What AI Is Really Doing to Your Job, Your Brain, and the Planet
Two leading researchers dismantle the myths of artificial intelligence—and show how we can still shape the future we want.
Listen now on Apple Podcasts or Spotify:
Is AI really the world-shaking technology we’re being told we must celebrate or fear? Or is it, at bottom, kind of a con—the latest in a long parade of products designed to separate you from your money and line the pockets of the rich? In the new book The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want, linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna argue that much of what’s being sold as “artificial intelligence” is less a scientific breakthrough than a carefully packaged illusion. The tools may be new, but the goals—cutting labor costs, automating services, concentrating power—are anything but.
Below, Emily and Alex share five key insights from their book:
1. The tech that’s driving the current wave of AI hype is built on a parlor trick.
Chatbots like ChatGPT are impressive technology, but maybe not in the way you think. They cannot perform the range of functions they purportedly fulfill, but rather, they are designed to impress us. The key to their parlor trick lies in how people utilize language. You might think it’s a simple matter of decoding what the words say, but the process is both far more complex and far more social.
We interpret language by relying on everything we know (or guess) about the person who said the words, and whatever common ground we share with them. Then we make inferences about what they must have been trying to convey. We do this instinctively and reflexively. So, when we encounter synthetic text of the kind that comes out of ChatGPT and its ilk, we interpret it by imagining a mind behind the text, even though there is no mind there. In other words, the linguistic and social skills we wrap around AI outputs are what make it so easy for the purveyors of chatbots to fool us into perceiving chatbots as reasoning entities.
2. AI is not going to take your job, but it will make your job a lot worse.
Much of the purpose of AI technology serves to remove humans from the equation at work. The story of the Writers Guild of America strike is instructive here. In 2023, the Writers Guild of America East and West (or the WGA), the labor union representing Hollywood writers, went on strike for several reasons, including a demand to raise the pay rate that writers receive from streaming services.
They also wanted to ensure that they wouldn’t be reduced to babysitters for chatbots tasked to write scripts based on harebrained ideas from movie and television producers. John Lopez, a member of the WGA’s AI working group, noted that writers could be paid the rewrite rate for dealing with AI-generated content, which is much less than the pay rate for an original script. We’ve seen the threat of image and text generators drastically reduce the number of job opportunities for graphic designers, video game artists, and journalists. This is not because these tools can adequately perform the tasks of these professionals, but they perform well enough for careers to be cut short and for workers to be rehired at a fraction of what they had been paid before, just so that they can fix the sloppy outputs of AI.
“They perform well enough for careers to be cut short and for workers to be rehired at a fraction of what they had been paid before.”
Furthermore, systems that get called ‘AI’ are often a thin veneer that hides the tried-and-true corporate strategy of outsourcing labor to people in the Majority World, also called the Global South. Many of these workers moderate online content, test chatbots for toxic outputs, and even remotely drive vehicles that are advertised as being fully automated. Luckily, workers have been able to push back, both by concerned labor action, industrial sabotage (especially through creative tools for artists, like Nightshade and Glaze, which prevent their work from being used for training image generation models), and political education.
This week's Book of the Day is brought to you by Dr. Travis Bradberry, the world’s #1 bestselling author on emotional intelligence. Get your copy of The New Emotional Intelligence now.
3. The purpose of the AI con is to disconnect people from social services.
Because we use language in just about every sphere of activity, and because the synthetic text extruding from machines can be trained to mimic language, it can seem like we are about to have technology that can provide medical diagnoses, personalized tutoring, wise decision making in the allocation of government services, legal representation, and more—all for just the cost of electricity (plus whatever the companies making the chatbots want to charge). But in all these cases, it’s not the words that matter, but the actual thought that goes into them and the relationships they help us build and maintain.
AI systems are only good for those who want to redirect funding away from social services and justify austerity measures. Meanwhile, those in power will be sure to get services from actual people, while foisting the shoddy facsimiles off on everyone else. The head of Health AI at Google, Greg Corrado, said he wouldn’t want Google’s Med-PaLM system to be part of his family’s health care journey. That didn’t stop him from bragging about how it supposedly passed a medical licensing exam. It didn’t. But more to the point, designing systems to pass multiple-choice exams about medical situations is not an effective way to build useful medical technology. In these domains, AI hype takes the form of specious claims of technological solutions to social problems, based, at best, on spurious and unfounded evaluations of the systems being sold.
4. AI is not going to kill us all, but climate change might.
There was a time in Silicon Valley and Washington D.C. when an idiosyncratic, yet serious, question was posed to people working on technology or tech policy: “What is your p(doom)?” p(doom) refers to probability of doom, or the likelihood that AI would somehow kill all of humanity. This doomerism is predicated on the development of artificial general intelligence (or AGI).
AGI is poorly defined, but the basic idea is a system which can do a variety of tasks as well as or better than humans. Unfortunately, doomerism has serious purchase with some technologists and policymakers, and is predicated on a body of unseemly ideologies, including effective altruism, longtermism, and rationalism. These ideologies take the moral philosophy of utilitarianism to the extreme, suggesting that we need to discount harm in the present to save the billions of trillions of humans who will live in some undefined future. These ideologies are eugenicist in their origins and implications.
“Doomerism has serious purchase with some technologists and policymakers.”
Meanwhile, we are likely to fail to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and AI is making this problem worse. The data centers that host these tools are generating vast amounts of excess carbon, semiconductors used for their parts are leeching forever chemicals into the ground, and backup generators are projected to cause more respiratory illnesses in the poorest parts of the U.S. and elsewhere. Not only are robots not going to take over the world, but their production is going to make the climate crisis much worse.
5. None of this is inevitable.
The people selling AI systems and the hype around them would like us to voluntarily give up our agency in these matters. They tell us that AI, or even AGI, is inevitable, or at least that systems like ChatGPT are “here to stay.” But none of this is inevitable.
We do have agency, both collectively and individually. Collectively, we can push for regulations that prevent AI tech from being used on us and for labor contracts that keep us in control of our work. On an individual level, we can refuse to use AI systems. We can be critical consumers of automation, being sure we understand what’s being automated, how it was evaluated, and why it’s being automated.
We can also be critical consumers of journalism about technology, looking for and supporting work that holds power to account. And finally, we can and should engage in ridicule as praxis, meaning having fun pointing out all the ways in which synthetic media extruding machines are janky and tacky.
So much of what’s framed as “AI progress” reads more like narrative management: make it sound intelligent, make it sound inevitable, make it sound like help. This piece cuts through that. The reminder that we’re not being replaced but repositioned—as cheaper, secondary support to the systems that displaced us—lands clearly.
The “parlor trick” framing holds. It isn’t technical, it’s linguistic. And like most things in language, it works because we meet it halfway.
Worth reading. Especially if you’re feeling just optimistic enough to stay sharp.