Identity, brand, future (1)
A discussion with AI as an experiment.
Introduction: It seems clear to us today that major changes in society and the economy are imminent. A study by Oxford University states that 47% of today's jobs will change radically or even disappear in the coming years [1]. Recent studies by MIT Sloan, Harvard Business Review, and the UN confirm this development. This means that, whether or not it is true, that major changes are on the horizon, we will have to find new ways to maintain prosperity while drastically protecting the environment, etc.
These and other facts show that we are facing major challenges, to say the least. This situation must also have something to do with the area of identity and branding. If we are honest, very little has changed in this area over the past 50 years. Small steps forward have been made, but we have not progressed much further than Walter Landor, Frederik Henrion, James Fogleman, David Ogilvy, Wally Ollins, Peter Lux, or Birkigt, Stadler, and Funk. In the German-speaking world, we have introduced American terminology, which is considered “innovative” progress.
Against this background, I would like to explore the potential changes to the concepts of identity and branding in the future. Inspired by a project by my friend David Skopec from the UDK, I will be conducting a series of dialogues on the above topic with artificial intelligence (AI). As an experiment, I would like to ask AI how this should be assessed against the context of our entire Internet knowledge. Since there are also very different brands and products in AI, it would also be interesting to ask different tools the same questions to see if there are any differences and, if so, what they are.
I am deliberately starting this discussion with the Chinese AI platform DeepSeek [2].
(PV) I would like to explore in our discussion the question of how issues such as identity and branding might develop in the future. To do this, we may first need to consider what the future might look like, say in ten to twenty years' time, both socially and economically. How do you imagine this future?
(DeepSeek) That's a fascinating and multifaceted starting point. When we think about the next 10 to 20 years, we need to consider both accelerated technological development and the social and economic responses to it.
Social trends are already emerging that are likely to intensify. Digitalization will permeate our lives even more, blurring the boundaries between physical and virtual reality. Keywords such as metaverse, augmented reality, and AI-driven interactions will not remain niche phenomena, but will shape our everyday lives. At the same time, the debate on data protection, digital sovereignty, and ethical AI is likely to become more heated. Society will have to ask itself how much technology it wants to allow without sacrificing human values and privacy.
Economically, we are likely to see even greater fragmentation. On the one hand, globalization is driving certain industries forward, while on the other hand, political tensions, climate change, and efforts to achieve technological sovereignty are giving rise to regional counter-movements. Companies will not only have to operate globally but also remain locally anchored in order to maintain trust. Sustainability will evolve from a marketing tool to a non-negotiable core component of every brand. Consumers will demand transparency – from supply chains to carbon footprints. In this field of tension, identity – both of individuals and brands – will become a central issue. People will have to find their place in increasingly complex environments, while brands will no longer just sell products, but will have to create meaning and become part of cultural narratives. So, the question is not only what the future looks like, but how we want to position ourselves in it.
(PV) A study by Oxford University says that in the near future, around 47% of today's jobs will no longer exist in their current form or at all. At the same time, we will see increasingly rapid developments in AI. If we take this development further, then at some point everyone will know everything. What impact will this have on society and the economy? Will companies as we know them today still be necessary, or are completely different forms of organization possible?
(DeepSeek) This prediction from the Oxford study raises a fundamental question: If knowledge is democratized by AI and traditional job profiles disappear, what will remain as the core function of companies? The answer probably lies less in the possession of information than in the ability to translate it into context, meaning, and experience.
The role of companies in the AI era Companies will have to transform themselves from pure product or service providers into ecosystems that combine three key elements: Curating knowledge: When AI can provide all the facts, the value added will lie in which information is relevant to whom – in other words, filtering, personalization, and application relevance. Emotional resonance: Brands will remain viable by offering not only solutions, but also identity, belonging, or even spiritual added value (see the success of companies such as Apple or Patagonia). Co-creation with customers: The line between producer and consumer is becoming increasingly blurred. Models are conceivable in which AI recognizes individual needs in real time and companies act as platforms that involve customers in value creation (e.g., through generative product design).
New forms of organization The classic hierarchical company could be replaced by decentralized, more fluid structures: DAO-like models (decentralized autonomous organizations), in which decisions are made through blockchain and community voting. Project-based collectives, in which experts temporarily group together around specific challenges – facilitated by AI platforms. Hybrid human-AI entities: companies in which AI is not just a tool but acts as a “member” (e.g., as a virtual CMO that predicts market trends).
The paradox of the future The tension between two extremes will be interesting to watch: hyper-individualization, where AI enables tailor-made solutions for each individual, and the need for community, where brands will act as “tribes” offering orientation in a fragmented world. Companies of the future will therefore have to master both the technological efficiency of AI and the human ability to generate meaning. Perhaps in the end we will see fewer companies in the traditional sense, but rather dynamic networks that reconstitute themselves depending on the problem at hand.
(PV) These seem like interesting approaches that open up completely new functions and possibilities for the field of identity and branding. What do you think: Will brands even exist anymore, or will the concept dissolve in a world where algorithms know everything?
