AI, Humanity, and the Dr. Manhattan Syndrome

In early 2025 the Federal Election Commission revealed a $25 million donation from OpenAI co‑founder Greg Brockman and his wife to a partisan political group. When asked about the gift, Brockman described the effort as “bigger than companies, bigger than corporate structures,” framing it as a mission for Humanity. The word sticks out because it is used as a vague, high‑level banner while the actual money supports a concrete political agenda.

The altitude problem

Prosser calls this mindset the Dr. Manhattan Syndrome – a reference to the blue, levitating figure from Watchmen who can see the whole arc of civilization but can no longer feel individual suffering. In the tech world the same altitude appears when executives talk about “advancing humanity” while ignoring the day‑to‑day worries of users: job security, privacy, creative ownership, or even a child using a chatbot to cheat on homework.

Why the abstraction is tempting

The appeal is simple. “Humanity” is a comfortable target. It can be modeled, optimized, and placed at the top of a company’s hierarchy without having to name specific trade‑offs. It also casts the leader as a civilizational hero, making any criticism look petty. This rhetorical move mirrors the nuclear industry’s Atoms for Peace campaign in the 1950s, which tried to reframe atomic energy as a universal benefit while dismissing public concerns as a knowledge deficit.

Lessons from the nuclear era

The nuclear sector spent decades talking over the public, assuming that more education would solve resistance. When accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl finally forced a reckoning, the industry had built almost no reservoir of trust. The result was a wave of reactor cancellations and a lingering skepticism that persists today.

The current AI trust gap

Pew Research data from mid‑2025 shows that half of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI, and 57 % rate its societal risks as high. The anxiety is not abstract; it is rooted in concrete experiences—job displacement, data privacy, and the erosion of creative control. Brockman’s response—pouring money into a partisan cause while speaking in cosmic terms—fails to address those specific worries.

A different communication model

Prosser points to Steve Jobs as an alternative. Jobs never framed Apple’s products as a mission for humanity; he described what they could do for you: a thousand songs in your pocket, a phone that puts the world in your hand. Even the “Think Different” campaign highlighted real people—Einstein, Gandhi, Lennon—rather than an amorphous collective.

The lesson is not to abandon a long‑term vision, but to match the message to the audience. Inside a boardroom or an investor pitch, a civilizational narrative may be appropriate. In a press conference or a user‑focused blog post, the story should be about individual concerns and concrete benefits.

Breaking the altitude habit

Changing the pattern does not require a radical overhaul of strategy. It requires:

1. Listening first – engage with specific public concerns rather than assuming they stem from a knowledge gap.
2. Naming trade‑offs – be transparent about the risks of AI deployment alongside the potential gains.
3. Human‑centered storytelling – let customers be the protagonists of your narrative, not the company’s mission.

If AI firms can rebuild trust at the human level, they will likely dominate the next era of technology. If they continue to float above the people they claim to serve, they risk becoming irrelevant, much like Dr. Manhattan when the world needed a doctor, not a god.

---

Jim Prosser is a veteran communications leader who has worked at Twitter, SoFi, and Google, and now runs Tamalpais Strategies. His newsletter Person Familiar offers critical, practical perspectives on tech communications.