“Scab”

Growing up I remember seeing these distinct posters in my grandpa’s garage. I could read what they said but their message was lost on me. Still, one word buried itself in my subconscious: Scab. You see, my Poppy was a union steward, and proud of it. There was a reality to his work and to the posters I would not understand until I was older; yet, what I knew then, and carry with me today, is that scabs are a force of evil in all their forms.

But who, or what, is a scab? The line has certainly become blurred here in the United States, with the degradation of our labor unions over the past half century or so. The classic scab, the picket line crosser, still exists: of all types, they are the least concerning. All workers have a common interest and enemy, and if Marx is correct, all workers will one day come to realize this. What concerns me is the newest scab stealing the honest person’s job. They come in many shapes, but this scab has only one name: Artificial Intelligence. 

There are many grievances I have with A.I., the chief among them being its impact on the workforce, or its potential impact. A.I. is a capitalist tool for workforce reduction, made for businesses of all sizes. It allows executives to fire or not hire creatives in place of computer generated ideas. It allows companies to do the same to customer service representatives, swapping them out for robotic duplicates. And, it allows for community necessities like hospitals to cut corners by utilizing artificial intelligence in a myriad of ways. This comes at no additional cost to the businesses or owners, but passes that expense onto the workers left, and those left behind, down more avenues than one. 

The cost of A.I. use is immeasurable at this point, at least by some metrics. The software still being in its infancy means people are still learning to use it as a tool for exploitation. It is surely being used to disenfranchise workers, which costs society possibly good products in place of regurgitated slop: a perfect example is the explosion of A.I. generated image content in place of graphic designer creations. It also costs the environment immensely when these worthless images are created. The massive amounts of water used to cool the servers housing these A.I. gets filthied and must be cleaned. These data centers also take up large amounts of land, polluting our natural spaces and communities alike. The list of environmental infringements goes on. But that is not all! That same graphic designer, who is out of work, drinking dirty water, and is living in the shadow of a Grok A.I. data center, may eventually get a job doing something else. However, they can no longer afford basic necessities, as the price of everything has gone up due to the demands of A.I. As we have seen this past decade, whether costs go up or down for companies, the savings are never passed onto the consumer. This is no different with Artificial Intelligence.

I want to briefly touch on an idea introduced in the last paragraph. I introduce this concept that, because something is made by a machine it cannot be good. I would like to clarify: just because a product, be it a work of art, an invention, or a procedure, is made by a human does not make it good. Yet, whenever I see a product made with or assisted by Artificial Intelligence, I cannot help but think of it as garbage. This is not because it was made by a machine, or using a machine as a tool. I am not alone in this sentiment either, but where does it come from? I believe it is a response to the lack of passion on the part of the creator, sensed by the audience or consumer. Which is why I believe A.I. is creatively and morally bankrupt. The tools are often used solely as a business tool and not as an aid for problem solving or creating. There is no passion or real thought put into the creative process, and it is clear.

Now, is there any way for A.I. to serve the proletariat? I think not. Why? Simple: the ethics surrounding the use of Artificial Intelligence is antithetical to that of the worker. To put it plainly; only the lazy or incapable use A.I. Anyone who creates something does so because they enjoy the process. A painter enjoys painting. A writer enjoys writing. A doctor enjoys surgery, and so on. This may be a rather simplistic, or idealistic, view of the working world. However, aside from monetary gain, human beings do what they do because they can, at the very least, tolerate what they are doing. Those that use A.I. are not doing the same because they enjoy the process. They want to make a quick buck. Now, the argument could be made that A.I. is simply a tool, like a camera. This would be false. Cameras do not create, they capture. What about a calculator? This, too, is a false comparison. Calculators do not create, they present solutions to problems that already exist. The only similarity is that they are tools. But with all tools, such as a weapon, one must ask: who is wielding it, and for what purpose?

One question still perturbs me: why do we accept Artificial Intelligence in our lives? I would like to say we have no choice, and that it is the capitalists fault, but I believe that to be only partly true. It may be that, as a people, we have become accustomed to being fed similar, serotonin stimulating meals. We have been feeding ourselves these meals on repeat for decades now, content-wise. We are a society that is about preserving the status quo. So what have we done? We have now created a machine that feeds us instead of us feeding ourselves. And it feeds infinitely. So we are becoming bloated on content and the status quo. We are becoming numb to the bloating, because it's been happening for so long.

If I pretended to have all the answers to this issue, then I would be insane, or a liar, or both, which would make me more interesting than I am. I am a writer and photographer, neither of which I am very good at. What I know for certain, however, is that A.I. will be used to disenfranchise people from expressing themselves in a truly creative way, both on a personal and systemic level, amongst other much more terrible consequences. Absent from this essay was any discussion on how access to these tools is disproportionate, meaning those in the imperial core have greater access than those in the global south, who already are disenfranchised in many ways. 

Do what I have been inspired to do: abandon using A.I. in as much of your life as possible. You will find the extra work produces rewarding results.Think back to my Poppy’s posters, too, depicting the scab. Those were designed by someone, passionate about the message, and resonated with my Pop enough that he still has those posters up today. I hope that is enough to keep all of us creating through the A.I. onslaught just a little longer.