AI & Labor: Don’t let AI get the upper hand
By Vihaan Rathi
Amazon’s “Robin” the Robot Arm, an AI-powered, incredibly deft mover of parcels.
As the craze around artificial intelligence (AI) reaches a fever pitch, actors in nearly every industry have found themselves reckoning with the role that the technology will play in the future. While many of these conversations have revolved around economic pragmatism and scientific implications, a vague ethical overtone has loomed over the whole discourse*. Nowhere is this more evident than in the context of labor relations, where there is but one quintessential question: is it ethical to substitute human labor with AI?
The answer tends to be split pretty cleanly across class lines - white collar workers (particularly programmers) would much rather keep their jobs, and their blue-collar counterparts (mostly manufacturers) have sustained enough trauma from the ongoing colonization of their conveyor belts. The sheer psychological damage wrought by losing employment to eldritch abominations such as Amazon’s “Robin” the Robotic Arm (pictured above) should be ethical concern enough to end this debate entirely. Our bourgeois overlords, however, have their own contentions, which I had pithily illustrated by many a student’s newest vice, ChatGPT**: “efficiency and productivity,” “innovation,” and “market trends.” These seem reasonable enough - an upgrade to the means of production would increase the output of employees, AI will probably be capable of generating products or solutions to address problems a company may face, and the technology very well could become a necessity for corporations looking to be competitive in a future market. Used correctly, AI would benefit nearly every involved actor - companies make more revenue (and there’s no risk of executives hemorrhaging their own cash), employees have an opportunity to increase their compensation or slash their working hours, and consumers are blown away with a variety of new products. If AI isn’t an inherent negative, then, what is this discussion really about?
To answer this, we mustn’t search for some mythical evil hiding in our terrifying computers, but rather analyze the context in which they’ve been born into. The reality is that consistent increases in worker productivity have not been accompanied with higher wages, and any technology introduced with the potential of making laborers’ lives easier (the notorious cotton gin, aforementioned conveyor belt robots, financial analysis programs, etc.) has been corrupted against them. The blame for the subsequent human suffering is placed on the technology itself by a web of economists, executives, and corporate media, resulting in a malicious cycle that has the industrial proletariat (and recently, even petit-bourgeois lackeys for capital on Wall Street***) clutching its pearls every time a computer so much as…computes in their direction. Look no further than self-proclaimed AI-extraordinaire and co-founder of OpenAI Elon Musk, who claimed “with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon” and then axed massive swaths of his workforce (under the ruse of his “demon” itself!) regardless****. ChatGPT, too, engages in a similar betrayal: it mentions “depression,” “unhealthy coping mechanisms,” and full-blown “crises of identity” (the horror!) as common side effects of being laid off, but prescribes “career counseling” as a panacea to the commodification of workers. Lovely.
Despite the contradictory appearance of all of this, the actions of these entities are motivated by a cohesive philosophy: the maintenance of their class position. This overarching purpose renders the AI craze into a systemic phenomenon rather than a product of a few individual events. It is part of a larger, recurring wave of paranoia triggered by technological advancement and aggressively promulgated by the bourgeois elite. In elevating the role of AI in the workplace and weaponizing the misguided horror story that comes with it, the ruling class has cleverly diverted the attention of the exploited towards an apparatus of capital rather than its wielders*****. This is a very rational course of action for capital-owners, as the primary mechanism which allows them to maintain that position is the limitation of proletarian class consciousness. Concomitantly, the economic system in which AI exists creates a concrete detriment to working people as a direct result of its implementation. This reveals an inherent contradiction: while AI is not an evil in itself (and, in fact, has the potential to create a lot of good), it is an enemy of labor by virtue of the institutions which propped it up. As long as power in the workplace is concentrated in the hands of a malicious, exploiting class, AI will never be an ethical source of labor.
Truly ethical implementation of AI will require one thing: worker control over the means of production. When democracy is introduced into professional structures, the profit-motive is eliminated from industry, allowing workers to enjoy the benefits of AI (increased safety, automation of monotonous tasks, less working hours) without fearing for their livelihoods. If AI is properly moderated and utilized with the full discretion of those whose labor is directly affected by it (whether manufacturers, programmers, or otherwise), then it will assume a role as a force for good in improving the quality of life for common people around the world.
A prerequisite for this, however, would likely be a violent revolution (or, inshallah, some divine intervention); until then, we’ll just have to compromise and attempt to stave off the layoffs to come.
*Some would argue that there are inexorable ethical questions that arise out of any economic or scientific discussion, given the effects that these institutions/disciplines have on people’s lives. There are schools of thought that differ on what these questions should actually approach, however - what is considered an “ethical” end goal? Should the benefit of one group outweigh that of another? Do the means of incorporation of some technology justify the ends?
**ChatGPT explicitly claims that “AI should be employed to enhance productivity, decision-making, and efficiency, not to replace or harm workers,” placing a surprising emphasis on accountability for job displacement. It also seems to care about “mitigating bias and promoting equity”? In comparison to OpenAI-affiliated companies/individuals (Microsoft, Elon Musk, etc.), the chatbot might as well be a proletarian revolutionary.
***Notice the headline that the New York Times put here: “The Robots Are Coming for Wall Street,” not the opportunistic firm leadership that’s laying off employees, not the bourgeois economists who paint said layoffs as a pragmatic necessity, not the CEOs making exorbitant sums from labor on Wall Street, but the robots themselves.
****There is an eight-year gap between the two events, so this isn’t necessarily the flagrant act of hypocrisy I presented it as - it’s wholly possible that he changed his mind and decided to fully embrace fire and brimstone as a boon to his wallet. Either way, Musk is a bit of an eccentric character, so look to other major tech companies for a reliable, consistent story of calculated layoffs rewarding the capitalist class.
*****If the slaver had blamed the cotton gin for the slave’s bondage, or the United States claimed that prison cells had conspired to send millions into a for-profit carceral system, which would be guilty of exploitation? The wires of the cotton gin or the man with the whip? The steel of the cages or the corporatist government that built them?
