Moyse: The Modern Power Loom

I’ve gone back and forth on the significance of artificial intelligence as a new technology. One part of me desperately wants to cling to the idea that our time period is somehow unique, and that AI will be uniquely apocalyptic in its consequences. However, another part of me, one that knows history, warns me not to be a fool. People have predicted calamity in the face of new technological developments for thousands of years.

None of these predictions came to fruition, so it seems foolish to predict the same thing about AI, right? Although I can’t seem to get the idea that AI is somehow different from other technologies out of my head, I also have come to the conclusion that it’s probably a little bit on the alarmist side to say that it’s going to cause an imminent rapture.

However, there are consequences to the adoption of AI just as there are consequences to the adoption of every new innovation. The best historical comparison in this case might come from two of our greatest economic thinkers and their thoughts on the consequences of technologies like the power loom.

Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith observed and agreed on the consequences of automation and de-skilling. In book V, chapter I of “The Wealth of Nations,” Smith writes that the person who loses a skill “generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” In “Capital Volume I,” Marx writes that machinery “converts the worker into a crippled monstrosity.” 

Real-world examples of this phenomenon abound. As artisan production faded, many former workers lost the ability to manufacture coats from start to finish in exchange for the menial operation machines that automatically sewed the coat. In the Industrial Revolution, this allowed for vastly improved efficiency. Losing the ability to make a coat isn’t a big deal when you can purchase it at a reasonable price.

However, the other, less-discussed historical consequence of this division of labor is the loss of the working class’ self-sufficiency, and a new reliance on property owners. A smaller group of large industrialists now had an outsized role in organizing production.

So, how does AI fit into this narrative? When one uses ChatGPT to summarize their readings, for example, they are outsourcing their intellectual labor to a machine, just as workers outsourced labor to industrial technologies before. In both of these cases, productivity is significantly increased. 

However, as one increasingly outsources their intellectual labor to a large language model, they begin to lose the muscles needed to perform intellectual labor. This loss of intellectual stamina is about more than just one’s ability to create a coat. It’s about the quality and meaning of life. As even the supposedly “highly educated” elite lose their ability to conduct disciplined learning because of large language models, it will become increasingly difficult for individuals to make sense of life and the world around them in a meaningful way. Art and beauty will convey less meaning, simply because people won’t have the ability or interest to consume it critically.

Perhaps more concerning are the structural implications, which are also similar to that of the coat and traditional commodity production. Just as the industrial revolution reformed our concept of the means of production, the adoption of AI may reform the means of intellectual production. The problem-solving skills are vulnerable to the manipulation of AI companies. A small group of people gain the power to control the thoughts and sentiments of the masses. 

I’m resistant to rejecting AI outright. There are clear benefits to its development, and it would be both reactionary and irrational to dismiss it altogether. However, before we begin to accept its broad usage for daily tasks, we may want to think about the implications while we still have the intellectual stamina to do so. 

Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.