In recent keynote addresses, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has unveiled a linguistic framework for the future of work that is as revealing as it is ambitious. By declaring that “the IT department is the new HR department” and framing robots as “AI Immigrants,” Huang is not merely forecasting a technological shift; he is attempting to rebrand the most significant labor disruption in human history. While presented as a solution to a global labor shortage, this vision risks codifying a digital caste system that prioritizes “infinite growth” over human welfare and planetary stability.
The Rebranding of Automation
Huang’s analogy, that IT will soon manage millions of “Agentic AIs” just as HR manages humans, signals a pivot from AI as a tool to AI as a workforce.1 Under this model, “hiring” is replaced by licensing, and “onboarding” becomes the fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs) on proprietary data. By naming software “Digital Employees,” the tech elite are attempting to humanize capital. This linguistic sleight of hand obscures a cold economic reality:
a digital employee does not require a wage, healthcare, or the right to organize.
The most provocative of these terms is “AI Immigrants”, Huang’s label for the humanoid robots destined for physical labor.2 This metaphor is a tactical choice. By framing robots as “immigrants” arriving to fill “empty chairs” in a labor-starved economy, industry leaders sidestep the accusation of displacement. The narrative suggests that humans have simply “opted out” of toil, leaving a vacuum that only silicon can fill. However, this ignores the historical precedent that “labor shortages” are often actually “wage shortages.” When the elite claim that people “no longer want to work,” they frequently mean that people are no longer willing to be exploited for a shrinking share of the value they create.
The Digital Caste System
Huang’s vision implicitly structures society into a new hierarchy that mirrors the rigid class systems of the industrial revolution:
- The Architect Class: The modern “Robber Barons” who own the compute (GPUs), the energy infrastructure, and the foundational models.
- The Managerial Class: White-collar survivors whose new role is to “onboard” and oversee the performance of AI agents.
- The Automated Tier: A vast “workforce” of Digital Agents and AI Immigrants performing the bulk of cognitive and physical labor.
- The Displaced: Those who neither own the technology nor possess the “silicon leverage” to manage it.
This structure creates a “Productivity-Pay Gap” on steroids. Historically, as technology increases productivity, the gains should theoretically “trickle down.” Yet, as seen in the late 20th century, these gains have disproportionately flowed to the top. In an AI-driven economy, where the marginal cost of labor approaches zero, the “rising tide” of growth becomes a concentrated flood at the peak of the pyramid.
The Ecological and Social Cost of Infinite Growth
Central to this AI – HR vision is the assumption that infinite economic growth is not only possible but necessary. Huang argues that we must automate to maintain the “current pace” of the global economy. This premise is fundamentally at odds with the physical limits of our planet. The energy requirements to train and run millions of AI agents are staggering. Even if “accelerated computing” is more efficient per calculation, the Jevons Paradox suggests that as a resource becomes more efficient, we simply consume more of it.3
Furthermore, the “AI Immigrant” metaphor reveals a troubling view of the working class. By relegating physical labor to a category of “outsiders” (even digital ones), the elite reinforce a worldview where manual work is a burden to be offloaded rather than a vital contribution to be dignified. I was taught as a kid, that some of the noblest people on the planet, often go home smelling the worst at the end of the day. This physical labor detachment leads to the destabilization of the social contract. If the “lower classes” are no longer needed for labor, history suggests the “upper classes” may feel less obligation to provide for their welfare, education, or social security.
A Call for Human-Centric Innovation
We must question whether the “IT as HR” model is an evolution or an evasion. If the goal of AI is merely to bypass the “inconvenience” of human needs, wages, rest, and dignity, then it is not progress; it is a regression to the era of the company town, updated for the age of the algorithm.
True innovation would not involve “naming” robots as immigrants to justify their use; it would involve using AI to reduce the work week, redistribute wealth created by automation, and address the climate crisis that “infinite growth” has fueled. We should not allow the captains of the AI industry to define the value of a human being by their “management of agents.”
As we stand at the threshold of this “New Gilded Age,” we must demand a future where technology serves the many, not just a future where IT “hires” the many to serve the few.
Further Reading
- Huang, J. (2024-2026). Keynote Addresses at GTC and CES. Nvidia Corporation.4 (Reframing IT as HR and the introduction of “AI Immigrants”).
- Economic Policy Institute (EPI). (2023). The Productivity-Pay Gap. (Data on how productivity gains have decoupled from worker compensation since 1979).
- Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. (On how the elite capture the benefits of technological shifts).
- Hickel, J. (2020). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. (A critique of the “infinite growth” model in a finite planetary system).
- Susskind, D. (2020). A World Without Work. (Exploration of the “caste” implications of structural technological unemployment).