Which 2050 Do We Want? Reflections on Leadership in the AI Era from Davos' opening session

January 19, 2026

Pamela Woitschach

Originally published on: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-2050-do-we-want-reflections-leadership-ai-era-pamela-pnrjc/?trackingId=kl%2FFNctLRW2dxtAbTdC%2Feg%3D%3D

The World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, has officially begun. The opening Open Forum: “Which 2050 Do We Want?” focused on sustainability was a gem. The session brought together voices from technology, civil society, academia, and global organizations, including:

• Arjun Prakash, Co-founder and CEO, Distyl

• Zainab Azizi, Global Shaper, Kabul Hub

• Taylor Hawkins, Global Shaper, Sydney Hub

• Agnes Callamard, Secretary-General, Amnesty International

• Adam Tooze, Director, European Institute, Columbia University

I watched the recordings from the session in full. What follows are my personal notes and reflections, focused specifically on what this dialogue revealed about leadership in the age of AI. 

I'm not a reporter : ) I am a researcher and leader interested in technology, systems transformation, leadership and science. The excerpts I collected do not represent the entirety of the discussion, and I strongly encourage watching the full session to understand the broader context. You can access the video from the session in this link https://www.weforum.org/meetings/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2026/sessions/open-forum-which-2050-do-we-want/

One message was clear to me: the question “Which 2050 do we want?” is ultimately a leadership question. 

For me, this first session reinforced a simple but profound truth: the future is not something that happens to us; it is something we actively design.

Technology, including AI, will magnify the values embedded within our systems, but it will not define them. Across speakers, there was strong alignment that dignity, sustainability, inclusion, and accountability must anchor leadership in the age of technology.

To make sense of the discussion, I organized my reflections using the AI-Era Leadership Model for Global Impact that I shared yesterday. 

The AI-Era Leadership Model: Characteristics for Global Impact

1. AI literacy and technological discernment

2. Ethical leadership and integrity

3. Adaptive capacity and responsible innovation

4. Relational intelligence and cross-sector collaboration

5. Emotional self-regulation

6. Amplify collective human intelligence

7. Systems thinking and inclusivity

8. Moral courage and purpose-driven leadership

9. Accountability through metrics and measurement

10. Graceful use of power and strategic foresight

Below are selected speaker excerpts that, to me, powerfully illustrate each leadership characteristic:

1. AI Literacy and Technological Discernment

Arjun Prakash, representing technology, reflected on the idea that AI is not an autonomous force shaping society independently of human choice. Instead, AI was framed as a reflection of our values, incentives, and cultures. For me, this reframed AI literacy as far more than technical skill. It is a core leadership responsibility, requiring a deep understanding of system design, limitations, and long-term societal impact. AI/technology literacy not only allows leaders to optimize models but also to engage and guide all technical team members, policy makers, and society in shaping systems and incentives driving the system models.

Arjun Prakash captured this clearly:

“AI is not making decisions. It is a set of values we as a society choose to align the system with.”

He also warned of the consequences of poor discernment:

“Technology and AI are an amplifier of a set of intents and cultures we choose to program it with.”

 2. Ethical Leadership and Integrity

Ethics emerged as non-negotiable. Delegating decisions to technology or institutions does not remove moral responsibility from leaders.

Agnes Callamard, on her dreams for 2050, grounded her thoughts on ethics in human rights and accountability:

“A 2050 that is centred on recognition of human rights protection (individual and collective), a 2050 that recognizes the ills of the past, and predicated on the notion that those responsible are actually paying for it.”

Arjun Prakash reinforced this principle:

“Delegating decisions to machines does not absolve leaders of responsibility.”

What stood out to me is how clearly ethical leadership was framed as intentional governance, centred on transparency, explainability, and social well-being, not short-term efficiency.

 3. Adaptive Capacity and Responsible Innovation

Several speakers emphasized uncertainty as a defining condition of the future and adaptability as a defining leadership skill. To me, this framed responsible innovation as the ability to build learning systems, institutions and cultures that adapt without abandoning core human values. And to be honest, this was one of the main highlights of the session for me.

Taylor Hawkins cautioned against overconfidence in prediction:

“We can’t possibly predict what challenges we will be facing in 2050. We can estimate or anticipate.”

Instead, she emphasized preparedness:

“What I hope (for 2050) is that we have the societal infrastructure, the literacy and the hygiene to know what leads us to know where to put our hands on.”

