We will never agree about AI until we agree about what it means to live a good life.

Current debates* about artificial intelligence circle endlessly around questions of capability, economic impact, and resource allocation – not to mention language. Is AI truly useful? What will it do to jobs? How much should we invest in its development? And what do we mean by AI? What’s the difference between machine learning and large language modeling? What can one do that the other cannot? What happens when we mix them up?

These discussions are necessary, but will continue to be maddening without backing up some and widening the scope. Meanwhile, it often feels like we’re arguing about the objective merit of a right-hand turn over a left without first agreeing where we’re trying to go.

The real questions about AI are actually questions about human flourishing. How much of a person’s life should be determined by work? What level of labor should be necessary to meet basic needs? Where do we draw the line between necessity and luxury? How should people derive contentment and meaning? Without wrestling with these fundamental questions, our AI debates are just technical discussions floating free of human context.

Consider how differently we might approach AI development if we had clear answers about what constitutes a good human life. If we believed that meaningful work is essential to human flourishing, we’d focus