Are we sure that hiring AI instead of humans is really the most “convenient” choice?
Because when you put “AI-first,” you’re often putting people last. Behind every enthusiastic announcement lies an inconvenient truth: AI is used to cut costs, not to improve lives. When a company says “AI-first,” it often means “humans-last.” The language is innovation, but the logic is layoffs.
Shopify asks employees to justify how much they use AI, as if it were a measure of worth. Fiverr explicitly states “AI is coming for your job.” Duolingo lays off freelancers. Meta delegates even social risk assessments to AI. All signs point in the same direction: more automation, fewer humans.
The problem isn’t just economic. It’s cultural. Artificial intelligence is treated as if it were neutral, inevitable, infallible, but it isn’t. Every system has biases, limits, risks, and it should never fully replace human judgment, especially in sensitive areas like education, privacy, justice, or healthcare.
The real issue? None of these companies have announced plans to assess potential harms. No one’s talking about ethical audits. No one’s addressing the long-term impact of this accelerated shift. And yet, countries around the world are debating laws and regulations to rein in exactly these technologies.
AI isn’t just a tool. It’s a high-risk technology, and treating it like Word or Excel is simply irresponsible.
The truth is that “AI-first” isn’t a strategy. It’s a shortcut. A convenient narrative to justify cuts, shift responsibility, lower wages, and create the illusion of efficiency. But it ignores the human, social, and regulatory cost.
And that cost, sooner or later, is one we’ll all have to pay.
#ArtificialDecisions #MCC #CamisaniCalzolari #MarcoCamisaniCalzolari
Marco Camisani Calzolari
marcocamisanicalzolari.com/biography