Introduction 

While Machine learning and the limited deployment of AI capabilities within specific applications is a  well-established practice, the recent emergence of OpenAI’s technology along with several other LLM powered applications begs the question of how HRM (Human Resource Management) practice will  evolve to meet the challenges of the AI or even AGI-powered enterprise. The quest for a fresh approach  to the HR mission in this new corporate paradigm requires a major shift of perspective and a redefinition  of the HR mission on several levels. 

This transformation will require a clean sweep of the current conceptual framework in HRM practices to  be replaced by new and dynamically balanced approaches based on the invocation, extension, and in  some cases, repurposing of multiple frameworks. A short list of those frameworks could include the  following: 

• Set Theory 

• Systems Theory 

• Stakeholder Theory 

• Resource-Based View 

• Human Capital Theory 

There also may be completely new and imaginative frameworks emerging from the AI/Human interactive  process that are not obvious at the present time. For now, Set Theory seems to provide the most wide  open greenfield space to begin viewing the remaking of the role of HRM in the enterprise. In this model HR professionals become the lynchpin in balancing the advantages of AI against Alan Ginsberg’s  “Moloch” effect as Max Tegmark discussed it on a recent Lex Friedman podcast. In that interview  Tegmark mused about the inexorable rise of the unbound nexus of technology and loss of human  control, as power is concentrated in the hands of AI systems. 

Just how Set Theory and HRM combine to inoculate us against total extinction is a bit of a leap, and  perhaps the chasm is altogether too wide. Still, if we are to reap the rewards and avoid the threat of  entropy-powered nihilism that AI or AGI has come to represent, then it appears that we must work on  solutions at the periphery that mine the boundary effect of the Human/AI interaction while at the same  time "bearding the Moloch in its den". 

What follows is a short profile, perhaps even a procedural gesture drawing of how we might proceed. A Set Theory Approach to Human Resource Management in the AI-Driven Enterprise 

Set theory's principles offer a remarkable similarity to the challenges and necessities of redefining HRM  in the context of AI. AI is transforming every function in the enterprise, creating a dynamic environment  where roles and functions are not fixed but continuously reimagined and redefined. The axioms of  Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC), which serve as the foundation of most mathematics, offer intriguing  possibilities when applied to HRM. The axioms outline the rules for constructing and manipulating sets,  providing a solid yet flexible foundation for a new HRM paradigm. 

Advantages of Set Theory in HRM

The advantages of applying set theory to HRM are manifold. Firstly, it provides a flexible and adaptable  framework that can accommodate the dynamic and evolving nature of roles in an AI-integrated  organization. The fluidity of sets aligns with the fluidity of modern roles, providing a natural fit for this  new HR paradigm. Secondly, set theory, with its focus on relationships and intersections between sets,  mirrors the growing importance of cross-functional collaboration and role integration in modern  enterprises. HRM, in this new context, needs to focus not just on individual roles but on the intersections  of skills, knowledge, and functions within the organization. A set-theory-inspired approach can help HR  professionals identify and cultivate these intersections, maximizing the potential of their human-AI  workforce.  

Finally, set theory encourages a holistic view of the organization. In a set-theory-based HRM framework,  every role, every skill, every individual, and every AI application is part of the overarching set of the  organization. This perspective encourages an inclusive, comprehensive approach to HRM, where every  element of the human-AI workforce is valued and utilized to its fullest potential. 

The Morphing Role of HRM 

In the AI-driven era, HR's role morphs from traditional management to that of an architect and  conductor of an interconnected, AI-driven ecosystem. HR professionals are tasked with maximizing the  potential of both human and AI capabilities, crafting an organization that is more than the sum of its  parts. This new HRM paradigm, inspired by set theory, is poised to redefine the future of work. 

What follows is a catalog of the new roles for HR practitioners and their associated Axiom from Set  Theory 

The Axiom of Extensionality 

Extensionality in set theory states that if two sets have the same elements, they are considered equal. In  the context of HRM, extensionality implies that HR professionals must view their roles as adaptable and  flexible, mirroring the ever-evolving needs of the workforce they manage. 

Just as sets can be modified by adding or removing elements, HR roles should be dynamic and  responsive to the changing skills, expertise, and attributes of employees. This approach enables HR to  align with the diverse and evolving needs of the organization. 

In this light, HR professionals transition into Workforce Evolution Facilitators. Their role is to understand  the evolving needs of the workforce, recognize the elements that define each unique role, and create  adaptive strategies to meet those needs. By mirroring the changing workforce, these facilitators ensure  that the HR function remains relevant, effective, and aligned with the company's dynamic needs. 

In essence HR’s role lies in achieving certain objectives such as fostering a positive work environment,  supporting employee development, ensuring compliance with employment laws, and driving  organizational performance. By focusing on the preservation of fundamental objectives rather than  being bound by rigid job descriptions, HR professionals can effectively navigate the changing HR  landscape and contribute strategically to organizational success. This flexible mindset enables them to  embrace new technologies, develop innovative HR practices, and explore novel ways of maximizing  human potential in collaboration with AI.

The Axiom of Null Set and Power Set 

The concepts of null set and power set in set theory have direct relevance to HRM. The null set  represents the absence of elements, which can be likened to roles that are wholly performed by AI  systems. On the other hand, the power set encompasses all possible subsets of a set, reflecting the  diverse combinations of AI and human skills that constitute the workforce. In HRM, understanding and  embracing this spectrum of AI-human configurations allows for a strategic allocation of resources and  talent to drive organizational success. 

In this paradigm shift, HR professionals evolve into Human-AI Integration Architects. They design role  structures that accommodate the full spectrum of human and AI skills, creating an organizational  blueprint that is as dynamic and adaptable as the roles it encompasses. They are also responsible for  ensuring that human skills are enhanced by AI capabilities, rather than replaced, fostering a climate of  cooperation between human and AI elements in the workforce. 

Recognizing "Empty Sets" in HRM: 

As mentioned above in the context of HRM, "empty sets" refer to roles that are entirely performed by AI  systems, without direct human involvement. By identifying tasks that can be automated and assigning  them to AI systems, HR professionals can streamline processes, improve efficiency, and free up human  resources for more strategic and complex endeavors. Embracing "empty sets" allows HRM to harness the  full potential of AI in areas such as data analysis, recruitment screening, employee onboarding, and  routine administrative tasks. 

Identifying "Power Sets" 

Contrasting the concept of "empty sets," HR professionals also need to identify and cultivate "power  sets" within their organizations. "Power sets" represent combinations of AI and human skills that create  unique synergies and constitute a diverse array of potential job profiles. 

By strategically integrating AI technologies with human capabilities, HR professionals can unlock new  possibilities and maximize the potential of their workforce. For example, AI-powered analytics tools can  provide data-driven insights, enabling HR professionals to make informed decisions about talent  acquisition, employee development, and performance management. This collaboration between AI and  human expertise generates powerful outcomes that surpass what either could achieve independently. 

The implications of the null set and power set in HRM are twofold. First, recognizing "empty sets" allows  HR professionals to optimize efficiency and leverage AI technologies to automate routine tasks, freeing  up human resources for more strategic activities. Second, identifying and cultivating "power sets"  enables HR professionals to harness the combined strengths of AI and human capabilities, leading to  innovative approaches, improved decision-making, and enhanced organizational performance. 

The Axiom of Union  

Union, as an axiom in set theory, combines the elements of multiple sets into a unified whole. The principle of union reflects the need to foster collaboration between AI and human intelligence. HR  professionals must create a cohesive workforce where AI and human elements coexist and interact synergistically. By leveraging the strengths of both AI and human resources, organizations can maximize  their overall performance and drive innovation. Workforce Synergy Managers step in to make this happen. Their role focuses on promoting cohesion  and seamless interaction between human employees and AI systems. The Workforce Synergy Manager  acts as a bridge between the human and AI elements of the organization, ensuring that both sides  understand and complement each other's contributions. They play a pivotal role in developing strategies  and initiatives that promote collaboration, knowledge sharing, and mutual understanding between AI  and human employees. 

One of the key responsibilities of the Workforce Synergy Manager is to create an environment that  encourages the integration of AI systems into the existing workforce. They work closely with HR  professionals, department heads, and AI specialists to identify areas where AI can augment human  capabilities and drive efficiency. 

By fostering a unified workforce, the Workforce Synergy Manager helps create a harmonious ecosystem  where AI and humans work together seamlessly. They facilitate communication and collaboration  between human employees and AI systems, ensuring that both sides are empowered to contribute their  unique skills and expertise. This collaboration enables the organization to leverage the strengths of each  element, leading to improved decision-making, enhanced problem-solving, and increased innovation. 

Furthermore, the Workforce Synergy Manager plays a crucial role in managing potential challenges and  concerns that may arise during the integration of AI systems into the workforce. They address any fears  or resistance from employees, providing support, training, and guidance to help them adapt to the  changing dynamics of the AI-driven environment. Their focus on workforce cohesion and collaboration  helps build trust and confidence among employees, fostering a positive and inclusive work culture. 

