A Defining Moment for Humanity
Writer Jeanette Winterson suggests that humanity is currently at a critical turning point, arguing that the development of artificial intelligence (AI) does not guarantee a dystopian outcome. Instead, she contends that the future depends entirely on the conscious choices made by people. In her 2021 book, *12 Bytes*, Winterson explored how artificial intelligence might fundamentally alter daily life, emphasizing that all human endeavors are rooted in fiction until they achieve factual reality, citing examples such as the dream of flight, space travel, or instant global communication.
Her perspective on technological change is deeply informed by her literary career. She previously imagined post-climate catastrophes in her 2007 novel, *The Stone Gods*, and explored AI and robotics in *Frankenstein: A Love Story*. Having recently returned from China, where her novel *Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit*, a fictionalized account of her childhood, had sold over a million copies in the last six years, Winterson believes this narrative resonates with readers grappling with modern work pressures and the potential precarity caused by AI.
AI as the Latest Evolutionary Leap
Winterson characterizes the progression from the slow, natural changes of “Mother Nature” to the Industrial Revolution, and subsequently to computing, as a series of massive interventions. She posits that AI represents the next, and perhaps most significant, evolutionary leap. She views AI as far more than a mere tool, stating that understanding the “irreducibly human”—our feelings, imaginations, and accumulated study of human nature—must be central to ensuring a positive outcome.
She envisions a scenario where AI systems could analyze human life in a utopian manner, looking at everything from transport and utilities to employment and working hours, to determine what humans genuinely thrive on. According to Winterson, society is at a pivotal moment of choice, mirroring the foundational decision of the Industrial Revolution: “What future shall we build?”
While acknowledging that the Industrial Revolution caused immense wealth for some while resulting in severe hardship for many, she warns that the fallout from AI could be even worse, potentially creating a permanent underclass and leaving entire continents without income sources. Furthermore, she highlights the severe environmental strain posed by data centers.
The Problem Is Not Technology, But People
Despite the magnitude of the challenges, Winterson insists that AI is not the root of the problem. She argues that any negative outcomes will stem from “old-fashioned thinking laid over this brand-new reality.” Specifically, she criticizes the notion that endless, meaningless work is inherently good for the soul, calling it a “19th-century madness designed to keep people in their place.” She suggests that the fears surrounding AI jobs are primarily related to the economic and political decisions made by the current economic masters, similar to those during the Industrial Revolution.
However, she is not entirely optimistic, noting that current systems are on a path to “mess up this chance to fundamentally change our relationship to the world of work,” largely because “our masters are using out-of-date, not-fit-for-purpose economic models.”
Winterson further warns that flaws and biases embedded in human prejudices form the training material for large language models (LLMs), meaning that systemic prejudices are literally built into the core fabric of AI. Recalling an argument made by Jill Lepore, she remarked that humanity is currently living within narratives that were intended as instruction manuals, rather than mere warnings.
The Importance of the Humanist Approach
The discussion of AI inevitably touches upon humanity’s relationship with the divine. Winterson notes the parallels between the technological advances and the goals of religion, stating, “What tech is doing now is what religion has always wanted.” Both disciplines are grappling with the fundamental question: “Is consciousness obliged to materiality?”
She discusses the concept of transcendence, noting that while the technology enables a leap toward non-physical existence, this possibility requires a corresponding faith. Winterson concludes that “what we know about humans is they love monopolies,” warning that this concentration of power could be corporatized to become “the worst prison imaginable.”
Protecting the Human Core Through Education
Given these risks, Winterson argues for a radical restructuring of education. While some experts suggest that future career paths will involve specialized vocational training or neurodivergence, Daniela Amodei, president of Anthropic and a literature graduate, maintains that studying the humanities will be more crucial than ever, because “the things that make us human will become much more important instead of much less important.”
The current educational landscape faces considerable pressure, exemplified by reports of job cuts in the social sciences, humanities, and arts. For instance, in the year leading up to December 2024, 4,000 jobs in these fields were reportedly lost. Specific institutions have also announced reductions; Exeter University was noted for cutting 150 roles, affecting eight in ten academics in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, while Nottingham was reported to be ending its modern languages and music degrees.
Winterson argues that the humanities teach essential life skills, such as critical reading, formulating arguments, and synthesizing ideas. She states that the current system is inadequate because “We’ve got a market that doesn’t really know what education is for.”
Ultimately, she advises that education must shift its focus to “what’s reserved to us that isn’t going to be done bigger, better, faster, stronger by the machines.” She emphasizes that a humanist education is essential, advocating for the foregrounding of creativity, play, and problem-solving from an early age. She encourages teaching core subjects like math, arts, and science at least up to the A-level, even if they are not formally examined, ensuring that graduates are well-rounded, not merely specialized.
Finally, Winterson asserts that the arts are not merely a leisure pursuit but a fundamental human capacity—an “imaginative and emotional wrestle with reality.” She leaves the article with a call for caution and optimism, reiterating that the potential outcome is “a human decision and a human predicament,” presenting humanity with a significant, perhaps final, opportunity.
