OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently declared that artificial intelligence has reached what many have long called the “singularity”—the point at which AI systems outperform humans at solving complex problems. In an interview discussed by The Jerusalem Post, Altman argued that we have crossed a threshold that only a decade ago seemed like science fiction. Technion Professor Yaniv Romano largely agreed, noting that current AI models are already solving mathematical problems beyond the capabilities of all but the most highly trained experts. More importantly, Professor Romano identified what I believe is the real issue: verification has become harder than generation. (The Jerusalem Post) That observation deserves far more attention than the debate over whether the word singularity is technically correct. For centuries, knowledge itself conferred authority. Professionals were valuable because they possessed information that clients did not. Physicians knew medicine. Attorneys knew the law. Financial advisors understood tax codes, investment theory, and estate planning. Expertise was, in large measure, a function of informational asymmetry. Artificial intelligence is rapidly eliminating that asymmetry. Today, virtually anyone with an internet connection can ask an advanced AI system sophisticated questions about medicine, law, engineering, taxation, or finance and receive remarkably persuasive answers in seconds. Information has become abundant, inexpensive, and nearly instantaneous.
Many conclude that this diminishes the value of professionals. I believe precisely the opposite.
The Burden Has Shifted
Professor Romano’s observation that verification is becoming more difficult than generation fundamentally changes the nature of professional practice. AI can now generate thousands of potential solutions almost effortlessly. Determining which of those solutions is factually correct, legally permissible, ethically appropriate, and suitable for a specific individual remains extraordinarily difficult. (The Jerusalem Post) Generation has become inexpensive. Judgment has become priceless. This distinction lies at the heart of what I have described elsewhere as Rational Paternalism. The professional’s primary value has never been merely supplying information. It has always been exercising disciplined judgment on behalf of another human being whose interests the professional has agreed to protect.
AI does not eliminate that responsibility. It magnifies it.
The Professional Is Now Responsible for Verifying the Machine
When an AI system proposes a sophisticated tax strategy, who bears responsibility if it fails? Not the algorithm. The CPA does. If an AI-generated estate plan proves defective, the malpractice claim is not filed against the language model. It is filed against the attorney. If an AI system recommends an unsuitable investment portfolio, regulators will not investigate the software. They will investigate the financial advisor. Artificial intelligence may produce recommendations, but professional responsibility remains stubbornly—and appropriately—human. The fiduciary obligation cannot be delegated to software. Neither can professional ethics.
Information Is No Longer the Scarce Resource
History demonstrates that technological advances rarely eliminate professions. Instead, they redefine them. Calculators did not eliminate mathematicians. GPS did not eliminate pilots. Medical imaging did not eliminate physicians. Instead, professionals evolved toward higher-order responsibilities requiring interpretation, contextual understanding, and accountability. Artificial intelligence represents another such transition. The differentiator is no longer access to information. It is the capacity to evaluate information critically. Professionals increasingly function as interpreters rather than repositories of knowledge, as validators rather than calculators, and as ethical decision-makers rather than mere technicians.
The Greatest Risk Is Not Artificial Intelligence
Professor Romano raises an even deeper concern. He worries that future generations may become so dependent on AI that they gradually lose the ability to verify its conclusions independently. If students learn mathematics primarily through AI-generated solutions, future mathematicians may possess less independent mathematical intuition than previous generations. The same concern extends naturally to medicine, law, engineering, accounting, and financial planning. (The Jerusalem Post) This phenomenon is not unique to AI. Aviation has long recognized the risks of automation dependence, where excessive reliance on automated systems can erode manual flying proficiency. The same dynamic may emerge across every knowledge profession. The danger, therefore, is not that AI becomes intelligent. The danger is that humans become intellectually passive.
Decor Duty in the Age of AI
In my recent work on artificial intelligence and professional ethics, I proposed that professionals owe clients more than technical competence. They owe what I describe as Decor Duty: the obligation to exercise independent judgment, maintain intellectual discipline, verify information before relying upon it, disclose material limitations where appropriate, and remain personally accountable for every recommendation made to a client.
Artificial intelligence expands—not diminishes—that duty.
Every AI-assisted recommendation should pass through the professional’s independent reasoning before it reaches the client. Professionals must resist the temptation to become mere operators of increasingly sophisticated software. Our responsibility is not to repeat what AI says. Our responsibility is to determine whether AI is correct.
The Return of the Professional
Ironically, the more capable artificial intelligence becomes, the more valuable genuine professionalism becomes. When everyone has access to the same AI models, competitive advantage no longer lies in asking better questions alone. It lies in exercising better judgment:
- Wisdom.
- Prudence.
- Ethical reasoning.
- Accountability.
These qualities remain uniquely human and form the foundation of every true profession. Perhaps Sam Altman is correct that we are approaching a technological singularity.If so, I would suggest that we are simultaneously entering something equally significant:
the return of the professional.
Artificial intelligence has not replaced the ethical advisor. It has made the ethical advisor indispensable. In short, the guy with an excavator has more responsibilities than the guy with a shovel.