Erich_Huang
Erich Huang is associate chief clinical officer for informatics and technology at Verily (Google’s life sciences subsidiary). This essay is his written response in January 2026 to the question, “How might individuals and societies embrace, resist and/or struggle with transformative change in the AI Age? What cognitive, emotional, social and ethical capacities must we cultivate to ensure effective resilience? What actions must we take right now to reinforce human and systems resilience? What new vulnerabilities might arise and what new coping strategies are important to teach and nurture?” It was published in the 2026 research study “Building a Human Resilience Infrastructure for the AI Age.”

“The impact of the technological innovations of the past 200 years has made it clear that as new developments in science and technology create new possibilities they also fundamentally change many aspects of human society, forcing us to question our notions of what it means to be human and creating new social, environmental and economic challenges. In 301 CE, Emperor Diocletian passed an ‘Edict on Maximum Prices’ in response to rampant inflation during the Roman Tetrarchy. Among the items listed in that edict was the ceiling of 150,000 denarii per pound for ‘purple-dyed silk.’ In modern dollars, this translates to 16 to 20 years of wages for a common laborer – in the ballpark of $1 million. Why so expensive? In that era, the only lasting purple dye was ‘Tyrian purple,’ a color painstakingly extracted from a genus of Mediterranean sea snails. To produce one ounce of dye required thousands of snails, breaking or piercing their shells, extracting the minute hypobranchial mucus gland into vats of brine, followed by days of fermentation. Pliny the Elder describes the odors as ‘putrid,’ ‘heavy’ and ‘revolting.’

There is a strong (and ironic) tendency to place faith in the ‘magic’ or otherworldly powers of AI. This is a fallacy. As the Princeton professor Arvind Narayanan asserts, ‘AI is normal technology.’ It simply has the capability to efficiently generate content several orders of magnitude more quickly and easily than previously. … I believe that AI – done thoughtfully, consciously and well – can do great things for society.

“If we fast forward to the Industrial Revolution, a young British chemist trying to synthesize quinine from coal tars, accidentally created a purple sludge that permanently dyed silk a brilliant purple at industrial scale. Hence, something that once cost the equivalent of an ancient laborer’s life’s work, became easily obtainable for pennies.

“Inexpensive purple dye led to a chemical revolution where the dye’s chemical building blocks became foundational through ‘aromatic organic synthesis’ to chemical engineering and the pharmaceutical industry. Aromatic compounds are amenable for a variety of purposes. Virtually every class of drugs, from antipyretics to antibiotics to chemotherapies, has derivations of this chemistry.

“As with many industries, AI as it stands today is an extractive industry benefiting technology plutocrats far more than society or the laborers who provide its raw materials. AI is obtained at significant cost and with analogous negative externalities. While the direct cost of AI to the consumer is nominal, it is being subsidized by investors betting on exponential returns. And the real cost in terms of power consumption, toxicities, erosion of social interactions and ubiquitous ‘slop’ is opaque.

“As AI has transitioned from the ‘artisanal’ work of statisticians to NVIDIA GB300 Grace Blackwell Ultra chips, there is a strong (and ironic) tendency to place faith in the ‘magic’ or otherworldly powers of AI. This is a fallacy. As the Princeton professor Arvind Narayanan asserts, ‘AI is normal technology.’ It simply has the capability to efficiently generate content several orders of magnitude more quickly and easily than previously.

“Throughout our history, oftentimes belatedly, we have created frameworks to mitigate the negative effects of these technologies. This does not change. What also does not change is that there are factions of ‘true believers’ who believe thoughtful mitigation is a barrier to progress.

“I am an AI practitioner. And just as I believe that safety belts and antilock brakes make for better and safer cars, I believe that AI – done thoughtfully, consciously and well – can do great things for society no less than any other revolutionary, but ‘normal’ technology.”


This essay was written in January 2026 in reply to the question: “AI systems are likely to begin to play a much more significant role in shaping our decisions, work and daily lives. How might individuals and societies embrace, resist and/or struggle with such transformative change? As opportunities and challenges arise due to the positive, neutral and negative ripple effects of digital change, what cognitive, emotional, social and ethical capacities must we cultivate to ensure effective resilience? What practices and resources will enable resilience? What actions must we take right now to reinforce human and systems resilience? What new vulnerabilities might arise and what new coping strategies are important to teach and nurture?” This and 200-plus additional essay responses are included in the 2026 report “Building a Human Resilience Infrastructure for the AI Age.”