The Dawn of a New Era: AI as the Unseen Colonizer?

The Dawn of a New Era: AI as the Unseen Colonizer?

In the annals of history, colonialism has taken many forms. From the age of imperial expansion to the modern era of economic dominance, the powerful have often sought to exert control over the less powerful. As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly advances, a new form of colonialism is emerging – one that is more subtle yet potentially just as insidious.

At the heart of this new era of colonialism is the development and deployment of AI systems by powerful nations and corporations. These systems are often trained on vast datasets collected from around the globe, frequently without the knowledge or consent of those whose data is being used. This data can then be leveraged to perpetuate existing biases and power imbalances, granting those who control the technology a significant advantage over others who are surveilled and manipulated.

Disrupting Livelihoods

This “AI colonialism” directly threatens livelihoods, particularly in content creation. AI models like Gemini and other large language systems generate human-like text, including articles, stories, and code. This ability raises urgent concerns about the potential displacement of human creators, leading to job losses and a decline in income for individuals who rely on content creation.

For instance, the stakes are especially high in the health information sector. Health writers and journalists invest years developing expertise and building trust with their audiences. They produce meticulously researched content and often serve as a critical resource for public health. Yet, AI can now synthesize similar content in seconds, bypassing the publishers who would have previously hosted this information.

Consider the mechanics of this disruption. Previously, a user seeking detailed health advice might search the web, land on a trusted health publisher’s site, and engage with the content-generating advertising revenue for the publisher. Now, with tools like Gemini providing direct answers, this interaction is bypassed entirely. The publishers lose revenue, and writers face dwindling opportunities as algorithmic outputs effectively replace their work. This shift deprives creators of their earnings and risks undermining the quality and reliability of publicly available health information.

The Erosion of Quality and Diversity

AI’s displacement of human health writers could have broader consequences for society. Without adequate financial incentives, these professionals may stop producing content altogether. This would lead to a decline in the diversity of health information available, as AI-generated content often lacks the nuance, cultural sensitivity, and critical analysis humans provide. Moreover, AI outputs rely on pre-existing data, which may perpetuate outdated or biased perspectives, potentially harming public understanding of complex health issues.

In this context, AI becomes not just a tool but an agent of “ultramodern colonization.” It centralizes control of knowledge and profit within a few corporations, leaving creators—the individuals who generate the raw material for AI systems—economically marginalized. This dynamic mirrors historical patterns of exploitation, where the labour and resources of the many enriched the few.

Historical Comparisons to Economic Disruptions

To understand the gravity of this transformation, one can look to historical disruptions like the Industrial Revolution. During this era, technological advancements displaced skilled artisans as machinery allowed factory owners to produce goods faster and cheaper. Entire communities that once thrived on traditional crafts faced economic ruin, leading to widespread poverty and the loss of cultural heritage. Similarly, generative AI threatens to automate intellectual labour, displacing writers, journalists, and other knowledge workers.

However, unlike the Industrial Revolution, where new industries eventually created jobs, the disruption caused by AI appears to funnel profits and power into the hands of a select few. In the 19th century, industrialists required large labour forces to operate factories, but AI systems require minimal human oversight once operational. This creates an unprecedented concentration of wealth and power, echoing colonial practices where a small elite controlled vast resources at the expense of others.

The Health Sector as a Case Study

The health sector illustrates the profound risks of this technological shift. Health publishers and medical writers are vital in disseminating accurate, evidence-based information to the public. Their content helps individuals make informed decisions about their health, understand complex medical conditions, and navigate healthcare systems. When AI systems like Gemini generate health advice, they often pull from existing content created by these professionals, extracting value without contributing to its creation.

This extraction mirrors colonial resource exploitation. Just as colonial powers once extracted natural resources from colonies without fair compensation, AI extracts intellectual resources from human creators without adequate recognition or remuneration. The result is a parasitic relationship where creators—the backbone of information ecosystems—are rendered obsolete while corporations profit.