The implications of the axiom of Union in HRM underscore the importance of unity and collaboration in  the AI-integrated organization. The role of the Workforce Synergy Manager highlights the significance of  creating a cohesive and synergistic relationship between AI and human employees. By promoting a  unified workforce, HRM can harness the full potential of both AI and human intelligence, driving  innovation, productivity, and organizational success in the AI-driven era. 

The Axiom of Infinity and Replacement 

The concepts of infinity and replacement in set theory highlight the infinite potential for growth and  adaptability. In HRM, these principles underscore the need to embrace continuous evolution and  adaptation in response to technological advancements and shifting organizational needs. HR  professionals must cultivate a culture of learning and innovation, anticipating future skills requirements  and nurturing talent to meet the ever-changing demands of an AI-driven enterprise. 

Drawing from these axioms, the role of Dynamic Role Strategists becomes crucial in HRM. Dynamic Role  Strategists play a critical role in aligning the organization's workforce with the dynamic nature of AI  technologies. They anticipate and shape the evolution of roles within their organizations, proactively  identifying emerging trends, advancements, and disruptions in the AI landscape. By doing so, they  ensure that the organization remains agile and responsive to the changing needs of the AI-driven  environment. 

One of the key responsibilities of Dynamic Role Strategists is to conduct regular workforce assessments  to identify areas where AI can automate routine tasks or enhance productivity. They collaborate closely  with AI specialists and department heads to understand the capabilities of AI systems and identify  opportunities for role transformation. 

In partnership with HR professionals and learning and development specialists, Dynamic Role Strategists  design training programs that equip employees with the skills necessary to adapt to evolving roles. They 

identify the knowledge gaps and competencies needed in the new AI landscape and develop strategies  to upskill or reskill employees accordingly. 

Dynamic Role Strategists also foster a culture of continuous learning and professional growth within the  organization. They engage in ongoing conversations with employees to understand their career  aspirations and preferences. Based on this information, they provide guidance and opportunities for  employees to explore new roles, projects, and collaborations that align with their individual goals and  the evolving needs of the organization. 

By embracing the fluidity of roles, Dynamic Role Strategists enable organizations to proactively anticipate  and capitalize on the opportunities presented by AI technologies. They drive strategic workforce  planning, identify emerging role requirements, foster a culture of continuous learning, and enable  employees to thrive in an environment where roles are continually redefined and optimized in  collaboration with AI technologies. 

Overall, Dynamic Role Strategists are instrumental in shaping the future of work within AI-integrated  organizations. They embody the principles of Infinity and Replacement, ensuring that roles and  responsibilities evolve in tandem with the capabilities of AI. By embracing these axioms, HRM can foster  a workforce that is agile, adaptive, and empowered to leverage AI technologies for enhanced  productivity and innovation. 

The Axiom of Foundation 

The foundation axiom in set theory asserts the existence of an element upon which other elements  depend. In HRM, this principle reflects the need for role hierarchy and dependency within the  organization. HR professionals play a critical role in establishing clear reporting lines, defining  responsibilities, and ensuring effective collaboration between AI systems and human employees. By  establishing a strong foundation, HRM enables seamless coordination and optimal utilization of  resources. 

The Foundation axiom resonates with the concept of role hierarchy, supervision, and dependency in an  organization. Role Dependency Analysts utilize this axiom, mapping and monitoring the dependencies  among roles, teams, and departments. They also identify foundational roles that others depend upon  and ensure these are adequately supported. 

Role Dependency Analysts conduct thorough analyses to understand the interconnectedness of roles  and how they contribute to the overall functioning of the organization. They identify key dependencies,  both direct and indirect, among roles and teams, and assess the impact of any changes or disruptions to  the dependencies. 

Through their analysis, Role Dependency Analysts help HR professionals and organizational leaders make  informed decisions about role design, workforce planning, and resource allocation. They ensure that  roles are structured in a way that supports effective collaboration, minimizes bottlenecks, and maximizes  the flow of information and resources across the organization. 

In addition to mapping dependencies, Role Dependency Analysts work closely with HR professionals to  identify opportunities for streamlining processes, optimizing workflows, and improving cross-functional  collaboration. They facilitate discussions and workshops to foster a deeper understanding of role  interdependencies, encouraging open communication and knowledge sharing among teams.

