AI: The Danger of the Economic Metaphor
AI use is rapidly spreading amongst businesses, industries, and most humans in the modern world. It is implemented into phones, applications, and workflow processes and there is seemingly no escape. Whether working with AI to include it in personal lives or in work contexts, one must ask themselves how it is applicable in workflows. One must also ask themselves to what extent of tasks is AI going to be involved in completing a goal. To better understand how to answer such questions, one must first understand the frameworks for problem solving in the human context. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Church in Wales, seeks to understand the lenses through which humans talk in the modern age. Drawing on Rowan Williams’ argument that quality of life is shaped by the metaphors we use to discuss it, this essay argues that contemporary uses of AI often adopt a narrow problem-solution framework that prioritizes efficiency over human well-being, whereas AI guided by a people oriented framework can function as a tool for increasing accessibility and quality of work.
Williams underscores concern about man using economics as the central metaphor for understanding life, rendering other metaphors as mere substitutes for the economic lens. This customer-provider language dominates how we view life, placing emphasis on resource maximization and efficiency that potentially corrupts quality of life (Williams, 1). The dominance of economic language results from the simplicity of its clear-cut laws. The viewpoint of simply seeking market efficiency reduces humans to metrics and leads to other viewpoints seeming irrelevant; but economics isn’t everything (Williams, 2).
In humanity, not everything is based on one standardized metric like economic frameworks might imply. Williams uses biological and Freudian frameworks to underscore the importance of supporting views of humanity through multiple lenses. For example, there is more to humans than unconsciously adjusting towards homeostasis as biology might suggest. Self-examination, imagination, and consciousness are significant aspects of our identity and are not ignored by most humans. Williams, therefore, suggests that humans have an ultimate concern surrounding their place in the world (Williams, 2).
Williams uses religion as a basis for explaining how humans are part of an integrated system. He argues that an essential part of being human is learning to ask critical questions of one’s own habits and compulsions to understand one’s place in a mass of consumed material and information. In doing so, humans can take actions to align with their ultimate concern. Religion contributes to this by giving a definition of human wellbeing. Williams cites Christ’s teachings of oneness amongst humans. Economics from a Christian standpoint would suggest exclusive security is not good because it is achieved by isolation. Separation from the poor trades destiny for an un-whole life. Without a community to interact with, believers are helpless and alone. The community is a gift, a circulation of love, that uses language to connect (Williams, 4).
The importance of language is central to Williams’ argument. Words are not meant to be owned but passed on (Williams, 5). Life revolves around language, for we speak when spoken to and learn language to partake in it. Williams argues that aspirations toward an isolated life are meaningless because language, and thus human connection, are lost (Williams, 4). The threat of losing connection is why a context where injustice prevails and language loses its power are grounds for action and protest; and said protest is a religious obligation (Williams, 5). To apply this sense of responsibility to economics, Williams goes back to the roots of economy: household management.
Household management, an Aristotelian understanding of economics based on the Greek root word for economics, uses the metaphor of handling a house and its people to explain business. A household, ideally, guarantees stability for members to grow. Vulnerable members are nurtured so the standards of life are maintained across the household. Hence, good housekeeping seeks common well-being and stability; and going against this hurts the vulnerable. Williams notes that the modern language of economics goes against this and hurts the vulnerable in seek of profit maximization (Williams, 3). This is true at least when it is used as the central metaphor on its own.
Williams then asserts that regulation alone, within the modern economic lens, cannot solve all problems in seeking protection for the vulnerable and quality of life overall. A language of virtues is necessary. Humans must learn to ask questions to understand, then speak of the resulting understanding of what a good life is or can be. This understanding must be implemented by self-consistency and an eye out for what is wrong in the current society. Self-consistency and developing an understanding of well-being requires self-examination without contempt nor complacency (Williams, 6). Theology is at the core of these actions and contributes to economy by analyzing what economic practices actively promote in people regarding character and integrity.
