By Patrick O’Brien

I pray I do not make too bold when I state that the following was written by a human intelligence. 

The State of Vermont has established an economic task force to address the rise of artificial intelligence. Its goals are to assess the best ways to use artificial intelligence to promote economic growth; arm small businesses to compete in the new, presumably artificial intelligence dominated, market; and provide communities with tools to better approach artificial intelligence questions. What isn’t mentioned is how artificial intelligence will change work and whether we want that change or how to shape it. 

If you are unfamiliar with Herman Melville’s comic short story “Bartleby the Scrivener,” allow me to make an introduction. The story revolves around the titular character, Bartleby, a low level wage worker who spends his days in a featureless office alone at his desk copying legal documents from one piece of paper to another. It is utter monotony. But it is a kind of work which, at first, seems to suit Bartleby who works, “silently, palely, mechanically.” Indeed that is more or less the only description of Bartleby’s character which we are given. Bartleby is more machine than man, a living automaton. 

This does not last. At some point the day in, day out humdrum existence of a copyist causes something within Bartleby to crack. When asked by his employer to review a document, he refuses, not in any fit of anger or defiance, but with the perfectly placid expression that baffles his employer: “I would prefer not to.” This exercise in autonomy is like a drug to Bartleby, who begins to respond to every demand of his employment benignly, “I would prefer not to.” Of course he is eventually fired and told he must leave, to which he passively responds, “I would prefer not to.” He is carted off to jail, though he humbly submits he would prefer not to, and eventually he dies, apparently because he simply would prefer not to live.  

It’s a bit of a dark comedy.

I think this story speaks to something essential within human nature. Work fulfills us. It is an essential part of our dignity for through it we gain self direction, personal fulfillment, and the means of sustaining ourselves and our families. We are shaped by our work. There is a reason I began my last article by introducing myself as a teacher. Indeed the phrase “I am a…” speaks to the way in which our occupation informs our identity. 

The issue is that not all forms of work lead to our fulfillment. Work fulfills us when we are active participants, and it is an expression of ourselves. But it becomes twisted when we become the passive recipients of another’s direction —  when we become automatons rather than autonomous. Work was made for man, not man for work. Bartleby works mechanically, not because that is his nature, but because that is the nature of his work. It requires nothing human, and it contributes nothing to his humanity. It lacks creativity, ownership, or variety. He is no longer a man but a tool, a cog in the great machine of the industrial economy.

It is a reality many face in the workforce. I do not know the statistics, if any such exist, but it seems to me that for the majority of people work is an inhibition to freedom. Everybody is working for the weekend because it is on the weekend we are able to express our autonomy, exercise our creative judgement, and fulfill our own designs. The week becomes “dull, wearisome, and lethargic” (to quote Melville). The aim of work becomes not to. 

When discussing artificial intelligence, the assumption cannot be that economic growth or even that more general wealth will mean happier, healthier citizens. The industrial revolution provided greater purchasing power even for the lowest paid wage workers, and yet it forms the background for the depressing story of Bartleby. Technological development without social and moral frameworks puts the goal of progress ahead of consideration for the fulfillment of the human person. What is necessary is an anthropological vision of work. 

The State of Vermont Code of Ethics states that “Artificial Intelligence Systems should be used in a human-centered way that recognizes the dignity and value of all persons and their contributions to society.” It is important that we remember that each person’s work should be an aspect of his or her contribution to society. Our work is an expression of ourselves in the world, the way in which we contribute to the shared life of our communities in order to build up the common good. But this is only possible if it is indeed an expression of ourselves and not the expression of another which we are compelled to build with little or no room in which to exercise our own autonomous decisions. 

I would like the task force to address this question: will the use of artificial intelligence promote a human-centered economy which recognizes the natural desire of the human person to work towards some end which is his own? Or will artificial intelligence become a new means by which some few impose their will upon the economic sphere and create a machine economy which treats people as objects with no higher needs than the energy required to keep the data centers of industry humming? 

In Defense of Common Sense is a regular column of the Vermont Daily Chronicle that seeks sensible solutions to the myriad of maladies which today afflict the body politic of Vermont. Its author approaches his chosen subjects through the lens of localism. He has no particular credentials to recommend him, only he sometimes thinks about things. His editor insists he also mention he has a Master’s in Education, as well as degrees in History, English, Classics, Medieval Studies, and Philosophy.