin. This isn't just economically shortsighted, it's culturally destructive.

Beyond false choices

The current trajectory suggests we're building toward an unemployable future rather than using AI to create space for deeper thinking, better learning, and more meaningful work. This represents a fundamental choice about what we value as a society.

From the academic sphere, we see institutions simultaneously prohibiting AI use while preparing students for AI-integrated workplaces. This contradiction must be resolved through thoughtful integration rather than blanket prohibition. Universities could model responsible AI use, teaching students when and how to use these tools ethically whilst maintaining academic integrity.

From the workplace perspective, we need succession planning that grows people rather than just optimising output. This means creating roles that leverage human strengths alongside AI capabilities, not replacing human development with automation.

A generational bridge

The tension between embracing technological advancement and protecting human opportunity isn't new, but its current manifestation feels uniquely urgent. Students like Amelia represent more than individual concerns. They embody society's collective anxiety about technological displacement.

Yet this generational divide also offers opportunity. Students bring digital nativity and ethical awareness that can guide responsible AI implementation. Experienced professionals contribute strategic thinking and systemic perspective. Together, we can move beyond reactive prohibition toward proactive integration.

The path forward

We're standing at a pivotal point requiring intentional choices about the future we're building. Rather than automating our way into unemployment or prohibiting our way into irrelevance, we need frameworks that:

• Define work around uniquely human contributions: creativity, empathy, complex problem-solving, and ethical judgment
• Create development pathways that prepare humans to thrive alongside AI rather than compete with it
• Establish educational approaches that teach responsible AI use rather than avoiding it entirely
• Design succession planning that invests in human potential, not just productivity optimisation

The question isn't whether AI will transform work, it already has. The question is whether we'll guide that transformation thoughtfully or let it happen to us.

Both student anxiety and strategic optimism contain essential truths. The future of work depends on bridging these perspectives, creating space for human growth within technological advancement. This isn't about choosing between people and productivity, it's about redefining productivity to include human flourishing.

Our succession planning should prepare for humans who are more capable, more creative, and more distinctly human than ever before. That future is possible, but only if we choose it intentionally.

For more startup news, check out the other articles on the website, and subscribe to the magazine for free. Listen to The Cereal Entrepreneur podcast for more interviews with entrepreneurs and big-hitters in the startup ecosystem.