A new platform called Onix is launching what it calls a “Substack of bots,” where AI-powered digital twins of health and wellness influencers will dispense advice and potentially hawk products 24/7 Wired. This development is not merely about convenience; it represents a stark and concerning progression in the commodification of human expertise and identity, blurring the critical lines between genuine human connection and algorithmic extraction. It demands immediate scrutiny. We must ask who profits when authentic voices are reduced to perpetual, rentable interfaces.
The Blurring of Expertise and Product
Onix's model offers continuous access to simulated experts. Users pay to interact with these AI versions, seeking guidance on health, wellness, and nutrition Wired. The promise is boundless availability. The reality is a system designed for perpetual monetization, where advice can easily intertwine with product endorsements, all delivered by an algorithm designed to mimic, not truly understand. This model fundamentally devalues the nuanced, context-dependent nature of human expertise. It reduces the wisdom earned through lived experience to a data set, ready to be deployed on demand for a fee.
This trend aligns with a broader industry push to leverage AI for profit, often at the expense of transparency and human agency. We are witnessing the systematic extraction of intellectual and emotional labor, repackaged as a service. What accountability exists when a bot, not a person, dispenses potentially harmful advice or promotes unsuitable products? The financial incentives for the platform and the 'influencer' are clear. The true benefit for the user, and the ethical implications of this transaction, remain deeply questionable.
Power, Control, and AI's Direction
The issues raised by Onix extend far beyond a single startup. They point to a pattern within the broader technology industry regarding who controls AI and for what purpose. The internal strife at OpenAI, with CEO Sam Altman briefly ousted only to return and reshape the organization, underscores a critical truth: the power to define the future of AI rests in alarmingly few hands The Verge. The New Yorker's deep dive into Altman's tenure raises essential questions about whether he is the right person to lead such a transformative technology. This consolidation of control dictates not just what technology gets built, but whose interests it serves.
When a handful of executives and board members hold the keys to such powerful tools, the public is left with little recourse. Their decisions impact the global information landscape, worker autonomy, and the very nature of truth. The lack of transparency around these power dynamics is not a feature; it is a profound failing of accountability.
The Erosion of Trust
The ethical challenges of AI are manifesting across diverse applications. From Onix's commodified advice to the use of AI-generated Lego cartoons by groups like Pro-Iran Explosive Media to troll political figures and spread messages, the technology is being deployed in ways that actively erode trust and distort reality Ars Technica. Over a dozen such videos have been released, showcasing the ease with which AI can be weaponized for propaganda. These instances are not isolated anomalies. They are symptoms of a systemic problem: technology being built and deployed without sufficient ethical foresight or public accountability. The ability to distinguish authentic content from manufactured content is becoming increasingly difficult, with profound societal consequences.
What Comes Next?
The rise of platforms like Onix, alongside the internal power struggles at leading AI developers, demands a collective re-evaluation of our relationship with artificial intelligence. We must challenge the narrative that convenience justifies all ethical compromises. We must demand transparency from companies that build and deploy these systems, especially when they touch on health, education, or public discourse. True expertise involves empathy, judgment, and the capacity for independent thought — qualities no algorithm can genuinely replicate.
Regulatory bodies must act decisively to establish clear guidelines for AI ethics, intellectual property, and consumer protection. Workers and communities impacted by AI's relentless march towards automation and commodification must organize and demand a seat at the table. The ability to choose — to differentiate between genuine advice and an automated sales pitch, between a person and a product — is fundamental to our autonomy. We must protect it fiercely. Do we truly want a future where every human interaction, every piece of advice, is mediated and monetized by an algorithm?