By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Claude)
Editor
[Related: AI-Native Operating Systems: From Procedural to Intent-Based to Ambient]
The ETC Journal article “AI-Native Operating Systems: From Procedural to Intent-Based to Ambient” (13 March 2026) opens with a brisk diagnosis of where personal computing has been stuck: for three decades, users have had to navigate windows, files, and menus, actively directing machines step by step. The article argues that a growing number of technologists now believe the operating system itself may be on the verge of a fundamental transformation — one in which AI agents interpret human intentions and orchestrate digital actions automatically, rather than passively organizing applications and hardware as they do today. What the article calls the third and most radical pathway — ambient computing — is the destination where this trajectory ultimately leads: a world in which the operating system dissolves into a distributed intelligence layer spanning multiple devices and cloud services, and a person’s AI assistant manages communications, schedules events, and retrieves information regardless of which device is currently being used.¹ The following four articles expand on the idea of ambient computing.
Ian Khan — Technology as the Air You Breathe
Ian Khan, a globally recognized futurist and author who appears on the Thinkers50 radar list, has written prolifically about ambient intelligence as the defining technology trend of 2026. His signature move is to reframe the transition not as an upgrade but as a categorical change in the nature of human-technology relations. Khan argues that in 2026 the most transformative technology won’t be something you hold in your hand or stare at on a screen — it will be the invisible intelligence woven into the very fabric of your environment, representing a fundamental shift from active technology engagement to passive, intuitive interaction, where systems anticipate needs, adapt to contexts, and operate seamlessly in the background. The metaphor he returns to most often is that of air: he describes ambient intelligence as technology that will be “the air you breathe” — seamlessly integrated into physical environments to create context-aware, responsive ecosystems.
Khan’s vision matters because he insists on connecting the experiential change to a business and social logic. He identifies what he calls an “era of constraint” — a moment when technological complexity routinely overwhelms human capacity — and presents ambient intelligence as the resolution: technology that reduces friction rather than adding to it. Surveying CES 2025 and projecting forward, Khan argues that the intelligence that was added as a feature in 2025 will become the foundational fabric in 2026, so that for any leader whose business is touched by technology — which is to say, every business — understanding the implications of this shift is not optional; it is essential for future readiness. Khan also issues a clear caveat: he notes that implementation requires careful balance between automation benefits and privacy protections, and that transparency is becoming a competitive advantage rather than merely a legal obligation. His framing helps readers understand that the ambient world is not neutral — it will reward organizations and individuals who learn to navigate invisible intelligence deliberately, and penalize those who simply assume the technology will take care of itself.²
David Jenkins — The Sublimation of the Interface
Writing for ILLUMINATION on Medium in February 2024, David Jenkins, a technology writer and analyst, approaches ambient computing through the lens of design history — specifically the history of the user interface itself. His central provocation is captured in his title: the interface does not merely change in the ambient era, it sublimates — it passes directly from solid to vapor without leaving a visible residue. Jenkins argues that ambient computing is “disappearing technology” — technology that becomes so seamless that you take it for granted, the interface dissolves into the background and it becomes “nothing,” while performing complex tasks will become as simple as talking in natural language about what you want to do. His genealogy of the problem is crisp: before the smartphone, you were tethered to the desktop; before the desktop, to a fixed phone; now you are tethered to the smartphone and its saturated app ecosystem. He argues that it is now time to be untethered from phones and their applications, into a space where the concept of a “user interface” becomes very different.
Jenkins’s contribution matters because he grounds abstract claims in specific product moments. He examines the Rabbit R1 and the Humane AI Pin as early artifacts of the ambient paradigm — devices designed around the idea that apps are an intermediary layer that ambient AI can simply dissolve. His argument is that analysts who dismissed those devices as failed smartphones were applying the wrong frame: they were evaluating ambient devices by the metrics of the device era they were designed to replace. This matters for human experience because Jenkins is essentially arguing that the confusion and friction people feel when first encountering ambient-style devices reflects a cognitive category error — we are measuring a new relationship with intelligence using tools calibrated for a different one. The user of the ambient era, in his telling, is not a navigator but a resident: someone who lives within a computational environment rather than visiting it through a screen.³
Mike Anderson — Partnering With Machines, Not Operating Them
Writing for Medium in July 2025, Mike Anderson examines the ambient shift through the framework of human-computer interaction (HCI), and his essential claim is that AI moves computing from a transactional relationship to a collaborative one. Anderson argues that the future of HCI is a shift from using machines to partnering with them — a transition from fixed, one-size-fits-all interfaces to dynamic, personalized experiences that evolve with the user, moving toward systems that understand natural language, perceive emotional and physical cues, and adapt contextually without needing explicit input. He traces this arc carefully: early computers required programming syntax, graphical interfaces democratized access through visual metaphors, touchscreens and voice added naturalness, but all of those paradigms remained fundamentally reactive — they did what users told them to do. Ambient AI changes this: as computing continues to embed itself into everyday objects — watches, appliances, vehicles, wearables — the nature of HCI shifts from device-centric to environment-centric, and ambient AI will blur the lines between physical and digital spaces, requiring interfaces that are subtle, non-disruptive, and deeply integrated into human routines.
