AI: what if the worst was desirable for some?

Artificial intelligence is transforming work to such an extent that it could even disappear. Some people imagine a world where machines produce and where humans have nothing left to do with their days but entertain themselves and learn for the sake of learning.

A perfect world? I am one of those who are dubious about the subject.

Will people really want to learn if it has no interest or use other than to keep them busy?

How can we replace something as structuring as work in a person’s life, in their social relationships, in the way they define themselves and in relation to others?

If leisure is no longer the reward for work, does it still have any meaning?

What will become of us in a world where our cognitive and intellectual capacities are no longer stimulated and utilized (AI in the workplace: avoiding the Wall-E effect).

What goal should we set ourselves then?

The problem here is not technology, but what it erases: work as a pillar of life, as a vector of meaning.

But the more I think about it, the more another question arises: what if what I consider to be the worst were in fact a dream for others? Because this is also a position that I hear from people who would love to be freed from the need to work in order to enjoy life.

In short:

• Artificial intelligence calls into question the central role of work, which structures lives, forges identity and gives a sense of social utility.
• A world without work can evoke, depending on the individual, either a liberation conducive to learning and creativity, or an existential void and a loss of bearings.
• This society of permanent leisure calls into question our ability to live without an imposed framework, without a prescribed objective, fully assuming our choices and desires.
• Universal income, often proposed as a solution, carries a strong ideological break, calling into question salaried employment, merit and the logic of competition.
• More than a technological revolution, a major social transformation is on the horizon, based not on an imposed goal, but on the meaning that each person gives to their own life.

Is work a universal pillar?

I think I grew up with the idea that work structures life, as did most of you. It gives our days a rhythm, gives us a place in society, builds an identity and is the main vector of recognition, usefulness, sometimes even pride.

But it must be recognized that this has not always been the case; it is a historical construct. In other eras, in other cultures, people lived without this type of relationship to work. And even today, for some, work is not rewarding: it is endured, repetitive, exhausting. It is neither a passion nor a mission, just a means of subsistence.

For these people, imagining a world without work is not a nightmare, it is almost a relief, and where we see the loss of a vocation, others would see themselves freed from a shackle.

Learning and entertainment: luxury or social project?

If I try to imagine myself in this post-work world, I have two options: learning and entertainment (The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play. (Arthur C. Clarke).). And I doubt that this will be enough to keep me busy for a lifetime, to stimulate me, to help me plan my future.

But it could be argued that I am looking at things through my current set of glasses. In our societies, learning is often a necessity: to obtain a diploma, to get a job, to prove one’s competence. Entertainment is a temporary break between two sequences of work.

If we were freed from the need to produce in order to survive, what would become of these activities? Some promise us that we will see the emergence of new forms of expression, collaboration and knowledge. After all, open source communities, makers, Wikipedia contributors and volunteers are already showing that we can create, learn and pass on knowledge without expecting immediate material rewards.

But perhaps it is also because they have or have had this material return elsewhere and they are looking for something else and if they lost this return they would go back to basics.

Can we learn just for fun? I am convinced that we can, but that this only concerns a tiny part of the population.

The fear of being alone with oneself

There may be another reason why this world is unsettling: the absence of constraint. Work imposes a framework, discipline, objectives and benchmarks. It structures time and provides an answer to the question “what do you do in life?”.

Without work, there may be nothing but emptiness, and this emptiness brings us face to face with ourselves, with our deepest desires, our fears, our contradictions. It forces us to choose what we want to be rather than waiting for the system to pigeonhole us.

Some will see it as a dizzying experience and others, perhaps, as an opportunity. Trends that value slowing down and frugality are constantly gaining ground, at least that’s what we’re told.

Some see freedom in the fact of choosing their profession, others in the fact of not having one.

The comfort of irresponsibility

But we must also be honest: some certainly see something deeply appealing in this society of permanent leisure.

Less pressure, fewer difficult decisions, no longer needing to prove oneself, to earn one’s place. No longer needing to be useful. It is possible to exist without having to justify one’s worth.

It can indeed be seen as a society that diminishes responsibility. But for others it may be a society that brings peace of mind by freeing people from the imperatives of performance, success and productivity. It allows people to live without struggling and to miss nothing, since there is nothing more to gain.

Regression and renunciation for some, wisdom and peace for others.

It is surely difficult for most of us to admit, but responsibility, effort and meaning are not always universal needs.

A society of leisure… and docility?

While the idea of a world without work may be a dream, it also raises another question, a more political one this time: what becomes of a society where individuals are no longer pushed to learn, to surpass themselves, to exercise their critical faculties?

Work, however imperfect it may be, confronts us with problems, constraints and interactions, and forces us to understand the world, to evolve and to position ourselves. In a world of permanent leisure, of comfortable and frictionless experiences where we no longer make any decisions for which we would have to bear the consequences, this tension disappears.

With it, perhaps, will also disappear a part of what makes us human: doubt, discomfort, the ability to say no.

A disengaged people, absorbed in their leisure activities, who no longer learn, no longer challenge, no longer really think, is infinitely easier to control.

At this stage, technology could then not liberate us, but neutralize us.

Not some kind of Orwellian dystopia based on fear, but a gentle, numbing dystopia, a voluntary servitude 4.0, where freedom is exchanged for entertainment and meaning for comfort.

Funding: egalitarian utopia or ideological Trojan horse?

One crucial question remains: how do you fund a society with no work?

The most frequently put forward answer is that of a universal income, distributed to each person regardless of their activity, contribution or status.

On paper, it is appealing and some see it as a step towards equality: no more extreme poverty, a new freedom to choose one’s life, to escape difficult or useless jobs.

This vision has something deeper to it, as it brings back political ideas that we thought had been relegated to the margins, such as the abolition of the wage system, the rejection of competition as a social driving force, and the criticism of merit as the basis for the distribution of wealth.

In short, it represents a radical break with the foundations of modern liberal societies.

It is therefore not surprising that the defenders of this vision see it as a historic opportunity. For them, AI not only signals the end of work but also signals the revenge of an old political dream: that of a post-capitalist society based on sharing, not on exchange and trade.

One can agree with it or be wary of it, but it would be naïve to believe that this transition would be neutral, purely technical, because it is also ideological.

Is a goal absolutely necessary?

But to return to the question, or even the basic fear, the issue is whether, without work, we will still have a purpose in life and, in any case, how to finance that life. Work fulfilled this function and was the default answer to which, in this case, an alternative would have to be found.

But is a goal really necessary? And does this goal have to be prescribed? By whom? By society, school, the market?

Everyone has their own answer, but it won’t be neutral.

Bottom line

I don’t know if this world will come to pass and I don’t know if it’s desirable; in fact, I’m pretty sure it won’t. In any case, if it does happen, no one will ask for my opinion or yours.

What I do think, however, is that we cannot envisage this future world through the lens of the present. Our bearings, our expectations, our beliefs are shaped by a world of work that AI is precisely in the process of shaking up, to say the least.

What some of you will experience as a loss could be seen by others as a liberation, and perhaps that is the real break: not a technological revolution, but a social revolution based on meaning rather than the purpose we give to our lives.

Visual credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)