In our era when many worry that Artificial Intelligence is gobbling up jobs, it’s instructive to remember John Henry – and I don’t mean the one who owns the Red Sox and the Boston Globe.
I’m talking about the hammer-wielding rock splitter who in 19th Century folklore protested mightily against a steam-powered drill that threatened his job, and then, just as mightily, outworked the mechanical invader in a contest.
Based on what some say is a true story about a man who toiled for the railroad, a folk song memorializing “John Henry” has long been an anthem to the dignity of human labor.
John Henry did beat the steam drill, but, the victory was costly. According to the song, He hammered so hard that he broke his poor heart, and he laid down his hammer and he died…
It’s not much of a leap to equate John Henry’s complaint with contemporary worries about the effects Artificial Intelligence is having on work traditionally performed by people.
Curious as to what A.I. itself might think of John Henry’s resistance to innovation, I asked this of ChatGPT: “Tell me about John Henry fighting against the steam drill, and whether we should be frightened that A.I. will similarly threaten jobs.”
This is the response:
***
“The interesting part is that John Henry’s victory is bittersweet. He beats the machine, but the machine still arrives. The railroad industry continued to mechanize. The legend isn’t really about stopping technology; it’s about what happens to people when technology changes the value of their labor.The question is whether A.I. is different.
“Those who are worried point out that previous machines mainly replaced muscle, while A.I. can perform portions of tasks that were once considered uniquely intellectual. If a single worker equipped with A.I. can do the work that previously required several people, some occupations may need fewer workers.”
Chat GPT continued:
“My view is that the John Henry story is useful, but not because it predicts doom. The lesson is that trying to compete with a machine at the exact thing the machine does best is often a losing long-term strategy. The workers who prosper after technological shifts are usually those who learn to use the new tools and move toward tasks where human strengths matter most.
“In the railroad era, that meant learning to work with machines rather than racing them. In the A.I. era, it may mean learning how to…apply A.I., rather than competing with it at generating routine outputs.”
“So should we be frightened?” asked ChatGPT, following up with its own answer:
“Probably not frightened—but it is reasonable to be concerned and to prepare. The historical record suggests that technological revolutions create disruption, sometimes severe disruption, before society adapts.
“John Henry’s tragedy is that the only victory available to him was proving he could do the machine’s job one last time. Societies have better options than that.
“In that sense, the story remains surprisingly relevant: not because A.I. is another steam drill, but because each generation has to decide whether technological progress serves people – or the people are expected to serve the technology.”
***
So there you have it, straight from A.I. itself, Whether to be scared (or awed) is a matter of your own perspective.
As for me, I’m uncertain if it’s fright or awe, or maybe both – because as you can plainly see, A.I. researched and wrote more than half of this essay – in less than five seconds.
Gerry Goldstein (gerryg76@verizon.net), a frequent contributor, is a retired Providence Journal editor and columnist.
