When Palantir CEO Alex Karp predicted that AI would erode the economic power of “humanities-trained, largely Democratic voters” in favor of “working class, often male voters,” he wasn’t making a forecast. He was making a choice — and calling it destiny.
Karp’s statement is a vision of how he sees the future, but it is not a predetermined outcome. We have agency to decide whether that vision is the one we want to build.
AI has advanced faster than almost anyone expected. Recent geopolitical shocks have compounded the uncertainty. The question should not be who wins or loses, but whether AI can benefit all of society, regardless of political stripe.
Disruption Isn’t the Same as Progress
The AI era has generated extraordinary wealth. Nvidia and Microsoft are each worth trillions. ChatGPT now reaches 900 million weekly users. By conventional measures, the revolution is working.
Meanwhile, U.S. unemployment hit a four-year high last November. The wealth gap between the top 1% and bottom 50% has widened since ChatGPT launched. Rapid advancement and record market performance are not measures of success — they’re measures of speed.
But a technology capable of unprecedented scientific discovery and work automation should do more than reshuffle economic winners. It hasn’t yet, largely because industry and government have not defined what outcomes they actually want AI to deliver — or who it should serve. But it should be a tide that can raise all boats.
Trust Is the Missing Ingredient
People adopted the smartphone because they could see how it would improve their lives. Nobody adopts a technology intended to replace them.
Yet that’s exactly how some of AI’s loudest advocates describe it. The result is predictable: wariness, skepticism, and a widening gap between immense capability and actual value.
For America to remain the world’s preeminent superpower, people need to trust AI. That requires them to feel its benefits directly.
Where AI Should Actually Go to Work
If AI is eliminating manual labor, the economically and socially prudent move is to direct that capacity toward the sectors most starved of it: healthcare, human services, and infrastructure.
These industries face acute labor shortages and stretched staff. They’re also where automating manual tasks would be most transformative without displacing workers:
- Doctors spending more time diagnosing and treating patients instead of documenting visits
- Caseworkers staying in their roles because catching up on work admin no longer consumes their weekends
- Transit systems running more reliably as maintenance and reporting become automated
That’s not disruption. That’s progress.
Build With Workers, Not For Them
The US leads in AI talent, research, and infrastructure. The challenge isn’t building the technology — it’s pointing it at the right problems.
One meaningful shift since ChatGPT’s launch: the skills threshold to harness AI has dropped dramatically. Companies building these tools increasingly employ frontline workers — the ones who actually understand what’s broken in healthcare or social services — to ensure they are highly customised for their specific needs. My team with frontline experience are frequently the ones training workers on using our technology.
A software engineer knows nothing about being a doctor or a caseworker. If AI is going to serve our most critical workers, industry must build it with them, not for them. Government procurement must do the same, and consult staff throughout the procurement process. That’s how you get both value and trust.
Stop Predicting. Start Deciding.
Karp is right that AI will reshape economic power. Where he’s wrong is treating that reshaping as inevitable rather than engineered.
The problems most in need of solving aren’t hidden. We know where inequality lives. We know which services are buckling. America has built its greatness over the centuries as the land of opportunity. If the leaders building this technology want it to last, they should stop predicting who gets left behind — and start deciding who gets lifted up.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
