Few topics have captured global attention in recent weeks like the statements of Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. Altman is speaking openly about humanity standing on the threshold of what he calls the AI singularity — a point at which artificial intelligence surpasses human intellect across all domains and begins to autonomously improve itself. His vision is one not of science fiction, but of a future that is already taking shape. But what lies behind this idea, why are his remarks spreading so rapidly, and how realistic is such a scenario?
The concept of singularity is far from new. It refers to the hypothetical moment when machines no longer simply outperform humans at isolated tasks but exceed human cognitive capabilities entirely — and begin to self-improve at a pace beyond our understanding or control. The term was originally borrowed from physics by mathematician and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge in the 1990s and later popularised by futurist Ray Kurzweil, who famously predicted this shift would occur around 2045. Altman now gives this idea a fresh tone: he speaks of a “gentle singularity” — not a dramatic leap, but a gradual, unstoppable transition that, in his view, is already underway.
Altman sees no single, cataclysmic event, but rather a period of exponential acceleration. He describes a world in which AI no longer just generates text or images, but revolutionises scientific discovery, solves complex challenges and refines itself, without human intervention. According to him, what today feels like a technical marvel — an AI that writes fluid prose or generates code — will tomorrow be routine, and the day after, the norm.
He outlines concrete milestones: by 2025, Altman foresees AI agents capable of handling cognitive tasks currently performed by humans, such as analysing complex data or managing projects. By 2026, AI systems may propose original scientific hypotheses and suggest experiments. By 2027, robots could be carrying out sophisticated tasks in the real world that have so far required human dexterity and judgment.
Why do Altman’s statements resonate so strongly right now? Part of the answer lies in the astonishing pace of AI development. The release of models like GPT-4 and the more recent GPT-4o has shown just how capable these systems already are. They write books, design business plans, draft legal opinions, assist in medical research, and more. For many, it seems a logical step that such systems might soon start generating entirely new knowledge. Altman knows how to frame this progress as a compelling vision that fascinates — and divides.
But Altman’s comments are not only born of technological optimism. They are also a strategic move. As CEO of OpenAI, whose technologies are setting the pace globally, he has every interest in portraying a future in which his company’s products are indispensable. At a time when tech giants are locked in an AI arms race, his statements serve as a powerful signal: OpenAI wants to be seen as the architect of the coming age of superintelligence.
Reactions to Altman’s vision are mixed. Many scientists and critical voices urge caution. They argue that while large language models like ChatGPT or Gemini are impressive, they are far from true “intelligence” in any human sense. These systems predict language patterns; they don’t understand, reason or feel. The path from powerful assistants to true superintelligence is complex and riddled with unanswered questions: How do we control such systems? Who defines the ethical boundaries? What are the social and economic consequences when machines take over core human functions?
The debate about regulation is gaining momentum. While Altman paints a picture of beneficial AI that will serve humanity, experts and policymakers are calling for clear rules and international cooperation. They want to slow the rush towards superintelligence to minimise risks ranging from economic dependency and misinformation to security threats. In this light, Altman’s words act as both a vision and a warning: if society doesn’t engage with these issues now, we may lose the chance to shape the technology in the public interest.
Altman’s gentle singularity is not a distant point on the horizon, but — in his view — a process that has already begun. The question is not whether this transformation will happen, but how we as a society choose to guide, manage and oversee it. Between promise and peril lies the challenge of our time: to harness the opportunities while keeping the risks firmly in view. The gentle singularity invites us not to be passive observers of technological change, but to actively consider what role AI should play in our shared future. And that is what makes it so relevant.
