Artificial intelligence is no longer an exotic presence in our lives—it’s mundane. We use AI to choose meals, partners, movies, routes, jobs, even the right words. As AI steadily takes over more of our tasks, some philosophers have begun to wonder whether this shift might erode something fundamental to human life.

However, as argued at another place, so far most part of the literature in AI ethics has either focused on moral issues such as control, fairness, transparency, and responsibility or on the impact of automation on human well-being, focusing largely on feelings, emotions, and aspects of our talents, skills, or character. These are undeniably important topics. But beneath the surface, another concern is emerging: a quieter, more existential worry. Could a life optimized by AI also be a life drained of meaningfulness?

In this post (and in related writings), I introduce a concept I call the “meaningfulness gap”—a conceptual tool for analyzing a surprisingly common, yet insufficiently theorized, type of ethical concern in the age of AI. I argue that this gap deserves a place alongside other prominent concerns in AI ethics, such as the widely discussed “responsibility gap.” More than that, I offer a framework for identifying and evaluating different instances of meaningfulness gaps—helping us move beyond vague cultural anxieties toward a more precise philosophical debate.

What is a meaningfulness gap? The core idea

The basic idea is simple. Many of the things we do in our lives are not just valuable because they promote our well-being or fulfill moral duties to others—they are meaningful. They contribute to what Susan Wolf described as a third dimension of the good life.

Now imagine those meaningful activities are outsourced to machines. If I no longer decide, create, act, or take responsibility—because AI systems do it for me—then the opportunity for meaning may disappear along with the task. The result is a gap between the potential for meaning and the actual structure of my life. That’s the meaningfulness gap.

In philosophical terms, this gap arises when:

1. Certain tasks are meaning-conferring;
2. AI systems take over those tasks;
3. As a result, we lose opportunities for meaning.

You’ve probably encountered this structure in ethical debates about AI before, even if it wasn’t named as such. Some worry that automation reduces “flow” experiences in the workplace. Others are concerned that it erodes essential virtues like empathy or critical reflection. Still others warn that technological unemployment may deprive us of achievements we can take responsibility for. All of these concerns, I believe, are versions of the meaningfulness gap—each focusing on a particular realm or aspect of meaning.

But while the idea is widespread, the discussion often remains vague. We lack a framework to distinguish between trivial and serious gaps, or to understand what exactly is lost. Not all meaningfulness gaps are created equal, and that’s where philosophical work is needed.

A Four-Step Framework

To analyze meaningfulness gaps more precisely, I want to propose a four-step process:

Step 1: Identify the Realm and the Task

We must first identify the context in which the gap occurs: where does it arise, and what kind of task is being outsourced? Is it in work, leisure, healthcare, relationships, or everyday planning? Is the task cognitive (e.g., deliberating), practical (e.g., doing), or result-oriented (e.g., achieving)? A recommender system that chooses your movies displaces a different kind of task than an AI that writes your job application or makes medical decisions.

Step 2: Specify the Normative Loss

Next, we can draw on the growing body of analytic philosophy on meaning in life—especially the work of Thaddeus Metz, who identifies key sources of meaning such as promoting the good, appreciating the beautiful, or seeking the truth. These domains have traditionally required human involvement.

But what kind of value is lost when AI replaces us in these domains? Here, we can distinguish between major theories of meaning that has been developed in the field:

• Subjectivist theories locate meaning in experiences of purpose, autonomy, or emotional engagement.
• Objectivist theories focus on self-transcendence, contribution to valuable projects, or alignment with objective values like truth or beauty.
• Hybrid theories (like Wolf’s) combine both: subjective engagement with objectively worthwhile pursuits.

This step helps us clarify what normative dimension is affected by AI substitution.

Step 3: Determine the Scope

Not all gaps are equal in scope. A task might be meaningful, but that doesn’t mean its automation creates a significant loss. Does the AI replace the task entirely, or only partially? Is human control retained (e.g., through a veto right), or fully removed? Likewise, how widespread is the impact—does it affect many people or only a few? Is the gap temporary or permanent? These questions help us evaluate the extent and distribution of the meaningfulness loss.

Step 4: Assess the Severity

Finally, how serious is the gap, all things considered? This depends not only on how much meaning is lost, but also on how it interacts with other values like well-being, safety, or justice. Some losses in meaning might be offset by gains in convenience or health. Others may feel irreplaceable. This is where ethicists can bring in normative theory to weigh competing values and make more nuanced judgments.

Why This Matters

The meaningfulness gap captures a broader, pluralistic concern. It’s not just about whether we’re responsible for actions or whether we’ve achieved something. It’s about the possibility that entire domains of meaningful human activity may quietly erode—without anyone being culpable, and without anyone noticing until it’s too late.

Moreover, this framework helps us avoid two common pitfalls:

1. Exaggeration: assuming every automated task entails catastrophic existential loss.
2. Complacency: assuming that efficiency or enjoyment always outweigh meaning.

By offering a taxonomy of meaningfulness gaps, we can more accurately track where and how meaning may be threatened—without collapsing into despair or indulging in naïve techno-optimism.

The Broader Philosophical Picture

Crucially, the meaningfulness gap isn’t just a theoretical construct. It intersects with deep traditions in moral psychology, virtue ethics, existentialism, and political philosophy. When labor is automated, we’re not just discussing economic redistribution—we’re questioning whether human agency, pride, and contribution can find new footholds. When AI replaces reflection with prediction, we must ask whether our ideals of leading a meaningful life remain viable.

At its core, the meaningfulness gap raises a profound question: what does a good life look like in a post-labor, post-decision world? This is not merely a question for ethicists of technology. It is a question for all of us.

The post The Meaningfulness Gap in AI Ethics first appeared on Blog of the APA.

Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)