4. Relational Intelligence and Cross-Sector Collaboration

Relational intelligence, including trust, dialogue, and contextual understanding, came through as essential, especially in addressing misinformation. This reinforced for me that leadership in the AI era is inherently relational, requiring deep collaboration across communities, sectors, and geographies.

Zainab Azizi, on the topic of misinformation and disinformation, highlighted the importance of context:

“Without having context, you can’t really understand the situation.”

She went further, pointing to the risks of abstract global narratives:

“If you don’t understand what the ground and living lifestyle is, let alone the traditions or the ruling authority, you can’t really understand the different objectives and stories.”

Taylor Hawkins that she hopes that we get to 2050, where we can practice the art of having difficult conversations:

“I hope that the conversations about policy and about infrastructure and social connectivity become something cool we can engage in. And that we practice the art of having difficult conversations.”

5. Emotional Self-Regulation

In a fast, high-stakes environment amplified by AI, speakers also emphasized the inner work of leadership. This resonated deeply with me. Emotional self-regulation was framed not as a soft skill, but as a critical capability for thoughtful, responsible leadership.

Taylor Hawkins described misinformation as a symptom, not the root problem:

“Misinformation and disinformation are a rampant virus in a weakened system.”

She challenged leaders to look inward:

“What is within ourselves that makes us so ready to grab the polarizing slope that we are presented with?”

6. Amplifying Collective Human Intelligence

Rather than replacing human intelligence, the discussion emphasized the importance of amplifying it. For me, this underscored that leadership in the AI era is about unlocking collective intelligence, not centralizing power.

Arjun Prakash, in his dreams for 205,0 expressed this aspiration clearly:

“I hope we as a world can afford every single human agency and dignity.”

He also warned of the risks if we fail:

“If we don’t change the incentive structure… we will end up with a concentration of wealth, and more importantly, with a concentration of agency.”

7. Systems Thinking and Inclusivity

Speakers repeatedly emphasized interconnectedness between humans and the planet, technology and economics, and present and future generations. Systems thinking, as I heard it, demands inclusive systems that recognize how decisions ripple across social, environmental, and economic domains.

Agnes Callamard articulated this systemic vision:

“A 2050 that is predicated on the relationship between humans and the planet, that allows for a sustainable life, respect for biodiversity, and a commitment to decreasing inequality.”

 8. Moral Courage and Purpose-Driven Leadership

Moral courage was described as the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and challenge entrenched systems. The speaker's voice reinforced for me that purpose-driven leadership is anchored in dignity, justice, and continuity with human values.

Zainab Azizi emphasized intergenerational responsibility:

“I want a 2050 that we feel prepared for… across generations, youth, elders, children, and that we all feel included.”

Taylor Hawkins reminded us that the answers are not entirely new:

“Everything comes from incredible practices (from First Nations in Australia) that are the core of humanity, instead of creating new ones.”

 9. Accountability Through Metrics and Measurement

While discussed more implicitly, accountability was a recurring undercurrent. In the AI era, accountability must extend beyond compliance to include the measurement of ethical, social, and long-term outcomes.

Arjun Prakash highlighted the need to redefine success and guardrails:

Leaders must decide “what are the incentives we want to set up for systems that will serve society.”

 10. Graceful Use of Power and Strategic Foresight

Speakers warned that accelerating power demands require restraint. This compression of time increases both opportunity and risk. Strategic foresight and the graceful use of power will determine whether acceleration leads to progress or harm.

Arjun Prakash captured the urgency:

“AI is not making decisions; it is a set of values we as a society choose to align the system with. We need to decide what the incentives, we want to set up for society in pursuit of this new model in the lead up to 2050.

We have to come to terms with the set of values we as a society want to build our system with. This requires long-term thinking. There is a lot of short-termism right now. The moment call is for long-term thinking to design the policies and systems that we want that actually can perpetuate, and when we program AI with this incentive, AI will amplify it. If we don’t change the incentives’ structure that has been designed for the last few decades with a certain economic model, they will end up with a concentration of wealth, and more importantly, with a concentration of agency. Because fewer people will end up making the decisions that get amplified 10X larger with the system.”

PW.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my posts and articles are my own and do not represent the official positions or policies of any institution or organization with which I am or have been affiliated. All content is shared in a personal capacity.