AI is providing something unexpected: the rebirth of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

By: Ricardo Israel - 31/05/2026

It has become commonplace to highlight the enormous change that artificial intelligence (AI) will produce at every level, from employment to daily life—one of the greatest the world has ever known, and one that will occur with tremendous speed. Revolutions originating in science and technology differ from social ones in that they quickly become universal and irreversible. Since the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, the world has learned that everything can be modified before contemporaries even realize the depth of the change taking place.

Some see it with hope, others with fear; some with satisfaction, others with regret, yet these extreme positions share something in common: optimism and pessimism meet at the point where technological development holds the possibility of signifying one of the most outstanding changes in the evolution of the human species.

Some technological revolutions are abrupt and give rise to true epistemological breaks; others show remarkable continuity, in that, although there is a time gap between them, the reactions of those affected can be very similar, demonstrating that human change is sometimes slow, which hinders immediate adaptation. However, AI is qualitatively different, in that most previous revolutions were a liberating reduction of physical effort, while AI is about the power of the brain, and the change will be immediate, across all sectors and at all levels.

It is also bringing surprises, unexpected situations, since, due to its characteristics, the development of these technologies and the scientific basis that supports it is providing something new: a beginning to appreciate the ordinary and natural qualities of human beings in their proper measure. This is unexpected because for centuries, continuously and consistently, we have emphasized extraordinary abilities in mathematics and science. However, considering that many of these situations can be transformed by AI into commonplace ones, it is likely that, over time, statements about the "genius" of athletes and dancers, considered sensationalist hyperbole, will be better appreciated for being correct if analyzed carefully. For some time now, since the 20th century, a machine has been able to calculate incredibly faster than a Nobel Prize winner, and robots can perform tasks that surpass human strength, but they still cannot perform those other activities well.

So far, AI has found it easier to develop mathematical formulas than to replicate common human skills. In other words, if we understand technology as a language for action and science as a language for truth, then truly understanding AI requires analyzing the social processes within which it operates. To begin with, we must avoid trying to understand it through outdated mental processes, given the magnitude of what is happening today.

Just as medieval society was marked by theological and religious factors, contemporary society is marked by science and technology. Consequently, the success of the so-called hard sciences has diminished the role that the Humanities and Social Sciences traditionally played in society and in the university system where they were housed. I count myself among those who believe we will witness their rebirth, doubly necessary since my fear is that the initial impact of AI is already affecting the critical thinking abilities of current societies, which were already deteriorating. Now, we are adding the beginning of a trend that is growing daily on social media and platforms like X, where people ask everything about everything, only to then share the answers massively as if they were revealed truth. This would repeat what happened when copies of the Bible reached homes after the Reformation and the invention of the printing press.

The above is just one aspect, as my impression is that we are witnessing a process of gigantic proportions, a shift from one era to another, which coincides with or is spearheaded by the advent of AI and its ubiquitous presence. If we accept that the coming change can be so rapid and across so many sectors, then why shouldn't it affect the activity known as science and the methods that characterize it?

If we accept that there is no absolute truth in science, but rather competing truths, and if AI is going to easily solve problems that previously required specialists, then today we are compelled to overcome the hyper-specialization that prevents us from grasping the big picture. In other words, these new technologies force us to understand that the whole cannot necessarily be explained by studying its parts in isolation.

And that is the surprise that AI is bringing: the need to rescue the humanities, which were and are the set of disciplines that help us understand human beings, culture, and thought, and whose focus, in general, does not aspire to formulate universal laws but rather to interpret and produce critical or creative considerations regarding the way we, Homo sapiens, are and act. The disciplines that make up the humanities are those that seek general knowledge, offering, throughout the centuries, a vision of each and every artistic and intellectual manifestation of humankind, allowing us to understand it holistically, as well as to comprehend the cause and effect of the many and varied events related to history, philosophy, art, literature, anthropology, philology, psychology, and law, to name just a few areas.

The humanities, like the social sciences, are concerned with human beings, society, and culture. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that the humanities focus on understanding and interpreting human experience, culture, philosophical argumentation, and representations of these, while the social sciences aspire to study society itself, employing both qualitative and quantitative conceptual tools, as is the case, for example, in sociology. Using political science, a discipline I have cultivated, as an example, it is not the only one concerned with power, but it is the one that makes power its fundamental object of study.

The Humanities and Social Sciences share a common thread: for millennia, each has striven to decipher both the meanings and the signifiers that underlie human creation and experience. They also share the fact that in recent decades they have experienced marginalization, impoverishment, and suppression in their traditional home of universities. This is not the first time this has happened in their long history, but its characteristics are novel, given the concerted effort to diminish their importance with the argument that the "market" did not need them and that their products and practitioners were not "useful" to society or economic growth.

The impact of AI has been immediate in the workplace, including for companies leading the way. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, announced the layoff of 10% of Meta's workforce, with another 8,000 being reassigned due to the introduction of AI, adding that "success is not guaranteed" for anyone. Similar impacts will be seen in education across professions, including the most sought-after ones. The way subjects are taught from elementary school to university will also need to change, since, for instance, history is still presented to students as a series of dates to memorize and recall.

Therefore, when AI can rapidly modify the job market and perhaps, for the first time, challenge the functioning of an institution like the university, which has undergone few changes in its millennia-long history, the virtues of the humanities will be increasingly appreciated as AI begins to impact disciplines and professions, which will undoubtedly be massively affected. For example, the current length of university degrees, which teach content that will by definition become obsolete by graduation day, makes little sense. This may explain the new trend on university campuses in the US, where distinguished guests invited to give graduation speeches to the first graduates who have been assisted by AI in their studies are being booed by them every time they mention it in their address.

