Artificial Intelligence, Lively Facts and A Way of Seeing

As my life as a laborer of society went on, my desire for career laddering faded. Comes after the fascination with the labor network itself. By this, I mean the human labor market. The market is much like another ecosystem, where all species of occupations interdependently inhabit, maintaining a subtle equilibrium. They live upon, prey, consume, feed, and trade with each other. With resources, skills, talents, or more.

Therefore, my visualization of the influence of artificial intelligence may differ from that presented in many reports and papers. Artificial intelligence, more precisely, Large Language Models (LLMs), became a snippet of DNA variant that lives in and spreads among species, strikes everyone with a fever, a surge of adrenaline, or nausea, and suddenly undoes the equilibrium.

Indeed, this trope exhibits one facet of reality that we are living in. A continuously self-renewing system. Forged from human knowledge, thought patterns, and intonations, this technology works day and night to replicate and produce messages indistinguishable from the original. And that information, aware or unaware, has travelled cell-to-cell, breathing through every branch of the ecosystem. The marketing feeds that lie in your email. The paper you cited. The meme you shared with your friends. They deliver sentiments and trigger reactions.

I find myself in this fascinating moment—situated within an ongoing system where various kinds of living content and activities reside and interact, whether human or non-human.

A promising future was schemed cautiously these days.

In March 2026, a radar chart produced by Anthropic—a developer of large language models (LLMs)—began circulating across various nodes of social media. In this report, two designed terms have been introduced to delineate the landscape of AI application within human labor: “automated” and “augmentative”. These terms, along with that report, conveyed a counterintuitive sense of optimism, yet the connotation itself seemed rather dubious amid widespread panic.

To unpack its optimism, we have to ask: What exactly is being automated or augmented? An article to read. A homework to grade. A medical report to log in. A series of predictable actions that can be duplicated. It seemingly celebrates self-efficacy and potentially, a new freedom that we can reimagine and recreate; despite factual checks of such a future, another perspective might sound more solid: It popularizes a narrative that centers tasks and their completion, while dodging away from those who deliver work, as well as those who receive it and bear its subsequent impact.

This report, too, tells a story about human work, in which work could be simply calculated as the sum of a series of isolated tasks. That they can be broken down and reassembled along with an instruction book each time, like a series of Legos, thereby maintaining an industrialized, immutable state.

As a designer, I have witnessed how, in the wake of the advent of artificial intelligence, human work has been ruthlessly dismembered apart. A serious argument has emerged that designers in the future may exclusively retain “taste” while ceding the capacity for “producing” entirely to others. Suddenly, ‘taste’, along with ‘intuition’, ‘empathy’, and the like, owns such an ability to sustain its own immortality even though ripped off from the very practices that nourished them.

This is another facet of reality. A reality in which human activities and systems have been inorganicized, componentized, and isolated.

Western philosophy has established and advocated such a position: That staticity has captured the essence of Nature. Over the past few decades, many parts of the world have exhibited a consistent pursuit: to evaporate, crystallize, and preserve a timeless staticity—in the form of knowledge, businesses, and community governance. It exhibits one facet of reality — static, componentized, and mechanized. And the mentality of crystallization, in the other way, interprets dynamic, lively experience only as the universal solvent of The Truth. The footnotes. The backdrop. The proof. The inferiority we sense today regarding artificial intelligence is not invented without ground. After all, as creatures that bud and fade, we were born with such an inferiority under this frame.

As I write, this inferiority as a laborer and that of my sense of reality haven’t gone far. Sitting alone, while self-doubt rushes through, the only advice I can offer to readers, perhaps, is to cast yourself into the lively dynamic outside the window—by shifting the narrative landscape in which we find ourselves, we can become lively facts once over, and reencounter our sense of self-sufficiency.