By applying the principles of the Foundation axiom, Role Dependency Analysts enable HRM to establish a  strong foundation for role design and management within the organization. They ensure that the  organization's structure is coherent, roles are clearly defined, and dependencies are understood and  managed effectively. 

Role Dependency Analysts also contribute to succession planning and talent management strategies. By  identifying critical roles and their dependencies, they help HR professionals identify potential risks and  develop contingency plans to mitigate any disruptions that may arise from changes in personnel or  workforce dynamics. 

Ultimately, Role Dependency Analysts play a vital role in creating a resilient and adaptive organization.  Their work helps HRM and organizational leaders understand the intricate web of role dependencies and  ensures that the organization's structure supports efficient operations and effective collaboration. By  aligning roles and dependencies, HRM can foster a productive and harmonious work environment,  where individuals and teams can thrive and contribute to the organization's success. 

The Axiom of Choice  

The axiom of choice in set theory allows for the selection of a single element from each subset of a set.  In HRM, this principle guides the selection and composition of AI-human 'super-teams' for specific  projects or roles. HR professionals strategically choose the optimal combinations of AI and human skills  to maximize performance and drive innovation. This approach promotes a dynamic and agile workforce  that can adapt to changing business needs. 

The axiom of Choice allows for the selection of a single element from each subset of a set. AI-Human  Synergy Selectors apply this concept to form AI-human 'super-teams.' They have a strategic role in  selecting the best combinations of skills and capabilities from the human and AI subsets for each project  or role. 

The new HRM organization is not bound by the rigid hierarchy of traditional pyramid structures. Instead,  it resembles a Venn diagram where roles intersect, collaborate, and influence each other. This structure  acknowledges the fluidity of roles in an AI-driven enterprise, promoting flexibility, adaptability, and  cross-functional cooperation. In this new paradigm, HR is less of a stand-alone function and more of an  integrative, strategic partner for all other functions in the AI-driven enterprise. 

AI-Human Synergy Selectors act as catalysts for collaboration, harnessing the unique strengths of both  humans and AI technologies. This new paradigm in HRM positions organizations to effectively leverage AI  capabilities, drive innovation, and achieve sustainable success in the dynamic landscape of the AI-driven  enterprise.

Conclusion 

Moloch is not vanquished and not entirely tamed. It is not a serene lake waiting for humans to set sail at  their leisure. It is more an ocean, at times seething with monster waves, at other times and climes full of  favorable currents and winds, if we but have the navigational wit to sail them. 

The application of set theory principles to Human Resource Management (HRM) in the context of an AI driven enterprise offers at best a primitive map with navigational aids and warnings of possible shoals. 

As Alfred Korzybski mused “The map is not the territory” and neither is set theory an all-inclusive framework for predicting and managing the effects of AI on the emerging organizations it will  underwrite. 

It is at best, a starting point and a fresh if not wholly definitive view of the direction HRM might evolve. It  is undoubtedly a dynamic model with which to address the challenges and opportunities presented by AI  technologies. Its flexible and adaptable framework aligns with the fluid and evolving nature of roles in  AI-integrated organizations. By aligning their practice with these set theory axioms, HR professionals can  refine their conceptions of their roles and functions, becoming catalysts and architects of human-AI  integration, while countering the Cassandras fixated on a looming Moloch, with an optimistic vision of  collaboration and synergy.

Reimagining HRM

This series of articles is intended to invite us to forsake the conventional frameworks for crafting the practice of Human Resource Management for a more imaginative recasting of the discipline. One might be tempted to challenge the whole concept of “Human Resource” and ask, as Brandon Flowers did in the lyrics to his hit song, “Are We Human Or Are We Dancer?”

Flowers in his nod to the musings of Hunter S. Thompson, asks if we are prepared to move from a sense of an inevitable prescribed future as dancing puppets to a fully human command of the reality we will create for ourselves. We are indeed more than a human “resource” to be fed into the maul of an all-consuming technology, but how are we to retain that sense of ourselves especially as we don the garb of “Human Resource Management”. Perhaps the answer is contained in the question, are we free to dance or must we remain the objective human, a resource to be managed?

Are we, as human resource professionals, the midwives to a new humanity in commerce, or are we minders, garbed in robotic algorithms, come to round off all possible creative edges?

I believe we can be the harbinger of freedom and the champions of human prerogatives, we can beard the AI Lion in its den and teach it to dance with us. But to do so we must become more than the resource managers of yore. We must learn to dance. Here are some thoughts on a choreography of imagination and promise of what we might become.