It is important to highlight two things present in this column: on the one hand, the need to abandon preconceived notions and ideas regarding AI in order to truly understand the change that will take place; and on the other hand, the fact that without realizing it, without meaning to, as the late Chavo would say, after years of undermining and even disdain for the humanities and social sciences, where the liberal arts suffered bad publicity, budget cuts, and a constant decline in salaries and prestige, the self-fulfilling prophecy of declining enrollment arrived, as well as the closure of doctoral and postgraduate programs, resources that were redirected to technologies, hard sciences, engineering, and the like.

Everything indicates that this century will generate a new situation, where human nature will be the indispensable complement for the AI revolution to be better understood in the workplace, where jobs and positions related to computing will decrease as they become less necessary because AI will do programming instead of them, which will also impact trades and professions such as journalism and lawyers, the professional aspect, but will not necessarily affect the study of information or the role of law.

So what will be needed? Understanding, analyzing, interpreting, comprehending—in other words, skills and knowledge that are undervalued today, but which provide empathy, emotions, and, above all, critical thinking. We're talking about what makes us human, knowledge that the humanities have cultivated better than anyone else, since they were born for this purpose, and have done so for centuries.

In other words, both in education and employment, well-rounded individuals will be needed more than specialists, and it will be humanistic knowledge that allows for better adaptation to the fact that AI solves rational problems better than emotional ones. The days when STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) were the only ones that predominated on campuses will be complemented by the necessary, more equitable coexistence with, for example, those disciplines that seek to understand historical and social processes.

What makes us human will become more important rather than less so. I'm not the one saying this; it's the message from some of the most prominent business minds behind this revolution, like Elon Musk. In my life, one of the people I learned the most from—so much so that I consider him one of my mentors—was the Chilean biologist Professor Héctor Croxatto, who always insisted that what made us human was the curiosity to seek knowledge, and that's a skill that AI will make very visible. This is also emphasized in the teachings of the Romanian-Israeli psychologist Reuven Feuerstein, who told us that "nothing is more stable in human beings than their capacity to change." And if human beings are constantly and regularly modified and self-modified, why shouldn't they do so now with AI?

The education system will be profoundly affected, and the question is whether it will collaborate with or hinder that process. Therefore, the new paradigm should focus on teaching change, above all, through what has been lost: critical thinking. I believe that in this new era we are entering, education must aim to go beyond mere instruction to cultivate good citizens. Undoubtedly, this task is best accomplished by rethinking what is fundamental in the educational process in the age of AI. Is it trying to teach a little of everything, or only the most important things? And can the latter truly be achieved through values? Another challenge for education, now with greater urgency, remains how to teach students to process and manage information, not just accumulate it.

Critical thinking should help us prevent AI from being used to deepen the distortion into which many educational systems have fallen—those that have prioritized indoctrination over teaching. Furthermore, to avoid repeating these mistakes, we should learn from the many errors made with the internet. In the 1990s, generally and even naively, only the virtues were highlighted, while failing to address shortcomings such as the vulnerability of adolescents and children, the creation of monopolies, and the capacity of algorithms to polarize and spread misinformation.

So, what do we do? How do we regulate AI? The idea is everywhere, and Leo XIV's first encyclical, "Magnifica Humanitas," dedicated to the topic of AI, has had a significant impact, presenting a series of arguments to prevent the person and their dignity from being sacrificed in the name of progress.

My suggestion rests on three points. The first is to look at the most recent example, where the negative effects of atomic energy were successfully limited during the Cold War. Two seemingly disparate powers, the US and the USSR, wielded the unprecedented power of nuclear weapons and managed to avoid direct confrontation. Today, China and the US, in their competition for global leadership, should strive to reach basic agreements on AI, given that they are the most advanced countries in this field, far ahead of the rest.

Secondly, the protection against the negative aspects and the fear that exists in relation to AI must be manifested in a Treaty at the level of international law, and at the national horizon, the protection must be registered at the constitutional level, developing neurorights, which arise to define the mind as that which should not be invaded or colonized, as the human temple not to be violated.

Third, we must do what was not done in a timely manner with computing, in the sense of regulating much better, always in relation to the role that both China and the US can and should play in better controlling companies, without obstructing innovation, but avoiding the impunity guaranteed by law of legal instruments such as Section 230 in the US, which in practice prevents large technology companies from being held accountable in court for what is broadcast on social networks, unlike older technologies such as radio or TV.

The concept of neurorights is key, given the real risk that AI could access and modify our inner selves. The commercial exploitation of neurodata or emotional manipulation must be strictly prohibited, since, as always, every technological revolution carries the potential for both good and evil; hence the need to add mental integrity to the list of human rights.

It is essential to establish an ethic of limits for AI, since we live in an era where scientific and technological success itself has annihilated the old paradigm of indefinite progress, understanding that one can both advance and regress, and that symbols of life can also be symbols of death, so technological development can be accompanied by spiritual underdevelopment.

With the necessary precautions, we can look to the future with optimism. Let us not be overwhelmed by the feeling of an unmanageable crisis. Despite the catastrophism, the advances are such that the world today lives better and is more protected from the uncertainties of hunger and disease than in any other era. History has not ended, and a new power structure is taking shape, with obvious flaws that should not be attributed to machines. Rather, we must see them as a creation as human as a work of art.

As a new transformation of the magnitude of AI begins, what does not change in human beings is the need to be totally clear that the problem and the solution still reside within us and has five letters: ethics.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».