ShareFacebookX (formerly Twitter)We simply don’t know what to expect — for most people, that is the most frustrating part of the AI revolution. Will AI technology come for every single job, and if so, create the need for a universal basic income? And if that happens, what are the long-term consequences? Or is this all a bubble that’s set to burst?The unknown is the most unsettling part. In conversations about the future of artificial intelligence — at least in the developed world and in emerging economies — people seem to fall into three groups:those who are optimistic and see AI as a great opportunity to profit;those who are terrified of losing their jobs and migrate toward work they believe is “AI-proof”;and those who remain largely naïve, still thinking AI is little more than a glorified search engine.Regardless of where individuals and societies stand in the AI debate, the revolution is already here and it is already changing the world. When the Romans built roads, the empire became interconnected in ways that accelerated innovation. The Gutenberg printing press in the fifteenth century made the role of the scribe obsolete, even as it expanded literacy and increased the spread of ideas. The Industrial Revolution triggered waves of anxiety about replacement, just as the internet did after the first message was sent between UCLA and Stanford in 1969.Yet something feels different with AI. The issue is not only the unknown, but the speed at which things are becoming obsolete. It feels as though no one has time to catch up, and that everyone risks being left behind before the next major advancement.The problem is that most of the questions, and most of the attempted answers, remain confined to productivity, efficiency and economics. Public debate often settles on two extremes: universal basic income for all, or confidence that a new economy will emerge with jobs that do not yet exist. The second option is more optimistic, but both approaches remain surface-level. They avoid deeper questions of anthropology and sociology — and what it actually means to be human in relationship to work.The human importance of workFrom the beginning of human history, humans have created. The desire to innovate and push the boundaries of what is possible is a defining human trait. The ability to observe the world, gather information and intentionally shape the environment is profoundly human. Observing the world is one thing; working with its raw materials is another. Both matter at a fundamental level.In the modern world, work is often reduced to a means of paying bills or sustaining a certain lifestyle. When someone dreams of retiring early and escaping work altogether, labour becomes merely transactional. From this perspective, if machines can provide wealth quickly and minimise or eliminate the need for work, what’s the downside?And yet human beings are, at our core, meaning-seekers and meaning-makers. We are creatures who give meaning to things. Does a lion hatch a plan before going hunting? Human beings do. Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with this distinction for centuries. There is deep satisfaction in creating something out of nothing, and in seeing tangible before-and-after results. Walking into a room that was disordered and leaving it clean carries real psychological reward. Even if a robot could do the same task, it would remove the human pleasure of transformation. Which is to say: work, done well, shapes us.Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?Sign up for our weekly newsletter.Email addressSubscribeYour information is being handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement.In this sense, AI is often described as eliminating the “middleman”. Others frame it as simply maximising what we already do. But what if removing the middle too quickly bears unseen costs? Work functions much like memory. When we no longer use it, we begin to lose it. People once memorised long passages and phone numbers; today many struggle to recall even one without a device. Writing letters gave way to phone calls, then to texts, then to emojis. What happens if we no longer even need to remember one another’s faces and names because AI-integrated glasses will handle it? Perhaps not all automation is progress.Environments where people work alongside one another, dreaming, deciding, struggling and improving together, are as necessary for adults as play and conflict are for children’s development. Total automation may increase productivity, but it risks eliminating the struggle that forms human maturity. We grow under pressure. Even boredom plays a role in psychological development. Delegating decision-making entirely to machines does not only affect individuals; it reshapes relationships. Humans thrive when they are engaged in their work.There’s more to work than productivityInformation now spreads faster than ever, but wisdom still takes time to form. Whenever technology advances, education must follow. Yet the education we need most may no longer be tied to fixed career paths. Choosing a profession based on today’s job description may lead to frustration tomorrow, as roles continue to change.The responsibility of institutions is not simply to maximise profit, but to cultivate environments where people can identify their vocations and grow within them — while also learning how to use technology wisely. Vocation speaks to the unique ways individuals contribute to the well-being of others through the creation of products, systems and services that allow communities to flourish. When governments and businesses focus solely on economic output, something essential is missed: the formation of people themselves.Historically, ethical and religious traditions have viewed work as entailing more than the exchange of labour for money: it is a form of service that enhances both the individual and the community. Vocation has long been understood as an extension of identity, a way of offering one’s gifts in service to others. The German theologian and reformer Martin Luther, for instance, argued that all work — not only religious labour — possesses dignity. Farmers, engineers, nurses and builders alike participate in meaningful labour. Work, in this view, was never neutral; it was always formative.What if the capacity to slow down, reflect and build alongside others is what sustains strong societies? Perhaps in our rush to optimise everything, we risk creating a rushed culture — one without the patience to walk with our neighbours. If maturity involves interdependence, what happens when human presence is removed from the spaces between processes?A world where machines produce while humans merely consume may sound appealing, but it risks hollowing out the very growth that gives life meaning. We are left to ask whether the goal of human existence is consumption alone, or whether our potential is realised when we give more than we take.Lucas Cecilio is a US-based writer and researcher working at the intersection of ethics, work and human formation.Posted 1h ago1 hours agoTue 17 Feb 2026 at 6:48am, updated 1h ago1 hours agoTue 17 Feb 2026 at 6:56amShareFacebookX (formerly Twitter)How our fear of death drives the AI revolutionWhat do AI conductors do to our sense of human artistry?Why Tilly Norwood is not ‘a piece of art’When we look at Artificial Intelligence, do we see our own reflection?Why we shouldn’t want to be the pets of super-intelligent computersAI, Work, EthicsBack to top