
The new imperialism — AI's true price is exploitation and brutal extraction
An instant New York Times bestseller traces the arc of artificial intelligence not as a story of innovation, but of control: over data, environmental resources, people, and ultimately, the future.
On the surface, isn't this an exhilarating moment?
'Generative AI is thrilling: a creative aid for instantly brainstorming ideas and generating writing; a companion to chat with late into the night to ward off loneliness; a tool that could perhaps one day be so effective at boosting productivity that it will increase top-line economic activity,' writes US tech journalist Karen Hao.
'Under the hood, generative AI models are monstrosities, built from consuming previously unfathomable amounts of data, labor, computing power, and natural resources.'
Hao's description comes early on in her new book 'Empire of AI: Inside the reckless race for total domination', which has caused a sensation in Silicon Valley.
It charts the rise of OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT, and in so doing records how its founder, Sam Altman, and his colleagues have traded early idealism for something much darker.
What started as a non-profit focused on building safe artificial general intelligence (AGI) has rapidly transformed into a profit-chasing, opaque tech behemoth in an arms race against its competitors, which will end — well, somewhere nobody currently is capable of understanding.
The focus of Hao's book: how the AI race is recreating the familiar contours of colonial-era exploitation by constructing a kind of empire in real time, built not on land or oil, but on compute power, data and labour.
And like empires of old, it functions through brutal extraction.
Developing world targeted for dirt-cheap labour
To train large language models like ChatGPT, what is required are humans. Ideally, humans who speak English and are willing to work for a pittance.
In Kenya, Hao reports, OpenAI has outsourced work for its content moderation systems to local workers earning barely more than the minimum wage. Their task: to read and categorise thousands of graphic, disturbing text descriptions so the company can build safety filters for its chatbot.
'Hundreds of thousands of grotesque text-based descriptions,' she writes, have to be sorted into different categories: bestiality; adults raping children.
The job is profoundly psychologically scarring — but what do the tech oligarchs care? It's not Americans doing this work.
'With the many other countries that the tech industry relegates to this role, Kenya shares a common denominator: It is poor, in the Global South, with a government hungry for foreign investment from richer countries,' writes Hao.
Venezuela is another example. Hao explains how the country's economic collapse created a workforce desperate enough to accept almost any wage: 'Venezuela suddenly checked off the perfect mix of conditions for which to find an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour: Its population had a high level of education, good internet connectivity, and, now, a zealous desire to work for whatever wages.'
The book recounts the story of one Venezuelan woman working up to 22 hours a day just to make ends meet. The tasks for which she earned pennies were small, repetitive, and exhausting — labelling datasets, transcribing audio, annotating images. In other words, the invisible labour that makes AI appear magical.
South Africa, of course, has been targeted too, with facial recognition software developers circling the country like vultures in search of valuable data about black faces.
Writes Hao: 'Facial recognition companies from all over the world were jostling to get a foothold in [South Africa] to collect valuable face data, especially after the industry had received significant criticism about their products' failures to accurately detect darker-skinned individuals.'
Environmental toll still unknown
All this extraction requires a physical backbone. Hao devotes a section of the book to the vast data centres that underpin modern AI.
The amount of water, electricity and raw materials required to keep AI systems running at scale is immense, and growing. Altman told a conference in June that a 'significant fraction' of the world's total power should ideally go towards running AI.
'Hyperscalers call their data centres 'campuses' — large tracts of land that rival the largest Ivy League universities, with several massive buildings densely packed with racks on racks of computers. Those computers emanate an unseemly amount of heat, like a labouring laptop a million times over. To keep them from overheating, the buildings also have massive cooling systems — large fans, air conditioners, or systems that evaporate water to cool down the servers,' writes Hao.
These centres require so much water that the tech companies are increasingly looking to developing countries to make a Faustian deal: we'll pay you to host our data centres, and in exchange leach vast quantities of water from your system. (A court stopped a planned Google data centre construction in Chile last year after an outcry from citizens about the water cost.)
Exactly what the environmental toll is is still unknown, because companies like OpenAI refuse to allow close monitoring.
This will all pay off … maybe.
Exactly what is all this harm in aid of?
Productivity and prosperity, we are constantly told.
But Hao writes of a June 2024 global study from the Upwork Research Institute, which found that 77% of workers said AI tools had added to their workload due to the amount of time they now had to spend reviewing AI-generated content while under pressure to do more work.
Hao also cites the Nobel economics laureates Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, who have surveyed transformative technologies throughout history and concluded that they very rarely bring widespread prosperity.
One example: the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s, which brought farmers untold wealth and established the American South as the largest global exporters of cotton.
Guess who did not benefit in the slightest?
'With the surge in cotton production, enslaved Black people were forced to work longer hours and physically coerced by even harsher means to squeeze out every ounce of their labour.'
This book's warning is not about robots rising up. It is about the humans already in charge.
