Intellectuals and the Social Science Gap in AI: A Call for Transformation

The Responsibility of Intellectuals

Introduction

In a world defined by climate crisis, social inequality, and technological control, intellectuals bear a critical responsibility: to unmask ideological narratives, foster critical consciousness, and chart paths to a just, sustainable society. My submitted text, “Exposing the Ideology of Capitalism” (Wilp, 2025), argues that capitalism shackles our imagination by presenting itself as inevitable. This ideological hegemony extends to the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), often hailed as a tool for capitalist efficiency while sidelining social science perspectives—ethics, sociology, psychology, law, and political science—as critiqued in “AI’s Appalling Social Science Gap” (2024).

My Substack “Futures” and Whitepaper “Between Leaves and Bytes” (Wilp, 2025) advocate for a harmony between AI and nature, promoting animal welfare, common good, and sustainability. Yet, without social science guidance, AI risks reinforcing capitalist inequities. This essay bridges the core ideas of my submitted text with the social science gap in AI development. It demonstrates how intellectuals can close this gap to shape a future where leaves and bytes flourish together—ethically, justly, and nature-centered.

Core Ideas: The Ideological Shackles of Capitalism

My text “Exposing the Ideology of Capitalism” outlines how capitalism constrains imagination through cultural hegemony, psychological barriers, and institutional structures. These mechanisms also shape AI development:

• Cultural Hegemony: Capitalism embeds “common sense” through terms like “efficiency” or “competitiveness,” prioritizing individual gain over collective welfare. In AI, this manifests in prioritizing productivity (e.g., automation) over social impacts. Media frame AI as progress, dismissing critiques as “utopian,” much like Occupy Wall Street was marginalized in 2011.

• Psychological Barriers: Status-quo bias and normalized capitalist practices (e.g., consumption, wage labor) make systemic change hard to envision. AI narratives of “technological inevitability” (e.g., “AI will replace jobs”) foster apathy, sidelining complex social science analyses.

• Institutional Barriers: Education, media, and politics reinforce capitalist narratives. Economics treats markets as natural laws, marginalizing alternatives like ecological economics. In AI, tech giants like Amazon push proprietary systems, crowding out democratic alternatives (e.g., open-source AI).

Intellectuals must dismantle these barriers by exposing capitalist ideology and crafting alternative visions. Yet, many remain complicit, constrained by privilege, careerism, or ties to power structures.

The Social Science Gap in AI

The article “AI’s Appalling Social Science Gap” critiques the prioritization of engineering and market logic in AI development, neglecting social science disciplines. This reinforces capitalist narratives and risks:

• Ethics: AI models, like Amazon’s scrapped 2018 recruiting tool, perpetuate inequities (e.g., gender bias). Without ethical standards, AI risks amplifying surveillance (e.g., facial recognition) or environmental harm (e.g., CO₂ emissions from training).

• Sociology: AI can widen social inequality, as billions lack technology access. My Whitepaper envisions smart gardens, but who benefits? Sociological analyses are missing to ensure equitable AI distribution.

• Psychology: AI automation may foster alienation, as a 2024 MIT study found ChatGPT use impaired learning. Psychological insights on meaning and connection are ignored.

• Law: AI requires global regulation for data protection and liability. The EU AI Act (2024) is a start, but tech giants dominate development, undermining democratic control.

• Political Science: AI is a power tool, enabling disinformation or political manipulation (e.g., election algorithms). Political science analyses of power dynamics between states and corporations are absent.

This gap reflects capitalist ideology, prioritizing efficiency over people and nature. Intellectuals must integrate social science perspectives to make AI human- and nature-centered.

Intellectuals as Catalysts: Bridging Social Sciences and AI

My submitted text calls on intellectuals to unmask ideological narratives, foster critical education, and build collective agency. These tasks apply directly to AI development:

Unmasking Ideological Narratives

Intellectuals must debunk AI myths, such as the notion that it inherently requires capitalist structures. My text shows how capitalism is framed as “natural,” despite historical cooperative systems (e.g., Iroquois Confederacy). Similarly, AI is naturalized as a tool for profit and control. Examples like open-source software or decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) demonstrate AI’s potential for democratic economies. Intellectuals can analyze media narratives (e.g., AI as “job-killer” or “wealth-creator”) and amplify counter-narratives via platforms like Jacobin or #TaxTheRich campaigns.

