By Peter G. Kirchschläger
What we typically refer to as “artificial intelligence” is, in practice, a set of data-based systems (DS). These technologies are already transforming nearly every aspect of human life, giving rise to innovative business models and reordering entire economies. Over time, they promise to create new jobs, boost productivity, and provide tools that extend cognitive capabilities, ultimately redefining the meaning of work itself.
Also Read
But alongside these undeniable benefits, the digital revolution and rapid spread of DS are disrupting labour markets, education, and professional training. The consequences are increasingly evident: precarious working conditions determined by algorithm-driven platforms, sustained downward pressure on wages, and a structural mismatch between what economies need and what workers are trained to do.
This raises a critical question: Will the growing use of DS render paid professional work obsolete? Every technological leap, we are often reminded, has sparked fears of mass unemployment, and each time those fears have proven unfounded. But the historical pattern may no longer hold.
Past transformative technologies were largely designed to make human labour more efficient or less physically demanding. DS, by contrast, are often built explicitly to remove humans from the value chain altogether. And unlike earlier technological revolutions, these systems are not confined to routine or low-skilled work. They are moving into areas once viewed as exclusive to humans: medical diagnosis and surgery, legal analysis, and cultural production.
The breadth and speed of today’s DS call into question the familiar reassurance that technological innovation has always created more jobs than it destroyed. In reality, no historical law guarantees that technological change must always generate more paid work for humans. On the contrary, the emerging evidence suggests that data-based systems (DS) are eliminating entire professions faster than new ones can emerge.
To be sure, fewer working hours and more free time are not necessarily a bad thing. A society liberated from excessive labour could, in fact, be more humane. The danger lies not in the loss of work itself, but in what disappears along with it: wages, the tax base that supports public goods, and the non-economic roles that paid employment plays in people’s lives, such as providing a source of purpose, identity, and camaraderie.
With fewer and fewer people needed to generate economic value, policymakers must acknowledge the labour-market impact of DS. At stake is nothing less than countries’ longstanding commitment to maximizing employment. Urging workers to retrain and upskill for a job market that may no longer exist holds individuals responsible for changes they cannot control, when what is needed is a policy framework that matches the scale of the disruption.
In a new book, I propose a concrete framework for realizing the ethical opportunities of the current technological transformation while limiting its risks. At its core, the Society-, Entrepreneurship-, and Research-Time (SERT) model seeks to decouple income from work without making that separation unconditional.
The SERT model rests on five pillars. The first is a basic income financed by taxes, designed to meet the requirements of physical survival while preserving a dignified life and respect for human rights. The second pillar is a conditional decoupling of income from work. In exchange for a basic income, each person would contribute a set amount of “society time” or socially valuable work. Much like the Swiss Civilian Service, which has operated successfully for nearly three decades as an alternative to military service, individuals would be free to choose from a wide range of activities. The administration of SERT would be largely digital, drawing on DS and, where appropriate, blockchain technology, to document each person’s engagement in society time.
Third, during their society time, individuals must be able to experience some or all of the non-economic functions provided by paid work, such as social recognition, daily structure, and a sense of purpose. Fourth, the SERT model creates strong incentives for education, research, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Commitments in these areas would reduce the required amount of society time or, in some cases, exempt individuals from it altogether.
Lastly, as value creation becomes more efficient and produces growing wealth, the central issue becomes how those gains are shared. Securing dignity for all depends not on overcoming scarcity, but on distributing resources fairly. This would require coordinated global taxation that shifts the burden from labour to capital by taxing data flows, data volume, and the use of DS.
Allowing DS to displace human workers without a collective response would exacerbate inequality and entrench injustice, risking political unrest and undermining social cohesion. SERT, if adopted, offers a path toward shared prosperity and a more stable, peaceful future.
The writer, Professor of Ethics and Director of the Institute of Social Ethics ISE at the University of Lucerne, is a visiting professor at ETH Zurich.
