What Societal Consequences Will AI Have in 2024?
CAISA analyzes future scenarios for the societal impact of AI
How will artificial intelligence shape society toward 2040, and which development trajectories are the most likely or the most consequential?
This question was at the center of a recent CAISA seminar on AI futures, where the center’s researchers systematically applied scenario analysis to examine possible developments and their implications for society, organizations, and decision-making.
Scenario Planning as an Analytical Method
Rather than focusing on a single expected future, CAISA applied scenario planning as its analytical approach. The purpose was to challenge existing assumptions about the development of AI and to identify dynamics characterized by both high uncertainty and the potential for far-reaching societal consequences.
This approach enables a more nuanced analysis of the future by working with multiple parallel development trajectories. It thereby establishes an analytical foundation for understanding how technological, political, and societal factors may interact to shape the role of AI in society.
Two Key Uncertainties
The seminar identified two cross-cutting dimensions that are likely to be decisive for the societal impact of AI:
1. The degree of embodied AI
To what extent will autonomous, AI-driven systems be physically integrated into everyday life, for example through robots in manufacturing, healthcare, or services= Alternatively, AI may remain primarily digital and virtual, embedded in software, platforms, and decision-support systems.
2. The degree of outsourcing of social and cognitive capabilities
To what extent will humans retain core competencies such as relational understanding, judgement, and collective decision-making? Or will these functions increasingly be delegated to AI systems?
Together, these two dimensions form an analytical coordinate system that defines four distinct future scenarios.
Four Possible Futures for AI and Society
Building on these two axes, CAISA’s researchers analyzed four scenarios, each representing a distinct development trajectory.
For each scenario, they systematically addressed questions such as:
- What drivers and decisions could lead to this development?
- Which actors stand to gain or lose?
- What societal consequences may emerge?
- Which early indicators could signal that developments are moving in this direction?
This approach highlights that the future is not determined solely by technological capabilities; it is also shaped by institutional, political, and societal responses.
Technology is Not the Whole Explanation
A key finding from the seminar is that the future significance of AI cannot be understood in isolation from its broader context. Political decisions, regulatory frameworks, market structures, and societal values all play a decisive role in shaping hoe the technology is developed and applied.
In a European and Danish context, the tension between innovation, competitiveness, and societal values will both accelerate and constrain particular development pathways.
CAISA’s Continued Work on Future Scenarios
CAISA will continue to develop and analyze future scenarios for AI, with a focus on:
- Societal consequences
- Governance and regulatory implications
- Organizational and institutional adaptation
- The identification of early indicators of emerging trajectories.
The aim is to strengthen the analytical foundation for decision-makers in both the public and private sectors and to help ensure that Denmark is better prepared to navigate the societal implications of AI.
By systematically exploring multiple possible futures, it becomes possible to develop a more robust understanding of how AI may shape society, and which strategic choices are required under conditions of uncertainty.
Through six interventions from leading European scholars in their field, this research brief examines the challenges of governing AI-generated content in an information environment where such content is rapidly becoming the norm. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives, the contributions assess the effectiveness and limitations of emerging AI transparency governance, particularly labelling requirements under the EU AI Act and the forthcoming Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content. While transparency labels are normatively important for informing users about content provenance, research suggests that labelling alone is unlikely to mitigate manipulation, restore trust, or empower citizens. The research brief therefore argues for a broader transparency ecosystem that combines labelling with governance infrastructure, organisational accountability, and ongoing research to develop adaptive, evidence-based approaches to AI transparency.
Artificial intelligence has moved to the very center of Danish politics. During the government negotiations at Marienborg in April 2026, the talks were temporarily paused so that senior politicians could attend a seminar on AI and its societal implications.
At the seminar, CAISA Director Rebecca Adler-Nissen, together with Professor Abraham Newman (Georgetown University), contributed research-based perspectives on the role of AI in geopolitics, the economy, and democracy. Their presentation addressed, among other issues, how artificial intelligence affects security, labor markets, education, and Europe’s strategic position.
According to TV2, there was strong interest among the politicians, who actively engaged with questions related to both technological developments and societal consequences. Rebecca Adler-Nissen highlighted the high level of engagement and the growing demand for knowledge about the implications of AI across policy areas.
CAISA’s participation underscores the center’s role in bringing research-based knowledge into political decision-making processes and contributing to the responsible development of AI in society.
This brief is currently only available in Danish.
Summary (Translated)
Digital sovereignty is multidimensional and requires priority
In a time of geopolitical instability and rapid AI development, control over digital infrastructure and data has become critical. While there is broad agreement on the need for action at the national, Nordic, and EU levels, a shared language around digital sovereignty is still lacking. This lack of alignment leads either to inaction or to narrow technical solutions without strategic direction. The core argument of the brief is that digital sovereignty is a multidimensional concept, involving both principled positions and pragmatic choices. Reducing it to technical solutions risks overlooking the values and trade-offs that determine who controls and benefits from these systems. Conversely, focusing solely on values leads to abstract principles without practical implementation or real impact. Digital sovereignty is rarely about choosing between full self-sufficiency and total dependence. Rather, it is about balancing often competing demands for openness, security, competitiveness, growth, values, and rights in a world where capabilities are unevenly distributed. This means that it is necessary to define who or what is to be protected or promoted, within the domains of security, economic growth, or citizens’ rights, and to recognize that choices in one domain may strengthen or undermine another. The brief focuses on AI as the area where digital sovereignty is most acutely at stake, but the concepts apply more broadly to digital infrastructure and data. It provides decision-makers with tools to navigate these dilemmas by presenting:
- A conceptual framework for identifying who or what should be digitally sovereign.
- An overview of how digital sovereignty is prioritized around the world.
- An understanding that sovereignty can be exercised through three control regimes: ownership, expertise, or regulation – but that none of these are sufficient on their own.
The central implication of the brief is that digital sovereignty requires an integrated strategy that combines ownership, expertise, and regulation, while managing the interdependencies and trade-offs between security, economic growth, and citizens’ rights through clear objectives. Without this holistic approach, there is a risk of ineffective regulation, unusable infrastructure, or a lack of capacity to develop, maintain, and apply solutions in practice, potentially undermining security, growth, or rights.