G. Spencer-Brown's Harmonic Convergence of Mathematics and Philosophy – or How to see beyond “Resource” to Human.

In the Laws of Form, Spencer-Brown crafts a system that elegantly bridges the realms of mathematics and philosophy, urging us to engage actively with the act of making distinctions. This foundational act, essential for the emergence of form and structure, is a clarion call to embrace our role in the creation and interpretation of the world around us, transcending the passive reception of prescribed roles and functions.

The Core Principle of Laws of Form in the Dance of HRM and AI Integration

Integrating AI within HRM becomes an experiential journey, reminiscent of the transition from passive listening to active participation in music creation. It's about embracing the potentialities of AI, exploring its implications with creativity, and weaving it reflectively into HR practices.

This journey champions the human element in the digital symphony, ensuring that our humanity guides the integration of AI rather than being overshadowed by it.

Adopting an Injunctive Stance in the Choreography of HRM and AI

The injunctive stance advocated by Spencer-Brown is not about the rote application of tools but a profound engagement with AI technologies. It calls for HR professionals to deeply understand AI's capabilities and limitations and to creatively integrate these technologies into the fabric of HR practices, catering to the unique dynamics and needs of their organizations.

The Meta-Framework of Set Theory and Laws of Form

Our series, framed by the set theory and the Laws of Form, captures the spirit of Spencer- Brown's injunctive approach. It encourages a mode of engagement that is active, creative, and attuned to the nuances of organizational and human complexity, fostering a mindset open to exploring the evolving AI landscape.

The best description of how Laws of Form and set theory are related, particularly in the context of HRM, is through their shared focus on distinction-making, structure, and categorization, but from complementary angles. Laws of Form emphasizes the philosophical and conceptual understanding of distinction and form, while set theory provides the mathematical tools to organize and manage these distinctions and forms within complex systems. Together, they offer a comprehensive framework for navigating the challenges and opportunities presented by the integration of AI into HRM, promoting a more nuanced, adaptable, and forward-thinking approach to managing human and artificial intelligence resources within organizations.

Choreographing a Future Where Humanity and AI Dance in Harmony

Aligned with Spencer-Brown's injunctive nature, our narrative underscores the importance of active engagement, creative exploration, and cultivating a flexible, adaptive mindset amidst AI integration. This philosophy beckons HR professionals to become more than supply chain managers for the delivery of “Humans as a Resource”, it rather suggests that we school ourselves to forge an alliance between what must become our cybernetics “better angels” and our biologically circumscribed identities. HRM can become the harmonizing function between AI and humans innovatively and meaningfully, charting a course through the imposing era with foresight, creativity, and a deep commitment to human-centric values or it can become the justification for entropic nihilism, only imagination and courage will tell.

Introduction to Synergistic Resources

Transforming the notion of human resources to a new paradigm - let's call it for starters "Synergistic Resources." Begs the question: is it more toward transcendence, or is it some sort of existential entanglement? Let's put an even finer point on it - the era of Human Resources is over. From John Patterson's invocation of the "personnel department" in the early 1900s at his newly formed National Cash Register company, NCR, to its recasting as the more androgynous taxonomy of "Human Resources" in the 1960s, it no longer suffices to define the practice, let alone the concept. In an earlier article, we asked, "Are we human, or are we dancer?" In this essay, we will look more deeply into the implications of the intellectual transcendence that has expanded our biological sixth sense, that of conceptual thought, to include the oxymoron we call Artificial Intelligence, or the more potently termed, Artificial General Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence: An Oxymoron?

Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron because there's nothing artificial about it. It is actually an extension of our own sense of the universe which we inhabit and our own ability to perceive and translate that perception into experience. It's a totally human undertaking, even though we cast it as an external entity, focused on either our complete transcendence or utter annihilation, depending on which train of thought we accept. In any case, we hesitate to think of it in human terms, but rather in terms more like that of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Terminator" or the "Borg" of Star Trek fare, or R2D2 or C-3PO from Star Wars, or Data from Star Trek for more friendly versions. Take your pick from whatever combination of humanity and machine dichotomies you choose, whether it be those that obey Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics, or Sam Altman as he begs the question with Elon Musk and other AI Doomers. In either case, and in any case, we have to avoid the distractions of form versus function and, more importantly, form vs substance. We are of "such stuff that dreams are made of," and that includes all of the aspects of our perception.

Humanity vs Technology?