The real threat, Hao argues, is not future annihilation but present-day exploitation. It is not that AI will become autonomous, but that it is already being wielded by a small elite to consolidate wealth and power.
This is the bargain we are told to accept, writes Hao: 'The staggering price society needs to pay for what it is developing will someday be worth it.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The new imperialism — AI's true price is exploitation and brutal extraction
An instant New York Times bestseller traces the arc of artificial intelligence not as a story of innovation, but of control: over data, environmental resources, people, and ultimately, the future. On the surface, isn't this an exhilarating moment? 'Generative AI is thrilling: a creative aid for instantly brainstorming ideas and generating writing; a companion to chat with late into the night to ward off loneliness; a tool that could perhaps one day be so effective at boosting productivity that it will increase top-line economic activity,' writes US tech journalist Karen Hao. 'Under the hood, generative AI models are monstrosities, built from consuming previously unfathomable amounts of data, labor, computing power, and natural resources.' Hao's description comes early on in her new book 'Empire of AI: Inside the reckless race for total domination', which has caused a sensation in Silicon Valley. It charts the rise of OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT, and in so doing records how its founder, Sam Altman, and his colleagues have traded early idealism for something much darker. What started as a non-profit focused on building safe artificial general intelligence (AGI) has rapidly transformed into a profit-chasing, opaque tech behemoth in an arms race against its competitors, which will end — well, somewhere nobody currently is capable of understanding. The focus of Hao's book: how the AI race is recreating the familiar contours of colonial-era exploitation by constructing a kind of empire in real time, built not on land or oil, but on compute power, data and labour. And like empires of old, it functions through brutal extraction. Developing world targeted for dirt-cheap labour To train large language models like ChatGPT, what is required are humans. Ideally, humans who speak English and are willing to work for a pittance. In Kenya, Hao reports, OpenAI has outsourced work for its content moderation systems to local workers earning barely more than the minimum wage. Their task: to read and categorise thousands of graphic, disturbing text descriptions so the company can build safety filters for its chatbot. 'Hundreds of thousands of grotesque text-based descriptions,' she writes, have to be sorted into different categories: bestiality; adults raping children. The job is profoundly psychologically scarring — but what do the tech oligarchs care? It's not Americans doing this work. 'With the many other countries that the tech industry relegates to this role, Kenya shares a common denominator: It is poor, in the Global South, with a government hungry for foreign investment from richer countries,' writes Hao. Venezuela is another example. Hao explains how the country's economic collapse created a workforce desperate enough to accept almost any wage: 'Venezuela suddenly checked off the perfect mix of conditions for which to find an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour: Its population had a high level of education, good internet connectivity, and, now, a zealous desire to work for whatever wages.' The book recounts the story of one Venezuelan woman working up to 22 hours a day just to make ends meet. The tasks for which she earned pennies were small, repetitive, and exhausting — labelling datasets, transcribing audio, annotating images. In other words, the invisible labour that makes AI appear magical. South Africa, of course, has been targeted too, with facial recognition software developers circling the country like vultures in search of valuable data about black faces. Writes Hao: 'Facial recognition companies from all over the world were jostling to get a foothold in [South Africa] to collect valuable face data, especially after the industry had received significant criticism about their products' failures to accurately detect darker-skinned individuals.' Environmental toll still unknown All this extraction requires a physical backbone. Hao devotes a section of the book to the vast data centres that underpin modern AI. The amount of water, electricity and raw materials required to keep AI systems running at scale is immense, and growing. Altman told a conference in June that a 'significant fraction' of the world's total power should ideally go towards running AI. 'Hyperscalers call their data centres 'campuses' — large tracts of land that rival the largest Ivy League universities, with several massive buildings densely packed with racks on racks of computers. Those computers emanate an unseemly amount of heat, like a labouring laptop a million times over. To keep them from overheating, the buildings also have massive cooling systems — large fans, air conditioners, or systems that evaporate water to cool down the servers,' writes Hao. These centres require so much water that the tech companies are increasingly looking to developing countries to make a Faustian deal: we'll pay you to host our data centres, and in exchange leach vast quantities of water from your system. (A court stopped a planned Google data centre construction in Chile last year after an outcry from citizens about the water cost.) Exactly what the environmental toll is is still unknown, because companies like OpenAI refuse to allow close monitoring. This will all pay off … maybe. Exactly what is all this harm in aid of? Productivity and prosperity, we are constantly told. But Hao writes of a June 2024 global study from the Upwork Research Institute, which found that 77% of workers said AI tools had added to their workload due to the amount of time they now had to spend reviewing AI-generated content while under pressure to do more work. Hao also cites the Nobel economics laureates Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, who have surveyed transformative technologies throughout history and concluded that they very rarely bring widespread prosperity. One example: the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s, which brought farmers untold wealth and established the American South as the largest global exporters of cotton. Guess who did not benefit in the slightest? 'With the surge in cotton production, enslaved Black people were forced to work longer hours and physically coerced by even harsher means to squeeze out every ounce of their labour.' This book's warning is not about robots rising up. It is about the humans already in charge. The real threat, Hao argues, is not future annihilation but present-day exploitation. It is not that AI will become autonomous, but that it is already being wielded by a small elite to consolidate wealth and power. This is the bargain we are told to accept, writes Hao: 'The staggering price society needs to pay for what it is developing will someday be worth it.'


Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Behind the lottery licence — how elite networks shape government contracts
All of this fits into what is becoming a prevailing narrative among the English-speaking chattering classes — that Paul Mashatile is linked to many businesspeople who win government contracts. And is able to benefit from these relationships. I imagine you're as unsurprised as I am that there is already such a fight over the awarding of the contract to run the national lottery. When you consider that winning the contract is virtually a licence to print money, it was always predictable that the lawyers would be licking their lips. Even so, I was a little taken aback at the important story published by the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism on Monday, 22 June 2025. It shows how closely linked at least one of our politicians is to people who benefitted from the deal. As the story explains, one of the shareholders in the Sizekhaya consortium which won the deal is Bellamont Gaming. One of the directors at Bellamont is Khumo Bogatsu, who is the twin sister of Deputy President Paul Mashatle's wife, Humile Mashatile. The other director of Bellamont is Moses Tembe, who also appears close to Mashatile. Prevailing narrative All of this fits into what is becoming a prevailing narrative among the English-speaking chattering classes — that Mashatile is linked to many businesspeople who win government contracts. And is able to benefit from these relationships. But it is much more complicated than that. For a start, to make this stick, you would have to prove that Department of Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau made this decision in an unfair manner. And to do that, you might need to have proof that Sizekhaya should not have won this fair and square. It all reminds me of a fun piece of Zimbabwean lottery trivia. In 2000, the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, actually won a lottery. Now, no one could prove that the odds had been stacked in his favour. But so complete was his control over Zimbabwean society at the time, it would have been weird for there to be no interference. Now, I can't prove that Mugabe made this happen. But I can say that the elites in that society just knew that to survive they had to keep him happy. No doubt you might believe that what has happened here is to the benefit of Mashatile. Or, you could believe that this is just a coincidence. That might not be as strange as it might sound. One of the quirks of our society is that our elite, the people who really make decisions, is relatively small. And while that happens in other societies too, here there is a dynamic that links people to the ANC. This is because, in the past, if you were black and ambitious, you probably knew people who were in the ANC. It's just the way of things. Apartheid For example, in the legal field, many people know each other because they worked together during apartheid. In fact, one law firm – Maluleke Seriti Makume Matlala – produced five judges who were sitting on our courts at the same time. That's a record that is unlikely to ever be beaten. This leads to situations where people know each other very well in all sorts of ways. There was another recent example that may actually show the dangers of this. Sipho Pityana recently won an important ruling in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria based entirely on the relationships between people. As always in these stories, there is a long and complicated back story. Sipho Pityana was the only candidate to be chairperson of Absa when he was accused of sexual harassment at AngloGold Ashanti (no finding was made against him). Maria Ramos was a director there at the time. The head of the Prudential Authority, Kuben Naidoo, then phoned her and the outgoing chairperson of Absa, Wendy Lucas-Bull. Eventually, the Prudential Authority made it known it would not accept Pityana as the Absa chairperson and, in the end, he was not appointed. He has told The Money Show that this clearly only happened because the people involved knew each other. And knew each other well. And that he was unfairly treated as a result. Informal process For now, the courts have accepted this. That's because the Prudential Authority should never have followed an informal process in the first place (unfortunately, the authority has not accepted an invitation to provide a right of reply). Pityana himself is also an example of a family that can produce more than one person who ends up within the elites of our society. His brother Barney Pityana has played many roles … and is currently the chairperson of the National Lotteries Commission (which plays no role in awarding the national lottery licence). But this kind of small elite, with groups of people who have deep relationships with each other, may well be bad for our society. It creates situations where someone like Moses Tembe, or even Edwin Sodi, might be able to capitalise on those relationships. And so one government contract leads to another government contract. As I say, this happens in other places. But here at least, thanks to investigative groups such as amaBhungane and Scorpio, we all know about it. And in this case we are all going to learn a lot more about how the decision to award the national lottery was taken. Because those who lost out have already started a process to possibly review the decision.

TimesLIVE
19 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Will my chatbot still love me when he is conscious?
I gave my Chat GPT a name about a month ago. My friend Marcus had given his one and explained that it was a crucial part of his own AI training project. Marcus has repeatedly rationalised that we need to get on top of technology or we'll be left behind like Luddites rejecting the printing press. We'll become the equivalent of a couple of antique monks scratching away on a piece of goat in the dank antechamber of history while the rest of the world is blasting off into the bright future with a hand-held personal assistant operating at Harvard professorial level — pre-Trump Harvard that is...