At the recent Paris AI Summit, JD Vance attempted to paint a hopeful picture of artificial intelligence. The vice president reassured Americans that AI isn’t meant to replace them. Instead, it promises to make them stronger, more productive, and, ultimately, happier.
It’s a nice sentiment — if only he had any real say in the matter.
Despite his political clout, Vance is not the one steering this ship. The Big Tech overlords are, and their vision has little to do with human flourishing. In fact, one of those very people is Elon Musk — a close colleague of Vance’s — who is playing a direct role in accelerating AI’s dominion over human labor.
Last year, Musk warned that AI would take all our jobs. Now, with the Department of Government Efficiency, he is making that warning a reality. Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that Musk’s DOGE began feeding sensitive government data into AI systems to analyze spending and identify cost-cutting measures. The outcome: increased job cuts, not increased efficiency. One government official tracking DOGE’s operations put it bluntly — DOGE’s true aim is to replace human workers with machines.
The broader picture here is grim.
Once upon a time, planned obsolescence referred to light bulbs burning out too soon and smartphones mysteriously slowing down after software updates. Now, the principle is being applied to humans. AI isn’t just replacing workers; it’s making them obsolete by design.
Big Tech’s brightest minds have all but admitted it. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been spearheading what I call the “Make Individuals Irrelevant” movement, positioning AI as the inevitable replacement for human labor. Altman’s backing of universal basic income initiatives, including the largest-ever U.S. study on the policy, underscores this dystopian vision.
NVIDIA’s CEO Jensen Huang claims AI won’t replace humans entirely — just in jobs where it’s “1,000 times better.” A soothing assurance, except that AI is rapidly approaching being 1,000 times better at everything. Meanwhile, Meta is cutting thousands of jobs, targeting so-called “low performers” while funneling billions into AI development.
We are witnessing a systemic transition, one that reshapes society at its core.
The word Orwellian might come to mind, but it’s not quite right. Vonnegutian may lack the same ominous ring, but it’s far more accurate. We fixate on “1984” when we should be paying attention to “Player Piano.”
Kurt Vonnegut wasn’t just a magnificent writer — he was an oracle of sorts, predicting the dehumanizing effects of technological progress with uncanny accuracy. In “Harrison Bergeron” (1961), he imagined a world where enforced equality crushes individuality, eerily reflecting today’s obsession with ideological conformity. Even “Slaughterhouse-Five” (1969), with its nonlinear storytelling and fatalistic outlook, anticipated the fractured way we now consume information in the digital age.
The American author saw the AI revolution coming over 70 years ago. In “Player Piano,” published in 1952 — two years before Orwell’s “1984”— Vonnegut depicts a society fractured into two classes: an elite technocratic caste that designs and maintains the machines, and a vast underclass rendered obsolete by automation. These displaced workers aren’t brutally oppressed; they are simply unneeded, their skills devalued, their existence reduced to redundancy. Some rebel. Others sink into apathy, stripped of any meaningful role.
Vonnegut’s vision was eerily prescient. Whereas Orwell warned of a world ruled by fear and surveillance, Vonnegut foresaw something subtler but no less insidious — a future where machines erode the essence of human identity.
Vonnegut even hinted at the idea of universal basic income — not as a utopian fix, but as a sedative, a means of pacifying the newly idle masses.
In truth, universal basic income may be the only plausible solution as AI advances at an exponential rate. Moore’s Law, in simple terms, states that computing power doubles approximately every two years. This means that technological progress does not advance in a straight line but along an accelerating curve. What seemed like distant science fiction a decade ago — AI composing symphonies, diagnosing diseases or replacing human artists — is now a reality.
AI is surpassing us at a pace we cannot comprehend. A machine learning model today is exponentially more powerful than one built just a few years ago. The implications of this are staggering. What took humans centuries to master, AI can now do in months. Any job that involves pattern recognition, decision-making or creative output is under threat.
In the past, automation primarily targeted low-skilled labor — factory workers, cashiers and assembly line operators. The solution was always upskilling— learning new trades, moving into roles that required greater ingenuity, judgment and complex problem-solving. But how do you upskill when there’s nowhere left to go?
AI is coming for white-collar jobs — teachers, doctors, engineers — every profession that once seemed immune. It’s not just automating repetitive tasks; it’s automating everything.
But while AI can replace labor, it will never solve the deeper existential crisis it is creating. A society built on work is facing a future where work is no longer needed. And no one has an answer for what comes next.
A monthly check from the government may put food on the table, but it can never provide meaning. It doesn’t answer the fundamental question: Why get out of bed in the morning? People don’t just need money; they need purpose. And that’s the problem no one in Silicon Valley has an answer for. In truth, they likely don’t have an answer because it doesn’t matter to them. Their motives are profit-driven, often in direct opposition to the idea of human fulfillment.
When discussing purpose and meaning, it’s important to recognize that while the two are closely related, they aren’t identical. Purpose is outward-facing — the role one plays in society, the contribution one makes. Meaning is internal — the sense of fulfillment and significance derived from existence. AI threatens both.
JD Vance may believe in a future where AI uplifts humanity, but the trajectory suggests otherwise. We are being made obsolete, every single one of us. The machine doesn’t need us to be productive, strong or happy. It just needs us to be silent while it takes over. Unless we reclaim and redefine what it means to be human in the age of AI, we risk becoming nothing more than a species that has outlived its purpose — spectators in a world no longer made for us.
John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