Humans need habits in finance that don’t destroy human capacity for self-awareness or humane relationships. Williams argues that critical questioning will take us beyond normal economic discourse. Humans can approach questioning by looking for language that promotes imagination. What makes humanity human is separate from the economic lens of profit and loss (Williams, 7). It is found in the love we express through language and our pursuit of a common good. Humanity is unsustainable without love.
Humans can use AI through a framework of love for others. I have a friend named Garen who extensively uses AI in his job as a corporate audio technician at Sears Tower. His company rents one of the floors out to various companies for keynote presentations, concerts, and other adjacent events. He recently got this job after years working in gig-based (not in-house) live audio for weddings, corporate events, and festivals; therefore, he has significant hands-on experience in various environments that is new coworkers seem to not be on the same page on. To improve his ability to communicate and the overall efficiency of each set-up process, Garen asked himself, “Can I create a tool that will make navigating the set-up process easier for my team members?” Garen has recently been experimenting heavily with AI tools and took to Claude to draft some tools. After some refining runs, Garen has completed a prototype that significantly improves the workflow of event preparation. Before, the company was using crude Excel template sheets that looked clunky and weren’t quickly adaptable for each event they prepared for. Now, Garen has created a sleek website that allows for easy input and organization of required sound tools. The website also distributes said tools into sections of a simple Sears Tower floor plan with progress bars for load-in of each section. This map allows Garen to quickly delegate tasks to his team members throughout the sound checking process. The program directs team members with less hands-on experience to resources that instruct on gear use and acoustics fundamentals. Additionally, Garen has used AI to create gear request briefs that visualize the use and importance of gear in an easy to digest format for non-audio-inclined decision makers of the firm. Rather than thinking about task optimization, Garen thinks of how the work experience of his team members can be improved. As a result, his company’s workflows have been improved from not only an economic lens, but also a quality-of-life lens.
Similarly, my friend Jonathan is exploring opportunities for AI coding use in construction management through the framework of improving human experiences. In construction management, companies must manage large budgets across a wide array of resources and contracts. Because of the size of such operations, it is important for construction companies to remain transparent and reduce litigation risks. In an exploration of AI coding tools, Jonathan seeks to create models that display real time use of budgeted resources. This includes information on where money is being spent, and progress of contract workers in completing steps in the construction process. Clients can be reimbursed for excess funds in verifiable amounts, strengthening their relationship with the company. Additionally, transparency and real time updates in the construction process can reduce risks of out of sequence work that create problems with permit acquisitions, building delays, and structural issues that pose threat to lives. AI use involving the creation of tools for accessibility, organization, and transparency of construction companies can improve client relations and reduce risks of delays or fines. When the framework of improving human lives and relations is applied, efficiency is often a major result.
It can be argued that AI is just as useful when approached with an economic lens. I personally use AI in this way; but I have found it to hinder my creativity in problem solving. AI has encroached into my album conceptualization process. Since I started using AI in this process, I have been able to quickly repackage random thoughts put onto my notes app from my subconscious mind into fully developed album concepts. The process of inputting thoughts and outputting album concepts gives me instant gratification without me putting any work into creating the art. As a result, I am alienated from the process of catering meaning to the sounds I produce with instruments and end up avoiding more complex problem-solving situations during the songwriting process. AI use as a tool of efficient task completion is very effective; but in complex contexts, its impact on human involvement can result in the delay of projects and degradation of the humans involved. Use of AI is best as a tool. We must consider the impacts on the humans using the tool for the overall betterment of the human condition.
How else can AI be used as a resource in collaborative contexts? Would Hobbes present pushback on the use of AI from a non-economic framework? To what extent should AI be integrated into workflows in contexts where it isolates humans?
Works Cited
“Theology and Economics: Two Different Worlds?” Trinity Church, 2026, trinitychurchnyc.org/videos/theology-and-economics-two-different-worlds.
