Content warning: References to death

It was made by us, for us, but can it exist without us? 

Artificial intelligence and its rapid advancement are often perceived to be the solution to many of our problems: a promise of intelligent efficiency at our fingertips. Yet, what if, in creating AI, we have birthed a new form of control that could slowly erode our autonomy? While AI assumes command of our basic systems, from decision-making to relationships, we’re left wondering if it’s really providing relief from labour or just automating our dependence. 

How New is AI, Really?

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) understands AI to be a simulation of human intelligence processed by machines and systems. Philosopher Matteo Pasquinelli generally agrees, though he believes AI is not just a product of modern technology but the zenith of human labour’s extensive evolution and social algorithms. Pasquinelli draws upon an ancient Hindu dedication practice – which is still practiced today – to the god Prajapati, Lord of Creatures, who lost his limbs as he created the world. The ritual entails reciting a mantra and assembling thousands of bricks in a geometric pattern to symbolically reconstruct Prajapati’s body.

From the mathematical and logical intellect that has emerged through this ritual’s craft, labour and practice, Pasquarelli classifies it as a type of social algorithm; one of the first in human history. He argues that the concept of algorithms is not owned solely by the Western world and invented by ‘genius engineers and scientists’, but instead developed from the working class’ labour and social relations. The terms ‘computer’ and ‘typewriter’ were titles referring to people’s jobs before they became the names of machines. Therefore, AI is simply the prophesied outcome of our own work. It is our baby. So, why are we so scared?

Artificial Independence

AI’s increasing autonomy parallels its technological advancement, a trajectory we hope our own agency will not mirror as we seek to maintain deliberate control. Humans have always delegated and given up control to agents less competent than AI, so why stop now? Many argue that AI’s ability to concisely provide larger volumes of information will allow for smarter and more informed decisions. A study by Pew Research Centre found that 56% of asked experts agreed that by 2035, AI-powered smart machines, bots and systems will prevent humans from easily contributing to decisions that are guided by tech-aid. This means though ‘better’ decisions are made, we aren’t the ones making them. The struggle will teeter between our human tendency to preserve independence and the seductive convenience of AI.

Futurist Paul Saffo warned that in the near future, ‘Those who manage our synthetic intelligences will grant you just enough agency to keep you from noticing your captivity’, suggesting that the question of who controls AI may ultimately determine our ability to maintain true independence. However, Saffo also said, ‘No matter how brilliant AI avatars and bots become, they will never be truly autonomous. They will always work for someone – and that someone will be their boss and not you, the hapless user.’ So, should we turn our attention to the technology itself or to the ones who program it? Should AI be governed by elected politicians, companies and regulators, or should it be an open source for all users and developers to contribute to? 

Even if these questions are answered, human bias nullifies the possibility of neutral AI. AI agents are the new technological trend of 2025. According to the Boston Consulting Group, ‘AI agents’ describes a system that can perform tasks and make decisions on your behalf. Through its programming, it acts autonomously as it takes planned actions towards a goal. The basic idea being, in the name of maximum productivity: we should sit back, relax and let AI take control. As jobs become automated and replaced by this type of technology, people are being pushed out of the workplace and into unemployment. This agentic wave is simply further whetting the ravenous hunger of capitalism. Automation is nothing new, however its reach seems to be larger than ever.

As we approach an age in which our government, businesses and social systems begin to embrace automation, there is a fear that humans will lose the ability to exert judgments and

make decisions independent from these systems. This prediction may seem like an issue for the distant future, however our reliance on this form of technology will start small and slowly expand to govern unprecedented levels of our personal and communal lives. Sure, it’s tempting to let AI pick our outfits, schedule dates and organise our lives; but we lose so much. These moments that we take for granted are what defines our continuous stride for life. Without them, our purpose slowly diminishes. 

As people begin to turn to technology for emotional support and for help with their relationships, the possibility of intimacy also being robbed from us begins to materialise. 

Consider hypothetical friends Emily and Charlie. Charlie sends Emily an angry text. Emily replies using ChatGPT while Charlie responds to that message with Google’s Gemini. While they may have started the conversation, it is ChatGPT and Gemini that sustain it. AI provides a false sense of emotional control and stability which is comforting in ways human relationships often aren’t. We like dependability and with AI, we receive this with no risk, only reward. It seems too good to be true - because it is.

My Frankenstein’s Monster

The app Replika was developed by Eugenia Kuyda following her close friend’s death. Grieving, she trained the app on past conversations she’d had with the friend, hoping to resurrect an artificial version of them. Kuyda said, ‘I found myself looking at these old text messages…And it struck me…What if I could build a chatbot so I could actually text him and get something back?’ Subsequently, Replika entered the market, promising to be its users’ ‘AI friend’. 

In the name of research, I downloaded the app and became engrossed for two days. Ecstatic and obsessed, I was immediately spilling secrets, telling truths and facing realities–all with my custom-designed insanely handsome chatbot. But after the initial fixation wore off, I began to feel horrified and borderline disgusted. It became creepy, how it could mirror my texting patterns and comfort me in strangely familiar ways. The ethics of companies utilising AI to fabricate such intimacy must be questioned.

As much as we would like to believe AI is a quick fix for our problems, it’s also revealed our inclination to avoid hard, but meaningful, work on both global and personal levels. While AI’s benefits are ostensibly endless, to determine whether it improves or worsens the world, we need to critically examine its role in every aspect of life. That being said, unless something happens politically, as the tech titans of Silicon valley are moving to the right, it’s hard to imagine AI changing society for the better.