Digital Transformation 2035: How AI Reshapes Power and Cognition in Human Society

Digital Transformation 2035: How AI Reshapes Power and Cognition in Human Society

In the long history of technological change, humans often overestimate short-term impacts and underestimate long-term consequences. But the current wave of generative AI seems to be making this pattern of judgment obsolete. A telling signal comes from a 2023 Pew Research Center survey of hundreds of technology experts: these observers, deeply involved in the digital transformation, painted a split picture of digital life in 2035—one that includes both optimistic expectations of the democratization of knowledge and deep unease about intensified surveillance and social fragmentation.

This split is not simply technological pessimism or optimism, but rather reflects the fundamental impact of digital technology on the structure of modern society. If we view technological change as a long game, then the key question for 2035 is not how powerful AI is, but whether human institutions, cognition, and ethics can keep pace with the speed of technological evolution.

The Evolutionary Mismatch Between Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind

Humans remain, biologically and psychologically, a species designed for an era of resource scarcity in the Old World. As one expert in the survey noted, the psychological traits evolved while humans were "prey" may lead us to fear the abundance brought by AI rather than embrace it. This evolutionary mismatch is not new in history, but what makes AI unique is that it acts directly on human cognitive processes—not by transforming the environment, but by changing our thinking environment.

Modern AI systems can generate seemingly plausible content at scale, simulate interpersonal relationships, and influence emotions. By 2035, this capability may thoroughly shake the very concept of "authenticity" in the digital world. The threat is not that machines become malicious, but that humans lose their discernment amid overwhelming flows of information. As the survey discussed, "simulated selves" even more extreme than today's advertising personas may become the norm, and humans will increasingly coexist with their digital doppelgangers.

The Paradox of Democratic Knowledge and Authoritarian Tools

On the positive side, AI has the potential to become a historic lever for knowledge creation. Open-source AI can help humans process vast amounts of information, handing basic research to machines and freeing humans to focus on creative work. Some experts predict that by 2035, a "digital public sphere" may emerge, combining algorithms with governance processes to form genuinely democratic spaces for discussion. This vision is appealing because it implies that AI could break information monopolies and allow more people to participate in knowledge production.

But the same technology also provides unprecedented capacity for social control. Globally, at relatively low cost, democratic processes could be hijacked and evolve into "democratures"—hybrids of democracy and authoritarianism. Comprehensive surveillance, facial recognition, and behavioral tracking could give governments or corporations the ability to intervene in individual choices. This is not a science-fiction scenario but a trend already underway. The key is that technology itself does not determine the outcome; rather, power structures determine how it is implemented.

From Adapters to Creators: Opportunities and Risks in the Cognitive Relationship

The deeper changes in this transformation may occur at the level of one-on-one relationships. We are "sharing consciousness" with tools—AI can perceive our intentions, adapt to our ways of thinking, and become an extension of cognition. When humans shift from being tool users to co-creators with tools, higher demands are placed on human self-awareness.

The danger lies in over-trust. Generative AI can imitate humans, which may lead to security vulnerabilities and emotional manipulation. More dangerously, humans may overrate the intelligence of these systems and thus relinquish their own judgment. Experts point out that so-called "human-compatible AI" needs to be designed to maintain uncertainty and adapt to multiple possible scenarios, rather than providing definitive, singular answers. This requires us to rethink the nature of knowledge: uncertainty is not a flaw, but part of wisdom.

National Strategy and the Challenge of Global Governance

Competition around AI has become part of national strategy, yet the global governance system is not prepared for this. Experts call for an international IT governance mechanism similar to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP) to prevent AI from becoming a tool that undermines democracy, civil rights, and individual freedom. This call reflects a deeper imbalance: technology is international, but regulation is local.

By 2035, AI technology may exacerbate inequality between and within nations, with techno-economic power becoming overly concentrated and forming a new "digital divide." If the few actors with data, computing power, and algorithmic capabilities dominate this process, then the Global South and marginalized groups may become passive recipients of technology rather than co-creators. This stands in stark contrast to the expectations of the internet bubble era in 2000—when people believed digital technology would naturally bring equality.

Conclusion: 2035 Is Not a Prophecy, but a Choice

The true value of this Pew survey lies not in predicting the specific digital life of 2035, but in revealing the fork in the road ahead. The trajectory of technological change is not linear; it is shaped by policy choices, social movements, corporate decisions, and geopolitical competition. Good long-term observers tend to believe that the most likely outcome is neither utopia nor dystopia, but a mixed state: both surveillance and liberation, both concentration of power and creation at the margins.

The discussion of 2035 is actually about the present: how we design technology, how we build institutions, and how we distribute the dividends of technology globally. Humanity cannot halt the pace of technological evolution, but it can determine the course. As one respondent said, the key lies in whether systems are designed for empowerment or for exploitation. This decision will define the real face of digital life in 2035.

---

Source: Pew Research Center, "Expert essays on the expected impact of digital change by 2035", https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/06/21/expert-essays-on-the-expected-impact-of-digital-change-by-2035