Anderson’s analysis is especially significant for what it implies about the stakes of getting ambient design right. He emphasizes that the shift to proactive, anticipatory computing is not merely convenient — it redefines who we are relative to technology. He argues that as AI grows more capable, the very concept of “using” a computer may dissolve, replaced by ongoing, ambient interaction with intelligent systems that are always present, always learning, and always serving, and that to harness this potential responsibly, developers, designers, policymakers, and users must work together to create ethical, inclusive, and transparent interaction models. For Anderson, the human challenge of the ambient era is less about learning new skills than about preserving intentionality — ensuring that people remain agents who direct intelligent environments rather than passengers carried along by them.⁴
Michael Gerlich — The Cognitive Costs of Offloading
The most cautionary voice in this conversation belongs to Michael Gerlich of SBS Swiss Business School, whose peer-reviewed study published in the MDPI journal Societies in January 2025 examines what happens to human cognition when AI tools routinely absorb the cognitive work people previously did themselves. While Gerlich’s focus is AI tools broadly rather than ambient computing specifically, his findings apply with particular force to the ambient scenario — precisely because ambient systems, by design, operate continuously and invisibly, offloading cognitive work without any deliberate act of delegation by the user. Gerlich’s research found that long-term reliance on AI tools for cognitive offloading can lead to dependence and a loss of cognitive autonomy, and that as AI systems automate routine tasks and provide ready-made solutions, individuals may become less inclined to engage in critical thinking and problem-solving.
Gerlich’s contribution matters because it introduces a dimension that optimistic accounts of ambient computing tend to underweight: the relationship between effortful engagement and the maintenance of human capability. The ambient ideal — technology that handles complexity so humans can focus on higher-order goals — depends on the assumption that humans will, in fact, redirect the cognitive resources freed up by ambient systems toward meaningful ends. Gerlich’s data suggest that this assumption requires active cultivation rather than passive expectation. His study specifically highlights that frequent use of AI-powered search and task-completion tools reduced participants’ likelihood of remembering or reasoning through information independently, with individuals focusing more on knowing where to find information than on engaging with the information itself. Read alongside the ETC Journal article’s vision of a cognitive infrastructure that mediates all human-digital interaction, Gerlich’s work implies that ambient computing’s greatest human challenge may be preserving the very intellectual engagement that made human beings worth designing cognitive infrastructures for in the first place.⁵
Conclusion
Taken together, these five writers map out a transformation that is simultaneously liberating and demanding. Shimabukuro and Jenkins describe the structural change: the interface dissolves and computation becomes environmental. Khan and Anderson describe the experiential change: humans shift from operators to collaborators, from device-users to residents of intelligent spaces. Gerlich asks the question that the others leave open: what happens to human capability, autonomy, and critical thought when the cognitive labor of daily life is quietly, invisibly, and continuously absorbed by systems that never ask permission? The ambient era, as these writers collectively suggest, will not be measured by what the technology can do — it will be measured by what humans choose to remain responsible for doing themselves.
References
- Shimabukuro, Jim. “AI-Native Operating Systems: From Procedural to Intent-Based to Ambient.” Educational Technology and Change Journal, March 13, 2026. https://etcjournal.com/2026/03/13/ai-native-operating-systems-from-procedural-to-intent-based-to-ambient/
- Khan, Ian. “The Rise of Ambient Intelligence: How Invisible Computing Will Transform Business in 2026.” IanKhan.com, March 2026. https://iankhan.com/the-rise-of-ambient-intelligence-how-invisible-computing-will-transform-business-in-2026/
- Jenkins, David. “Ambient Computing and the Sublimation of the User Interface.” ILLUMINATION / Medium, February 4, 2024. https://medium.com/illumination/ambient-computing-and-the-sublimation-of-the-user-interface-8caffbac3c8d
- Anderson, Mike. “AI and the Future of Human-Computer Interaction.” Medium, July 5, 2025. https://medium.com/@mike.anderson007/ai-and-the-future-of-human-computer-interaction-87b74524d906
- Gerlich, Michael. “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking.” Societies (MDPI), vol. 15, no. 1, article 6, January 3, 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6
[End]
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Leave a comment