When discussing a technology, we often ask what it is; yet the more pressing question is for whom, by whom, and to reproduce which social order that technology was designed. The debate over artificial intelligence begins precisely here. This new tool, which permeates every sphere from artworks to Hollywood studios, from university lecture halls to office buildings, is presented as if it were merely a tool for efficiency.
It saves time, reduces costs, and makes life easier. All of this is true. But it’s incomplete. Because, unlike the tools that came before it, artificial intelligence is a mechanism that can learn, renew itself, and influence decision-making processes. For the first time in history, a tool does not merely transform its user; it seeks to think and make choices on their behalf.
Therefore, discussing the issue solely within the “beneficial or harmful” dichotomy is insufficient. The true nature of artificial intelligence cannot be separated from the production relations into which it is embedded. The thesis defended in this article is simple: What we call artificial intelligence today cannot be evaluated as merely a technological breakthrough. It is a new regime of capital accumulation, and this regime carries the risk of producing a compliant type of subject while redistributing knowledge, labor, and even thought.
The question of the owner, not the tool
The massive data centers training AI models, the multi-billion-dollar chip infrastructure, and the energy grids are not randomly scattered across the globe. The companies that build, train, and lease these models can be counted on one hand. This concentration is not a technical choice but a structural reality. Because data—the raw material of artificial intelligence—only generates value as scale increases; and as scale increases, only very large capital groups can remain in the game. Although we see small investments here and there, these are merely those adapting the infrastructure provided by the big tech giants to their own needs.
At this point, we need to flip the concept on its head: Artificial intelligence is not a tool, but a form of property. Everyone who uses it is, in fact, connected to the infrastructure of a specific property owner. Every query that appears to be free provides data in return. Every piece of data makes the model more valuable; every increase in value flows to where ownership is concentrated. In classical capitalism, the worker sold their labor. Today, the user—often without realizing it—donates their cognitive labor and attention.
As Yanis Varoufakis puts it, every time we go online to use algorithmic services, we have no choice but to make a Faustian bargain with their owners. We submit to a business model based on the collection of our data, the tracking of our activities, and the invisible curation of our content—all to use the personalized services provided by algorithms… We are becoming free servants who provide behavioral patterns that predict our actions, guide our preferences, influence our decisions, change our minds, and train our attention[1].
The price of convenience: cognitive debt
Capital’s historical success stems not only from its control over the means of production but also from its ability to dominate the habits of the producers themselves. If you start referring to a need by the brand’s name, that is the triumph of the investment[2]. Artificial intelligence is opening up an entirely new front right here, infiltrating not only everyday language but also the practices of daily life. As it draws from more sources, we need to think more deeply about the impact it creates on its users. It has been nearly three years since Silicon Valley began aggressively marketing large language model-based chatbots like ChatGPT as the inevitable future of everything, and the group feeling this pressure the most has been Generation Z. We are beginning to see the results of research conducted on this topic.
A recent study at the MIT Media Lab showed that students who relied on AI during their research exhibited a significant drop in brain activity measured by EEG[3]. Fifty-four undergraduate students were randomly assigned to write an essay using AI, a search engine, or on their own, and EEG scans were conducted during this time to measure the electrical activity in their brains. A decrease in brain activity was observed among those who wrote with AI, and most students who used AI could not even quote a single sentence verbatim from what they had written. In fact, for four months, AI users consistently demonstrated lower performance at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.
Researchers gave this phenomenon a striking name: cognitive debt[4]. The convenience gained today is accumulating as a debt that will be paid back with interest tomorrow. AI boosts performance in the short term, but in the long term, it erodes determination, perseverance, and the ability to solve problems independently. When people swit…
Read the full article at Bianet →
TR