Moreover, the consequences of AI-generated health content extend beyond economics. Public health could suffer as the quality of information declines. AI systems, for all their capabilities, cannot critically analyze emerging medical research or contextualize advice for specific cultural or individual needs. Without experienced health writers to guide the discourse, misinformation and oversimplifications could proliferate, endangering public trust in health information.

The Global Perspective

The effects of AI-driven colonization are not confined to any single region. The disparity between the Global North and South may worsen. Much of the data used to train AI systems originates from users worldwide, yet the profits are concentrated in the Global North, where tech companies dominate. This dynamic mirrors traditional colonial patterns where wealth and resources flowed from colonized regions to imperial centres.

Countries in the Global South, which often lack the infrastructure to develop competing AI systems, may depend on AI technologies controlled by foreign entities. This dependency could stifle local innovation and reinforce economic inequalities. Additionally, as AI systems become the primary gatekeepers of information, they may marginalize non-dominant languages and perspectives, further entrenching cultural hegemony.

Hypothetical Scenarios: A World Without Human Writers

Imagine a world where human health writers cease to exist. The loss would extend beyond economics to the very fabric of societal knowledge. Without human oversight, AI-generated content could dominate search engines and information platforms, creating a homogenized narrative devoid of dissenting voices or creative interpretation. Critical debates about emerging health issues, ethical dilemmas, and cultural nuances could vanish, replaced by algorithmically generated content prioritising efficiency over depth.

In this dystopian scenario, misinformation could thrive. By relying on outdated or biased data, AI systems might perpetuate harmful myths or fail to recognise emerging health crises. Public discourse would stagnate, and individuals seeking nuanced advice would navigate a digital landscape devoid of reliable human expertise.

Picture, for instance, a future where public health campaigns are designed by AI-based solely on historical data, ignoring the unique challenges of contemporary populations. These campaigns might fail to address urgent issues like vaccine hesitancy or the rise of chronic illnesses in underserved communities. Without human health writers to adapt strategies and create culturally resonant messaging, entire demographics could be excluded from critical health interventions.

Additionally, consider the societal implications for education. Schools and universities might rely on AI-generated materials for teaching, resulting in a curriculum that lacks diverse perspectives. Students could grow up learning from homogenized, unchallenged narratives, stifling critical thinking and innovation. The absence of human writers would mean that historical and cultural contexts, often vital for understanding complex topics, would be oversimplified or ignored.

Cultural and Ethical Fallout

Beyond the practical implications, the cultural fallout of a world without human writers would be profound. Literature, journalism, and even social commentary would lose their human touch. The arts and humanities would suffer, which rely heavily on the interplay of personal experiences and creative interpretation. AI-generated novels or poems might mimic human style but lack the depth, passion, and unique perspectives from lived experience.

Ethically, the dominance of AI-generated content raises questions about authorship and accountability. Who is responsible for errors or biases in AI-created materials? Without human writers to take ownership, accountability becomes diffuse, leaving users without recourse when misinformation causes harm.

In the broader ethical landscape, the devaluation of human labour in favour of AI could exacerbate social inequalities. Those who once relied on writing as income might face unemployment while corporations reap the benefits of their intellectual contributions. This could lead to a cultural shift where creativity and intellectual labour are no longer valued, undermining the very foundation of knowledge-driven societies.

A Call to Awareness

The rise of generative AI demands urgent scrutiny. While technological progress is inevitable, society must grapple with its implications. The current trajectory risks creating a world where intellectual labour is devalued, creative diversity is stifled, and economic power is further concentrated. These outcomes are not inevitable; they result from choices made by developers, corporations, and policymakers.

We can better understand the stakes by acknowledging the parallels between AI-driven disruption and historical colonial practices. This awareness is the first step toward resisting the commodification of human creativity and safeguarding the livelihoods of those who enrich our collective knowledge.