The idea of human resources in itself, in some ways, is repugnant, no matter how saccharinized the concept has become over the years. It really relegates its practitioners as just one cog in the large capitalistic machine, intended to dissolve us all in one way or another. If we want to see where HR is headed we might ask, were there ever any paychecks given to anyone aboard the Starship Enterprise? In Gene Roddenberry's universe, there was never a measure of human value or human experience in terms of the economic generation that could be assigned to them. He conceptualized human value in terms of exploration and experience, he understood, as we should understand, that the goal of life is experience, and that we can define and value that experience in any number of ways.

We can be fearful that, rather than transcending or becoming transcended, which some say is the promise of artificial intelligence or AGI, we might be entrapped in a matrix. So it becomes important for us to understand if we are able to know the difference of one condition from another. In the movie, The Matrix, there was an awakening, but an awakening to what? That is the question, and that is the reason that we have chosen in this series of articles to think about what is to become of what we conceive of as our commercial selves, which is really a metaphor for our surviving selves; again - Are We Human Or Are We Dancer?

The Dilemma of Human Resources

What is to become of us, and in what context can we think about it? In this series we choose to think about that primary question by invoking G. Spencer-Brown's the laws of form and then encapsulating those concepts into actionable injunctions by way of Set Theory.

We do this to recast the concept of human resources and the role of its professional practitioners. Whether it be an art or an artifact, at least it is identifiable. We are asking ourselves as members of that community, what are we to become? Are we human or are we dancer? Will we indicate change and make distinctions as to the value of that change as Spencer Brown mused. Will we  create from the unmarked space new values? And will those values, as we call their names, be limited or unlimited? While it is true that the calling of a name limits the value of a distinction, it is also a necessary function that creates the value. Conversely, it also implies that the space it cleaves is unlimited.

The Business of Survival

And that is the implications that we want to point to where artificial intelligence is concerned. That is where the Business of Survival is transacted. We must come to terms with the concept that the business of the enterprise is, in fact, the business of survival. We can rail against it however we want, with whatever populist or capitalist or political or national straw-man we choose to put in place, but the fact remains that we must come to terms with our existence on this planet as a species. And that transactions are a fundamental expression of that species. Our DNA is by nature transactional and it  has wrapped itself across and through the ecosystems that sponsors and underwrites it. This fact poses the question: is the DNA itself, as we name that distinction, a named space that is our value limiting factor, or does it, in fact, offer us the opportunity to look toward and inhabit the unmarked space to create even more marks of ourselves?

Reimagining Our Selves

Will such naming enhance our ability to survive? These are not trivial questions. No human being living on a planet that is festooned with nuclear weapons, the harbingers of their, if not total extinction, their total suppression for ages. No set of humans can conceptualize the arbitrary hand off of responsibility to objectified insensate "selves" and then call it artificial intelligence so as to cast it as the enemy and expect a positive outcome. Shall we spend our time and resources doing that rather than imagining and using this new power to enhance our ability to more fully inhabit a greater sense of value not only in ourselves but also in our relationships with one another? Will we allow politics and our lesser angels to whisper the call of nihilism, or will we listen to our greater angels? And really, at the end of the day, it becomes a question of, do we have greater angels? What, in fact, is the concept of an angel? Are they out-of-our-realm protectors? A set of values which values us more greatly than we value ourselves? And who are the creators of the concept of angels? Even if the deists are right and there is some totally remote and disconnected divinity that reaches out to us through angels, it is still humanity that they touch, and it is still humanity that apprehends them. Those angles are ourselves beckoning.

So, on this verge of a reimagined human paradigm, we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we want to achieve in this more "crucibled" concept of human resources? What will we become? How will we redefine the practice? We cannot simply allow ourselves to be rarefied clerks, minders of payroll and on-boarding and recruiting and whatever other notion of clerical empowerment we wield. Are we only to provide the oil for the mills that allow humans to be more finely ground with fewer distinctions? Or will we think of ourselves more like the "Guild Navigators" of Dune. Will we think of ourselves in a role that calls and responds to those better angels, will they usher us to the grace that casts the concept of artificial intelligence in a role that reaches beyond professionalism yet is bound by an intricate calculus, a definable methodology that recaptures our sense of ourselves without laying it off like some cosmic bookie to what we term “artificial” intelligence. There's nothing artificial about it; it is ourselves, and that is the self we need to expand and celebrate. So, let us look further. Let us have this great notion. Sometimes we have them…

The Multifaceted Self in the Age of AI

It has been said that we all have three selves, a public self, a private self, and a secret self. Our public self is the self that we inhabit as we move through our world of work or commerce or any public engagement where our concern about our appearance and our presentation are paramount.

