AI & A Jobless World
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to develop at an alarming rate, the prospect of it replacing most of our jobs is seeming increasingly likely. Understandably, this is often perceived as a bad thing. Our jobs are our current means of survival, so the prospect of mass unemployment is hardly likely to be met with rejoice. However, I argue that instead of resisting AI taking our jobs, we ought to take advantage of its capabilities by reshaping the system in order to embrace a jobless society.
Redundancy and Unemployment
Already, we are seeing workers being made redundant due to AI’s growing efficiency. Chatbots are outperforming content writers. AI models are replacing data analysts. Soon, Uber will no longer need to employ drivers – they will be able to use self-driving cars.
Elon Musk predicts that, in light of AI’s seemingly limitless potential, a time will come when ‘no job is needed’ at all. I don’t think this claim is as radical as it sounds. Crucially, unlike the revolutionary technologies of previous decades, AI is beginning to outperform us not only in physical tasks, but also in cognitive tasks. Its powers extend to thinking and decision-making tasks. Given the all-encompassing nature of AI’s capacities, it’s difficult to name a job that couldn’t conceivably be performed by AI.
But when Musk made this bold claim, he was not imagining a dystopia in which no one is able to afford a living due to lack of work. Rather, he was envisioning a world in which no one needs to work.
On the face of it, is this not a kind of utopia? If AI can remove the necessity for someone to reluctantly be in the office five days a week, while providing them the means to live comfortably, would it not be absurd to reject this state of affairs?
A Utopic Vision
In fact, utopic or not, embracing a workless world may be our only viable course of action. Author and historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that, in the face of AI’s inevitably growing capacities in the working world, we have three options.
The first option is simply to resist AI taking our jobs. This reaction, however, is unjustifiable because AI will not merely be able to do our jobs, it will be able to outperform us. To deny such widespread, radical improvements in efficiency and reliability would be intuitively nonsensical, especially given that in sectors such as healthcare and transport, the impacts could be lifesaving.
The second option is to embrace AI taking our jobs, but to combat unemployment by using AI to create new jobs. This course of action is unsustainable. The core issue is that any roles relating directly to maintain the performance of AI will be highly specialised. It is therefore far from clear to see how the regular worker could easily transfer to this sector. Moreover, AI will likely reach a point where it doesn’t require much human assistance at all. Thus, unless we wish to embrace the creation of utterly futile jobs – an evidently undesirable solution in itself – it seems implausible that AI would be able to create enough jobs to offset the massive quantity of jobs it will replace.
The third option – the one that I, like Harari, advocate – is that we allow AI to take our jobs and adapt the system to support a workless society. Economic feasibility is not an issue. By implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) – a scheme which could tax the largest corporations to grant everyone an unconditional, regular payment – then we can ensure that everyone has the means to live comfortably without relying on work.
The anarchist thinker Bob Black radically claimed that ‘work is the source of all misery in the world’. This statement may be hyperbolic, but it certainly has merit. The fact is that, on the whole, most people do not consider their jobs to be inherently valuable. We work only because we have to, because it’s a means to an end, not because we view our work as inherently valuable. Without monetary compensation, few people would choose to continue their occupations. So, it is uncontroversial to state that there is a general widespread dissatisfaction with traditional employment. After all, the colloquial agreement is that Mondays are bad, and Fridays are good.
This approach allows us to shift our values away from work, and to pursue activities that we desire for their own sake. For the first time in human history, we are approaching a technological pinnacle that can make this a reality. If Black’s statement is at least partially true, this is a utopic vision. To fail to embrace this opportunity – to insist on keeping people working in reluctant obligation – would be a grave mistake.
The Problem of Purposelessness
But is it really that simple? Would everything be better if we all stopped working? It could be objected that such a vision overlooks the non-monetary goods that we gain from work. Namely, identity and purpose.
It would certainly be oversimplistic to say that, earnings aside, work is always – and in every case – bad. Take, for instance, the hypothetical case of Yousef, a schoolteacher who not only loves his job, but derives genuine purpose and fulfilment from working with schoolchildren. Being a teacher – more than anything else in his life – gives him a sense of who he is.
If Yousef were to be made redundant due to AI’s teaching capabilities – something that is a growing possibility – then receiving a UBI would not compensate for the non-monetary goods of purpose and identity that he would miss out on. Yousef’s situation could conceivably grow dire. Perhaps his sense of utter meaninglessness would turn to boredom and unhappiness, causing him to suffer from aimlessness, ultimately resorting to indulgent hedonistic pleasures – themselves dangerously addictive due to AI’s enhancements – to fill his empty hours.
From this perspective, a jobless world seems far from the utopia that I have suggested.
It’s doubtlessly true that, for those like Yousef who derive their sense of identity and purpose predominantly – or even solely – from their job, adapting to a jobless world would be, at the very least, a real shock. I maintain, however, that with a shift in mindset and values can redeem Yousef’s situation.
There exists a strong societal myth that our purpose and identity must be aligned with our means of making a living. When adults ask us at a young age who we want to be when we’re older, the unmistakable implication is that we’re being asked about our future career. But to conflate identity and purpose with a job title is a mistake. The notion that work ought to be our source of meaning is outdated; the connection is merely arbitrary.
This is not to say that deriving a purpose and identity from a profession is in any way invalid. All it means is that the connection is not necessary, and that these non-monetary goods can still be obtained in a jobless world.
By disentangling our conception of purpose with work, there is cause for optimism for Yousef.
Perhaps, for instance, he decides to pursue his long-put-off dream of writing a novel. One may point out that AI will, soon, likely be able to produce, in an instant, a novel with a previously unseen level of ingenuity, thus demoralising Yousef. But this argument only holds if we treat purpose as correlated to success. With a shift in values, Yousef’s pursuit can be a fulfilling one in and of itself, irrespective of the brilliance of AI’s outputs.
And even if Yousef had no artistic endeavour, to claim that his only hope of deriving of purpose and identity is from being a schoolteacher rests on a flawed notion of purpose that currently pervades.
Passion is never one-dimensional. Yousef’s passion for being a schoolteacher would be inevitably interconnected with an array of deeper values and convictions. Granted, after the initial shock of losing his job, a period of rediscovery may be necessary. But in time, Yousef would surely recognise that whatever grounds his passion for being a schoolteacher – a general belief in the well-being of others, perhaps – can be exercised in a non-working world. Perhaps he commits himself to a worthwhile community activity, a voluntary role, or a personal task. Or perhaps he just decides to spend more time with his nephew. Introspection and creativity would pave the way for Yousef to find purpose and identity in a non-working world.
In any case, it’s worth emphasising that Yousef represents the exception, not the norm. It remains true that most people do not find their jobs enjoyable, let alone fulfilling and meaningful. So, if the situation is recoverable for those who love their jobs, then for the majority who only work to make a living, a jobless world is a utopia that allows us to live in accordance with their values and interests.