Beyond the AI Fear: Redefining Human Purpose in an Automated Age

In the age of AI, those still struggling for basic survival have no concern other than being freed from it.

Are you worried about what you will do once machines can perform every task better than you? Nowadays, discussions about AI displacing human labor are heard everywhere. As London Mayor Sadiq Khan recently suggested, we regularly read and hear warnings that AI will bring about a 'new era of mass unemployment.'

According to such discourse, the potential risks of AI will not only affect the financial sector. It is certain to impact the work we do. Our life's purpose is embedded in our work. The meaning of life is hidden within it.

According to a 2024 study, 93 percent of survey participants were concerned about the potential meaninglessness of life as AI continues to develop.

Naturally, their concerns are understandable. However, harboring catastrophic, imaginary scenarios about becoming redundant or useless is not inevitable. The idea that AI will render our lives meaningless is based on three fallacies.

The first fallacy in our understanding is the 'winner-takes-all' mentality. This belief suggests that for human activity to be meaningful, we must be the best at it. In 2016, a famous match took place between Google's 'DeepMind' and renowned 'Go' player Lee Sedol. He lost the game. Immediately after losing, he announced his retirement, stating that it was impossible to beat AI at the Chinese strategic game 'Go'.

For something to be meaningful, there must be a 'struggle for survival.' We can call this the 'survivalist fallacy.'

Ten years after he quit, 'Go' remains a very popular game. We do not have to defeat everyone to find satisfaction in any activity. I have participated in marathons many times. But I never thought I would win. Thinking about being faster than a machine is out of the question.

I was interested in how I could do better myself. I was more interested in the collective spirit and the fun.

The second is the 'survivalist fallacy'—the belief that for something to be meaningful, there must be a 'struggle for survival.' Pessimists argue that if Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) fulfills all our needs, we will be in a state like children. We will not have to do anything for our existence.

But the reality is not exactly like that. Most modern jobs cannot be explained in the language of struggle. This is certainly a good thing. Even today, people struggling for basic survival have no concern other than being freed from it. But if their needs are guaranteed, they can move beyond their anxieties.

As American psychologist Abraham Maslow said, they rise above the level of needs. This means that once physical and safety needs are met, we move toward intimacy, self-esteem, and the realization and actualization of our inherent potential and talent (self-actualization).

The third is the 'presentist fallacy'—the understanding that what we call work today is the best benchmark for meaningful human activity. We fear that if we cannot do the kind of work we are doing now, we will become what Yuval Noah Harari calls the 'useless class.'

We must avoid thinking that our current way of spending time is the only optimal one. We must also remember that while some people find meaning in their jobs, many are willing to leave such jobs.

But most of what we call work today has a history of no more than a few decades. Think about it: would our ancestors have considered sitting somewhere and sending an 'email' to be meaningful work? Will people in the future mourn the fact that AI took over the job of sending emails or using computers and mobile phones?

We must avoid thinking that our current way of spending time is the only optimal one. We must also remember that while some people find meaning in their jobs, many are willing to leave such jobs. It has been found in many wealthy countries that adults reaching retirement age are happier compared to other age groups.

Change naturally creates confusion and anxiety. Yes, in the current economic and social system, not having work, not working, or being redundant leads to significant financial and psychological pain.

But what we must not forget here is that AI also has the potential to make existing systems capable of allowing everyone to live a meaningful life. It is possible to have more advanced welfare tools available than today. For example, it is necessary to create a better life through 'Universal Basic Income.' Although that alone is certainly not enough.

To lay the foundation for a meaningful life, work must be done in various areas of public policy. Although the meaning and purpose of life are personal matters for every individual, the conditions to achieve them are structural issues.

We should not understand freedom from labor only as being free from becoming a passive consumer. Otherwise, a state of not having to work leads us to mental fatigue, laziness, and boredom. Active engagement with life gives it meaning. For some people, such meaning may even exist beyond life. Policy should support that.

In 1932, philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an essay titled 'In Praise of Idleness.' In it, he stated, 'The wise use of leisure is the result of civilization and education.' Now, we must expand access to education that allows adult citizens to learn new skills and maintain interests throughout their lives.

Active engagement also comes from the community. Such engagement can be supported by advanced urban planning. It can be made more comprehensive through participatory forms of governance. By doing so, many people can get involved in the future of their neighborhoods.

We can also achieve a lot by connecting with other lives besides humans. For that, access to and proximity to nature can be further strengthened.

We certainly cannot remain satisfied or calm just like that. Poorly designed AI can increase our dependence. It can also weaken our interpersonal relationships. But at the same time, it also provides an opportunity to rethink how we spend our time and how we can organize our society.

In doing so, we can spend the maximum portion of it on things that are important to us.

(The author is the Director of the Institute of Technology and Humanity at the University of Cambridge.)

(From Financial Times)