Our private self has more than one nuanced set of attributes. There is the self we use with friends and there is the self we use with family. These are private selves, selves that we share in an environment where judgment or performance is less paramount and where we feel more approved of.

Then there is our secret self, the self that no matter the level of intimacy we achieve, we are never able to completely share, not because of what we fear so much as what we cannot express.

One might wonder why we begin a discussion of artificial intelligence at work and the practice of HR with a discussion of the various levels of self. But if we think about it, it's not a terribly far leap to understand that one of the most frightening, intimidating, and essential elements of interacting with artificial intelligence is the degree to which the edifice of these selves is penetrated, analyzed, and manipulated. Even our most secret self may be touched.

Ownership and Control in the Digital Realm

One of the first and most obvious considerations in this ethical framework is who creates and controls the AI technology we interact with and how deeply we allow its access. Who owns it? Will the owners be the current and future mega enterprises AI enables? Or will we each acquire and secure our own AI application? A dedicated AI assistant, if you will, that responds only to our criteria and established set of requirements for access, communication, and analysis.

If, as I believe will be the case, we each have the opportunity to acquire a dedicated AI avatar, how will we configure it to admit access to the various levels of ourselves we may wish to allow or disallow? How much of our “personality” which includes inferences from all our “selves” do we allow? Especially considering the fact that other AIs may draw their own conclusions about who we are and what we intend.

Navigating Human-AI Interactions

In such a spy vs spy environment, how will we communicate with the humans and institutions in our network as they acquire and deploy their own AI Avatars? Will they limit our access to all but their pseudo-selves? Will we do the same? How will we be required to establish our permitted level of access to others? And will such qualifications be subject to a dynamic set of criteria? What if we just don’t feel like being in touch with specific individual or organization at that moment, will our AI assistant read our mood and act on our behalf? How much autonomy will we grant it?

The Future of HR in an AI-Integrated World

Extrapolating this model to the workplace poses mind-boggling possibilities for the practice of HR. What if we, as HR staffing agents require resumes, or as HR managers, are tasked with conducting performance reviews or any number of organizational functions, will those requests be qualified and investigated before they're even presented to the human represented by such an AI pseudo-self? Or, in an even more dystopian future, will a company’s HR AI call an employee’s AI for preliminary discussions and negotiations? In that matrix, how much agency will individuals or organizations retain? What about political entities or law enforcement?

Once we enter such recursive communication loops, we might stop the escalation by considering what values we choose to identify and embrace. In our current world, our values, while a complex and evolving set of distinctions that indicate our beliefs and the actions they inspire, are still mostly reflexive, honed over years, and reinforced by bias or, hopefully, to some degree, intellectual reflection.

As AI gains purchase in our personal, economic, and social lives, considering our values becomes increasingly a matter of active injunctions rather than passive emergence. It will become ever more pressing to monitor the values we invoke to establish the criteria for demonstrating our intentions. Either we will instruct or, more likely, evolve our personal AI companions with deliberate reference to an explicit set of values, or they will be subject to whatever training regime they acquire from whatever is on offer from more generalized or, more direly, more controlling AI entities.

Such considerations quickly morph into profound considerations of the meaning of meaning or a less eye-watering question—what exactly do we find valuable? Traditionally, these questions are assigned to culture, society, and education by whatever circumstances the individual has access to. But all of these modalities are largely passively imposed, at least for most of the processes that form our three levels of Self we mentioned at the beginning of this article.

The advance of AI into our cognitive and eventually physical spheres of perception will require a much more active invocation and embodiment of the values we find optimal.

Fortunately, we have foundational frameworks that help us dynamically shape our values through ongoing interactions with both our own and external AI-supported entities, whether human or institutional.

Emerging from the shadow of the world wars in the early to mid-20th century, thinkers like Martin Buber, Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, Fritz Perls, Erich Fromm, Abraham Maslow, and their existential peers contemplated the depths of human experience. With the weight of history as their constant companions, they led us on a quest to redefine the essence of a meaningful life—a quest that echoes through time to our own moment. Let us pause for a moment in memory and aspiration.

Reflecting on Existential Values in a Technological World

Our theme throughout this series of articles echoes The Killers' musical invocation—“Are we Human or Are we Dancer?” Will we become acolytes of an AI Oracle we know not completely whereof? And as either acolytes or ecclesiastical celebrants of these virtual deities, will we become missionaries for a set of values that are more transactional than essential?

