Can AI help us build a more sustainable society for everyone? The question and the resulting answer seem almost too good to be true. The idea is that a well-placed algorithm will solve all the mess we’ve created over the last few centuries: environmental problems, social inequalities, and maybe even our guilt for not recycling enough. But the reality is more complicated than we think.

Take the meme that’s been circulating for a while: there’s a guy screaming into the void, “Where’s the AI that does all the things we don’t want to do? Where’s the AI that finds a job for everyone?” Sure, we’d love to have a machine that cleans up the mess of our neoliberal economy and gets us all working for the collective good. But isn’t it possible that, behind the promise of a magical AI, we’re just preparing ourselves for a scenario where we have less work and more algorithms telling us what to eat, where to go on vacation, and when it’s most appropriate to answer nature’s call?

This is fire: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Sc02Sd9aC9U

As alluring as the idea is of a world where AI takes the wheel and guides us to a safe harbor, we have to face the reality of who’s building this boat (and who’s currently steering it). The tech giants designing these AIs aren’t exactly altruism champions. If the goal is to create a fairer, greener society, the AI we’re being offered looks more like a system to optimize the profits of a few rather than distribute resources and opportunities equally. Efficiency, let’s admit it, is a lot more appealing to those who own capital than to those seeking a balanced and sustainable life.

Sociologists like Shoshana Zuboff warn us that excessive technological control doesn’t lead to greater freedom; rather, it creates an even more fragmented society where a few hold power while the rest of us float in the ocean of misinformation and algorithmic manipulation. Zuboff specifically cautions that our constant connection to automated systems could lead to a surveillance society, not a sustainable paradise. But, hey, let’s try to look at the glass half full and ask: what if AI were designed to promote equality and well-being, not profit? What if, instead of benefiting just a few, we could all enjoy these technologies in a healthy and sustainable way?

Maybe the key lies in shifting our mindset: not an AI designed to work for us, but an AI designed as a tool for the collective good. For instance, imagine a machine that helps monitor the equitable distribution of resources, or one that optimizes agricultural practices to make farming more sustainable. Or how about an AI that helps small communities thrive without depending on large, globalized economic systems that today have devastating impacts on the environment?

However, the problem remains: who’s deciding how and for whom AI is designed? If it’s created by the same companies that dominate the tech market today, the answer could be “not for you, but for them.” After all, these AIs weren’t born in utopian laboratories designed for the good of the world, but in the heart of corporate server farms, where the primary goal isn’t to improve our lives, but to optimize costs and resources.

So, can we trust an intelligence that, instead of serving us, has the mission of increasing the profit of a few? Isn’t it time to demand a bit of transparency and genuine collaboration across sectors, so these technologies can actually benefit society as a whole and not just its wealthiest stakeholders?

We can no longer hide under the rug a technology like this, one that already, even if partially, helps simplify inevitable tasks. The real question is: who will have the power to decide the future of this technology, and why shouldn’t it be monopolized by a few but rather accessible to all as a public good?

Disclaimer: As you can see, my position is to consider AI as a technological tool at the service of life (and not just of humans). A world where technology helps improve the quality of life for everyone, respects the environment, and creates real opportunities is a world that, if done right, could truly make sense. Otherwise, it will remain just another tool that perpetuates a system that no longer works but that no one seems to have the courage to change.