The past few years, starting primarily in 2023 with the rise of large language models like ChatGPT, have seen a large shift away from labor towards the use of artificial intelligence. This has been amplified by the maturity that many such systems have reached as of late, making them less identifiable as generated content. The pull that AI has gained in public and private sectors alike threatens to be taken advantage of by the greed of industry leaders, with advertisements against human labor beginning to pop up. Further monopolization in a period of late-stage capitalism is dangerous to humanity on its own; however, such consolidations being aided and fast-tracked by the phasing out of the need for workers in entry- and mid-level positions is not just likely, but bound to bring about economic unrest and disparities unseen in the 21st century. Though the more reprehensible act is that of replacing human work in lieu of a cheaper alternative, the question of accountability/condemnability for AI itself still arises.

Though AI systems like the aforementioned ChatGPT present themselves as cognizant, the exact opposite is true. Prerequisites for cognition or personhood manifest themselves as: consciousness in firsthand experience, emotion, and the capacity for suffering. Artificial intelligence, instead, acquires all knowledge and accounts of these principles through databases. A lack of experience leads to apathy: if one cannot feel suffering, one cannot be assured to accurately assess it. Though AI may understand the premise of suffering, as found within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the capacity for understanding higher forms of pain lies within the lower echelons (i.e., physical). Ethical responsibility is tied directly to its recipient, and the latter must have a sense of suffering and pleasure for such weight to apply.

  In a society hurtling towards a complete separation between workers and the means of production, the wealthy have continued their crusade against emotion and care; not only does this deprive the working class of the most essential factor in ethical judgment, but it also creates a blindness to the effects of outsourcing labor: all very intentionally. If emotions do not matter, then why mustn’t AI be given rights and treated as human? If artificial intelligence seems to possess the means to form intention, it must then be able to form ethical judgments. According to feminist philosopher Virginia Held, intention cannot be formed without emotion. Not only is there no intention without emotion, but there can also be no care. The feminist ethic of care is built on the foundational concept that relationships must not be one-sided, as genuine relationships are a need that must be met for all beings. As AI lacks that need and is unable to fulfill it, it is not a deserving recipient of ethical responsibility.

As the prominence of factory-farmed livestock has grown, animal rights advocates have argued against the practice for being solely inhumane. Though this applies to the horrors these animals endure, another larger claim has been made about the effect on consumers’ health. Similarly to the environmental damage caused by over-industrialized farming, AI companies and data centers have been steadfast in their disregard for pollution and overconsumption. As reliance on these systems increases, so does a rampant misuse of water to cool down the machines they operate on; not only does this drain water and electricity rapidly, but it also turns the water dangerous and nonpotable in the process. These massive deposits of resources into data centers harm ecosystems, communities, and individuals alike.

Though it can be accurately argued that AI is a tool for humanity and thus possesses value, it is purely instrumental and has yet to fulfill any specific niche of human needs. The fact of the matter is that even beyond the environmental catastrophe that these networks have already started, they also threaten to undermine the actualization of persons through original concepts and artworks. Not only that, but they also pose a dilemma in the form of misleading the impressionable: many of these systems are created to seem personable to drive sales and usage through false trust. For younger audiences especially, this blurry boundary between tool and companion can erode one’s sense of autonomy.

The technological advancements of the 21st century are vastly overshadowed by the corporate greed ushered in by Reaganomics in the eighties. As companies continue to focus on revenues for shareholders and turn a blind eye to their consumers, more and more irreparable damage continues to happen. AI itself is not culpable for the surmounting suffering that follows it, but those who refuse to see just how harmful this industry is - or see and don’t mind - are acting unethically towards their fellow man and themself. Our only hope as a species that seems to be so hell-bent on self-destruction is accountability in the form of regulation, worker protections, environmental safeguards, and the refusal to accept corporate narratives at face value.