As AI technology rapidly progresses, concerns are growing—rightfully so. New technology can often be frightening, especially ones like AI which possess such daunting capabilities that will likely outpace human intelligence. This can seem like an even greater challenge when voices from news outlets, online forums, and simple conversation echo the same message: AI is a threat to the economy that will replace a large number of workers. 

However, latest research from the MIT Sloan School of Management shows that AI is more likely to augment workers (for example complementing their skillset) than completely replacing them. This is because certain skills such as empathy, presence, opinion, and creativity are so uniquely humane that it’s hard for AI to replicate them. This research is in contrast to data that says around 71% of Americans fear AI could lead to job displacing and 77% distrust companies and governments to use AI responsibly (Reuters). This difference points to our larger fears and illiteracy about AI. While some may be skeptical to use it even for minor purposes, others would be making generative art and calling it theirs. Given this dilemma, the question arises, what should be done? 

Although I understand why people are strongly against AI or wish it could be eliminated completely, at this point, that is just not possible. Even if it was, I don’t think that’s the ideal solution. It is much more important that people agree that unregulated use of AI won’t get us anywhere. That’s why I propose a social contract when it comes to utilizing AI.

In this contract, we as a society would collectively accept certain conditions in return for AI usage. Developed by various philosophers, the idea of a social contract is that people give up certain freedoms in return for certain protections from the government. Applying this idea in the context of AI would mean that people give up their freedom to use AI in other ways that are ethically dubious, in return for some efficient benefits through AI such as the handling of menial tasks like creating spreadsheets. 

 We, as a humanity, can’t achieve our best state if we don’t maximise our efforts towards the goal of ensuring human virtues over AI. The responsibility lies in how we make and use AI for our larger goals, which is akin to how we used the internet for global connectivity and economic growth. AI is a nuanced and philosophical issue that must be addressed in a nuanced way. 

In the proposal that our relationship with AI be rooted in the values of independence, we must search for outcomes that could be easily quantifiable, without substitution of human creativity, and with the same application of our ‘real life’ moral codes to the world of AI. Through the combination of these principles, we can develop an AI relationship that not only reflects humans’ ability to think, but also assists them in performing higher level tasks.  While AI could potentially aid human progress and efficiency, this will only be positive if the society around it is constructed in a way where humans can still truly thrive.

Independence, in this case, means that a human is simply not dependent on AI. Need to ask for career advice? Talk to the college counsellor. In the process of writing an English essay? Brainstorm yourself. Need some emotional support? Look to a therapist. What should be avoided at all costs is depending on AI so much that it is your only escape if you face confusions or hard questions in life, and fulfilling this principle will help achieve that. 

The second principle is using AI only for small, additional steps. If I need to brainstorm something myself, quickly looking it up on ChatGPT undermines my own thinking abilities. If I am working on a large-scale engineering project, I would rather brainstorm myself as much as I can till I can see my ideas on paper. Then, if I ask AI for some other nuances, I will get an outcome I might have not yet considered, but AI only added on to my already complete work. In other words, this use of AI is not replacing your thinking abilities but rather supporting you to create something much bigger and better. 

The final principle is what brings all of it together: we can’t deviate from our usual moral codes when using AI. For example, many people assume “no cheating” as a standard moral code. Then to use AI to plagiarise, even if it leads to tangible outcomes as previously mentioned, would be unethical. Another important moral conduct is no invasion of privacy rights. That means AI shouldn’t be used by computer scientists to break into people’s personal lives to collect data, even if there’s somehow a justification for a “greater satisfaction of the humanity goals.” The very social codes that join humans together should be extended to AI as well ensuring that it is not just the outcomes of using AI that we keep in mind, but also the way we use it. Beyond individual responsibility, this could further be achieved through concrete legislation making AI companies accountable to the same laws outside of the world. These codes are multifaceted, and the responsibility lies in the hands of individuals, parents and the government to work together for the fulfillment of these objectives. The invention of AI cannot be revoked, nor can we force people to not use it at all. 

I firmly believe that there should be more regulations imposed on AI. But the way forward begins with individuals taking action: by respecting the innate abilities of ourselves and others, and using these principles to govern our personal relationship with AI. These codes are multifaceted, but if they are our guiding light in our individual decision making, government legislation, and the policies of AI firms, then we act in a certain way that ensures that we are in charge of our futures.