Fostering Critical Education

Education reform is key to challenging capitalist assumptions. My text advocates curricula that historicize capitalism (e.g., colonialism, enclosures). For AI, this means integrating social science perspectives: ethics modules on algorithmic bias, sociological studies on the digital divide, psychological research on AI and well-being. Community-based models, like Paulo Freire’s approach (e.g., Brazil’s MST), can empower marginalized groups with AI literacy. Intellectuals must create open-access resources, like MIT’s ecological economics courses, to break capitalist narratives.

Building Collective Agency

Consciousness shifts require action. My text highlights movements like the 2018 US teachers’ strikes or 2019 climate strikes, demonstrating change. In AI, intellectuals can support grassroots initiatives, like San Francisco’s facial recognition bans or Mozilla’s community-tech projects. My Whitepaper envisions a smart animal rescue service; AI could scale such efforts if ethically designed. Intellectuals can document successes (e.g., Mondragón’s 70,000-member cooperative) and integrate AI into post-capitalist models like time banks.

Leveraging Crises

Crises like climate change or inequality offer transformation opportunities. My text notes how the 2008 financial crisis sparked Occupy. In AI, scandals (e.g., algorithmic bias) or environmental impacts (e.g., training emissions) could drive reform. Intellectuals must propose alternatives like public AI institutes or wealth taxes and mobilize to prevent elite co-optation.

Reimagining Technology

AI can entrench control or enable liberation. My text argues technologies reflect social forces; the printing press democratized knowledge, and AI could do the same. Intellectuals must advocate for public control and open-source AI to break capitalist monopolies (e.g., Google). My Whitepaper calls for “Green AI”—energy-efficient models like EfficientNet—serving nature and common good.

New Topics for “Futures”

To deepen the social science dimension of AI in my Substack, I propose the following topics, building on my Whitepaper and submitted text:

1. “AI and Capitalist Ideology: Unmasking Narratives”: Analyzes how media and tech frame AI as inherently capitalist, with counter-examples like open-source AI.

2. “The Psychology of AI Automation”: Explores how AI impacts alienation or meaning, drawing on psychological studies.

3. “Ethical AI for the Common Good”: Discusses how ethical standards can guide AI for nature and social justice.

4. “AI and Social Movements”: Examines how AI supports grassroots initiatives (e.g., animal rescue, climate action).

5. “Global AI Governance”: Analyzes power dynamics in AI development and proposes democratic regulation.

These topics align with my vision of leaves and bytes, addressing the social science gaps critiqued in the inspired article.

Challenges and Reflection

Bridging AI and social sciences is complex. Tech giants dominate AI, while intellectuals are often constrained by funding or career pressures. My Whitepaper reflects this tension: AI can save nature but harms it through energy use. My submitted text asks, “What have we done to sustain injustice?” Intellectuals must confront their complicity and act.

Call to Action

Between leaves and bytes lies our opportunity. Intellectuals must close the social science gap in AI to dismantle capitalist ideology and shape a just future. I invite my readers to:

• Analyze: Question AI narratives—how is it framed, who benefits?

• Educate: Learn about ethical AI, share open-access resources.

• Act: Support community AI projects, advocate for Green AI, plant a tree.

My consultancy wilp.ai and Substack “Futures” are a start—a seed, a line of code. Let’s sow, learn, and flourish for a world where nature and AI are one.

References

• Wilp, S. (2025). Between Leaves and Bytes. Substack: Futures.

• Wilp, S. (2025). Exposing the Ideology of Capitalism. Substack: Futures. forthcoming

• Jarovsky, L. “AI’s Appalling Social Science Gap.” Substack: Louiza’s Newsletter Edition 213

• EU AI Act. (2024). European Union.

• MIT Study on ChatGPT. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872