Practice or Product? Labour, Training, and the “Ethics” of AI

This essay interrogates the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) to intellectual labour and human skills and capacities. Employing insights from ethical philosophy, political theory, and the Marxist tradition in an engagement with recent manifestos calling for AI regulation, I adopt an interdisciplinary approach to the question of labour and technology, using translation work as a case study. Intentionally bracketing whether AI will be able to replace human translators, I explore the foundation of the conflict between AI and human intellectual work: namely that the former risks destroying the cultural practices and institutions that maintain the human ability to think and communicate in the most general sense. Even if regulation were to succeed in making AI more “ethical” – that is, more transparent, less exploitative, less biased, and less environmentally destructive – it would still be “unethical” in the strict etymological sense of the term that I advance here as a hermeneutic device: AI destroys the ethos (habits, abilities, way of being) of translation by degrading the cultural and institutional “training milieu” conducive to it. This conclusion is applicable to numerous domains of labour and has implications for education and democratic citizenship.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Global Labour Journal
Published
2025-05-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v16i2.5861
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Practice or Product? Labour, Training, and the “Ethics” of AI

William Tilleczek
1 citations
Global Labour Journal
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
4.20
article

Practice or Product? Labour, Training, and the “Ethics” of AI

William Tilleczek
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This essay interrogates the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) to intellectual labour and human skills and capacities. Employing insights from ethical philosophy, political theory, and the Marxist tradition in an engagement with recent manifestos calling for AI regulation, I adopt an interdisciplinary approach to the question of labour and technology, using translation work as a case study. Intentionally bracketing whether AI will be able to replace human translators, I explore the foundation of the conflict between AI and human intellectual work: namely that the former risks destroying the cultural practices and institutions that maintain the human ability to think and communicate in the most general sense. Even if regulation were to succeed in making AI more “ethical” – that is, more transparent, less exploitative, less biased, and less environmentally destructive – it would still be “unethical” in the strict etymological sense of the term that I advance here as a hermeneutic device: AI destroys the ethos (habits, abilities, way of being) of translation by degrading the cultural and institutional “training milieu” conducive to it. This conclusion is applicable to numerous domains of labour and has implications for education and democratic citizenship.

Global Labour JournalVol. 16(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Practice or Product? Labour, Training, and the “Ethics” of AI — William Tilleczek · Global Labour Journal (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS