Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
“Technochauvinism” was coined to describe the idea that all our problems can be solved through technological advancement. It is certainly a flawed belief, given it seeks simple, code-based solutions to complex human issues. But let’s imagine, for a moment, that it did work. Consider our problems solved. Would our lives not become too easy?
We might be leaps and bounds away from that exact scenario. And don’t get me wrong — I wish for world peace as much as the next person. It’s only natural that we should strive for a better planet. Yet, current trends in technology aren’t exactly working toward a higher quality of life for those in need, but rather easier lives for those already comfortable.
A cute, cuddly-looking thing has now emerged from Silicon Valley, promising exactly that: smoother sailing on already-calm waters.
On Sept. 8, Meta announced “Muse,” an AI agent to be tasked with anything under the sun, from circling back with your coworker to booking that flight to Bora Bora. More than a mere chatbot, the agent can connect to third-party apps to make purchases, schedule appointments and send messages, among other tasks. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an earnings call that Muse can “improve your life, your health, your relationships, your finances.”
Many have raised qualms over data privacy matters — valid concerns, given Zuckerberg’s track record. The debacle over whether the robots could kill us all has been headache-inducing, to say the least. Setting the cogs and gears aside, though, AI agents like Muse are still flawed — not only in practice, but in purpose. Even if these assistants were to function exactly as we’d like them to, their services are too frivolous to be of value.
Those of us fortunate enough to employ an AI agent might bemoan the daunting task of writing an email. Sometimes, the burden of grocery shopping seems too much to bear. And I can’t forget the sickening ordeal of arranging a wellness visit. When one uses the phrase “beauty in the mundane,” none of the above usually come to mind. But there is a certain beauty in knowing that prosperity makes these tedious experiences a part of our lives.
If we did not initially have a job with colleagues to email, our hands wouldn’t hesitate at the keyboard. If we could not first afford to put food on the table, we could not grocery shop. And if we didn’t have access to medical care, we would not be assigned with scheduling it.
But as tech companies bleed dry funding and effort to outsource those dull tasks to AI, people who could actually benefit from those efforts are left behind.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Meta has spent over $100 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone. And last Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the company has avoided spending billions in federal taxes by filing data centers as “pilot models.” This allows them to benefit from a tax credit created in the 1980s that rewards companies’ experimental efforts.
In doing so, Meta saved about $4 billion in taxes last year alone. All the while, the Trump administration has cut or frozen around $177 billion in federal grants across the country, with health, nutrition, environment and disaster relief hit the hardest.
This disparity is just a fraction of the picture. As we use AI tools like Muse for the sake of convenience, the burden of labor falls onto the backs of others less fortunate. Many experts and officials have drawn similarities to AI and the Industrial Revolution. I’ll hear those claims out, but in the sense that generative AI, much like the Industrial Revolution’s debuted machinery, only benefits a select group.
A 2025 report surveyed 160 American data workers who test and train various AI products. It revealed that around 86% experienced financial insecurity, with 25% relying on public assistance for food and medical coverage. Workers also reported a severe lack of training for critical tasks and little to no access to mental health benefits, despite being frequently subjected to violent, graphic content in order to safeguard users.
Among the surveyed employees was Kirn Gill II, a Search Quality Rater for Google products.
“If there's anything I wanted the general public to know,” Gill said in the survey. “It is that there are low paid people who are not even treated as humans — just little more than employee ID numbers — out there making the 1 billion dollar, trillion dollar AI systems that are supposed to lead our entire society and civilization into the future.”
Strenuous conditions are noted by Meta’s workers, too. This April, the company implemented tools to track employee clicks and keystrokes on work computers for AI training purposes.
However, I suppose that fuzzy little nugget setting up your fantasy football lineup is worth it, right?
I’m not writing on a “doomerist” agenda. Nor do I find any given AI development inherently problematic. But there is a glaring discrepancy between what technology can do in proposition, and what it has done in practice. The advent of AI promised innovation that could create tangible change for those who needed it most. Instead, so much of its marketing appeal has come from its ability to complete already-doable actions.
As the bots continue to fan some of us with palm leaves, we ought to ask ourselves how much innovation is too much. How much more convenience should we strive for in a world that is imperfect by nature? And how much of that convenience is attained by burdening others?
I think Pope Leo XIV put it best:
“If we are to avoid losing our humanity amid a ‘paradise of machines’ invading and conditioning our daily lives,” he said in a speech to French officials last week, “there is an urgent need for education in ethical discernment and the capacity to acknowledge the moral good.”
Emma Howard (she/her) is a junior studying journalism.
