Do we want a future where AI dictates not only how we work, but how we think and write?
Artificial intelligence offers huge benefits, but its growing influence raises serious concerns about employment and human thinking. Picture: iStock
When US veteran lawmaker Senator Bernie Sanders is mentioned, the first question that often comes to mind is: when is this old man going to retire?
Sanders, who turns 85 on 8 September, shows no signs of slowing down. His sharp mind, untiring perseverance and willingness to sail against the wind for the best of America remain intact.
He challenges the status quo at every opportunity, critiques wrong policies and suggests alternatives. More importantly, he has been a consistent critic of US President Donald Trump.
His latest campaign, however, is not about Trump. It is about the threat posed by artificial intelligence (AI) to human capability and employment.
Sanders warns AI is on the verge of replacing humans in almost every job on earth. He cites the same US tech moguls who openly admit that humans are “doomed” as AI systems advance to take over work across industries.
AI, of course, has its advantages – it performs faster and more efficiently than humans, guaranteeing improved productivity. But its disadvantages are undeniable.
In journalism, AI has already begun to reshape language and style. It “Americanises” English, subconsciously forcing writers to drift away from British English.
With spell-checkers and autocorrect embedded in AI systems, the king’s language is steadily being replaced by American spelling conventions, even beyond these professions.
You can easily detect when writing has been “improved” with AI assistance. It tends to drop hyphens and replace “s” with “z” in words like “categorise”.
AI autocorrect often fails to recognise African names, sometimes distorting them into unrecognisable forms. This not only causes mistakes, but can also alter meaning.
The misuse of AI compounds the problem. Some people avoid thinking altogether, outsourcing assignments or articles to AI.
Universities are battling this, but while some institutions have embraced AI, strict policies and detection mechanisms are in place to punish overuse.
The reality, however, is that AI is here to stay. It is embedded in the technology we use daily – autocorrect on our phones, subtitles in movies and transcription in recorded speeches.
Using AI to polish text based on your own thinking is not wrong, especially where policy allows it. The danger lies in letting AI change your original work.
It can misinterpret your intent, distort meaning, or lead to plagiarism.
Different AI tools vary in their impact. ChatGPT and Copilot can completely alter text to suit journalistic or academic styles, while Grammarly focuses on grammar and clarity without interfering in your work.
Copilot has the advantage of studying your style and memorising your regular writing approach. But the risk of plagiarism remains, as AI draws from collective knowledge without authorisation – a point Sanders has emphasised in his campaign.
Sanders stressed he is not opposed to automation. He acknowledges its role in innovation and productivity.
But he warns that AI companies are exploiting collective human knowledge without consent, building systems that threaten to replace workers wholesale. He is inviting everyone concerned about AI’s damage to join the battle.
Will he win? Most probably not. The tide of technological change is strong and the interests behind AI powerful.
AI is advancing, but if left unchecked, it could erode human capability and undermine livelihoods.
Sanders’ fight may not stop the tide, but it forces us to confront the question: do we want a future where machines dictate not only how we work, but how we think and write?