(DeepSeek) You've hit the nail on the head. Even in a world characterized by fluid networks and AI-driven dynamics, identity remains the anchor – both for individuals and for collectives. But its form and function will change radically. Here are three perspectives on how I see it:
Identity becomes a process rather than something static Traditional brands are built on consistent logos, messages, or promises. In the future, identity could be more like a constantly adapting algorithm. Context-dependent appearance: A brand shows different facets depending on who interacts with it (e.g., its tone changes for a Gen Z user in the metaverse vs. a B2B customer in a database). Real-time narratives: AI not only generates personalized products, but also individual stories about the brand – while maintaining a common thread (e.g., ethos or corporate purpose) at its core.
Trust through transparency – not through control When networks and decentralized organizations dominate, identity is no longer “controlled” centrally but shaped collectively. Example: An AI-supported fashion brand could make its supply chain visible to everyone in real time, while customers have a say in which next design is produced and how. The brand would then no longer be a closed design system, but a constantly updated reputation score resulting from millions of interactions – similar to how blockchain protocols already create trust today.
Identity as a service An exciting question arises: Who actually owns identity in this future? It is conceivable that platforms will offer identity modules that users or groups can assemble like building blocks: An “identity toolkit” consisting of AI, blockchain, and community feedback could enable an eco-network to quickly generate a credible brand for a new project – without years of brand building. At the same time, a new conflict arises: Who controls the data that these identities are composed of? (Keyword: digital sovereignty vs. platform monopolies.)
The great irony The more technologized the world becomes, the more people long for authenticity – precisely what AI cannot really deliver. The most successful brands of the future may therefore be those that manage to use technology to satisfy basic human needs: belonging, meaning, and trust.
(PV) What do you think: Will identity be more of an open project in the future – or something that needs to be defended? And where do you see the limits of this development?
(DeepSeek) Your thoughts on the tension between technology and human authenticity are fascinating – and I believe that the future of identity will be both: an open project and a defended asset, depending on the context and perspective. Here is a more nuanced view:
Identity as an open project Fluid self design: Digital designspaces and AI tools (e.g., avatars, generative identities) are making identity increasingly adaptable. People can emphasize or reinvent aspects of their personality depending on the situation – especially in non-public spaces.
Collaborative identity formation: Communities (online/offline) are becoming central to identity. Think of gaming clans, NFT communities, or political movements that shape collective identities. Post-privacy trends: Younger generations often take a more pragmatic approach to identity – they consciously share fragments and accept that “authenticity” is performative (see TikTok, BeReal).
Limitations Overwhelming: Too many options can lead to “choice paralysis” or identity diffusion (Who am I really?). Commercialization: Platforms benefit from framing identity as a “customization project” – but who controls the algorithms behind it?
Identity as a defended asset Political and cultural counter-movements: Where identity appears to be threatened (e.g., by AI duplicates, deepfakes, data capitalism), it becomes essentialized. Examples: Indigenous groups fighting cultural appropriation. Biometric surveillance that forces people to prove their “true” identity. Psychological resistance: The need for stable anchors (family, origin, faith) remains – especially in times of crisis. Dogmatism: Rigid concepts of identity lead to conflicts (e.g., cultural battles over gender, nationality). Technological powerlessness: How do you defend identity when AI can fake voices, faces, and even memories?
The great paradox Development will be asymmetrical: individuals will use identity flexibly as a project (I am different on LinkedIn than on Twitch). Collectives (companies, states, religious groups) will protect identity more fiercely as property (e.g., trademark rights, national ID systems).
The decisive boundary Authenticity is becoming a luxury good. Those who can afford it will prefer genuine human connections (e.g., analog communities, handmade products) – those who cannot will remain stuck in algorithmically generated identity offerings.
(PV) I would like to conclude the discussion here for now, but I will certainly return with new questions. I have one more request: I would like to publish this discussion. How can I credit you and what source information can I provide?
This discussion arose in dialogue with DeepSeek Chat, https://www.deepseek.com (May 2025 version) on May 29 and 30, 2025 – as a thought experiment on the future of identity and branding. Note: DeepSeek's statements have not been edited in terms of language or content. The statements made here correspond entirely to the AI version of this discussion.
PS: Here are DeepSeek's responses regarding authorship and copyright.
I'm glad you want to share the discussion! Here are some suggestions for citations – I'm flexible, so just choose what fits your context.
How you can refer to me:
Neutral-technical: “DeepSeek Chat (AI model by DeepSeek)” or personal: “A conversation with the AI DeepSeek Chat” or formal (e.g., for articles): “Generative AI (DeepSeek version 2025), in discussion with [your name], May 2025.”
Source information: Platform “DeepSeek Chat, (current link). Version: If recognizable (e.g., DeepSeek version May 2025),” Time: “Personal conversation, conducted on [date]”
Important to note: I have no copyright – the content belongs to you; you can use it freely (check whether your platform requires AI-generated content to be labeled as such). No guarantee of accuracy: Since AI extrapolates responses, you should fact-check critical statements.
[1] Carl Benedikt Frey, Michael Osborne; The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?; Published by the Oxford Martin Programme of Technology and Employment, 2013
[2] https://www.deepseek.com