Martin Buber's dichotomy of "I<>Thou" vs "I<> It" transcends its German Language syntax as we consider meaning at this primary level and Viktor Frankl’s observation that "When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves." Invites us to consider our ways. How can we fashion our three selves in a future where our essential self-awareness extends through a matrix of technology and biology to an existential regard of their own making?

For now, let us consider the works of three of the authors we mentioned, who offer a foundational approach to our current dilemmas. They are Abraham Maslow, Viktor Frankl and Martin Buber. These scholars offer exceptional nuance and context to add to our considerations. We can take from these three a syncopated approach to developing an emerging value-forming matrix.

First, there is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

• Physiological

• Safety

• Love and Belongingness

• Esteem

• Self-Actualization

Second, there is Frankl’s invocation of intention as the core of all meaning.

Third, there is Buber’s call to the ecstasy of presence – the will to utter "I<>Thou" in the face of an avalanche of "I<>It".

Combining these three conceptual worldviews yields sets of value distinctions we can array to calibrate our engagement with the Human<>AI matrix we are immersed in.

First, we can assign Maslow’s hierarchy to score whatever functionality AI offers by way of economic, social, or political interactions. Such a score can inform what we will summon or allow.

Second, we can measure the Maslow score we assign to any interaction against an index informed by Frankl’s invocation to bring awareness of our most secret self to any consideration of our existential moment – are we truly present in the face of this reality?

Third, once the first two sets are instantiated, we can contemplate the "I<>Thou" of the matrix formed by their intersection.

While this approach to creating a meaning to value calculus seems beyond the bounds of the practical application of technology, we must consider, just what exactly do we mean when we assume the emergence of a Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)? Are we assuming an "I<>It" or an "I<>Thou" relationship?

Navigating that level of abstraction while retaining any psychological relevance requires an even more extended framework. Here, we must pause to catch our breath and consider whether we have left the bounds of any definable role found in any enterprise, economic, social, or political as we know them. And it is the “as we know them” part that we are considering. We postulate that the future of all enterprises and, therefore, any “role” that may be conjured within them are at the brink of a transcending flexion point.

Crafting Our Selves in a Future Shaped by AI and Existential Regard

Rather than leap to define the structure of such social evolution, we will refine our exploration to the description of what we expect will be the primary skill that will identify what we now know as an HR professional. But it must be said that such a title will most likely melt away as some sort of professional chrysalis as it evolves to more of a presence than a role.

We anticipate the advent of a practice rather than a role. We further anticipate this practice will be an essential aspect of all Human<>AI entities as they become even more phenomenally emergent.

As those of us who define our professional persona as human enablers emerge into the new paradigm we are discussing, we see ourselves becoming minders and reminders of an existential stance that is acquired by a new calculus, which is a distillation of the existential framework we outlined in the Maslow—Frankl—Buber value-forming matrix.

While we described an indexing and potential scoring framework for emerging values and the meaning that engenders them, we believe that such computational-centric abstractions must then be recaptured into a subjective stance from which intention can be exercised.

So, have we arrived at a logical fallacy where we have assumed the outcome as part of the question? In a sense, all projections of future outcomes of fundamental advances in knowledge and the technology that enables it are matters of faith rather than data. Data may be the ocean we ride, but it is not the wind that brings a wave. To grasp that, we must learn to ride the waves, and that requires an intuitive stance that integrates our findings with our intentions in each moment.

To acquire such a stance, we propose a calculus of distinctions that allows for recognizing true value in a mix of possible values.

This calculus has four positional Axioms:

• First: There is "You"

• Second: There is "Not You"

• Third: There is The Relationship Between "You" and "Not You"

•  Fourth: There is the perception of the first three

We will call the Forth Position the Art of Existential Regard. This is the fundamental perception of value. It is the position apart from the assumptions of a given system, from which meaning is summoned and value established.

This is a practice, not a definition, dogma, or role. It is an injunction in the way that a musical score is an injunction to the experience of music.

As we mentioned, this practice will not be restricted to a specific individual or role; it will be required of all humans as we confront the new AI-extended human paradigm.

Assuming the fourth position—that which observes all the others—allows all other positions to assert their values and, at the same time, allows for an unbiased perception of those values. The fourth position is the moment between I and Thou, the silence between the notes that anticipates and allows the music.

Once we have invoked an ethical framework in the existential extension of the axes we conjured by way of Maslow, Frankl, and Buber, we can validate them from the fourth position.

We envision what we now know as the practice of HR evolving to advocacy for the practice of Existential Regard, which informs all meaning and, therefore, all value. Is that a Human Resource? Only time and you, dear reader, will tell…