Mr Peter Wu Zhe, a PhD student, reflected on a round table discussion on “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Technology” moderated by Prof. Beibei Tang at the 3rd International Symposium on Humanities and Culture: Strategies and Impact of a Digital Future. The roundtable was was held in March 2026 at Beijing Normal–Hong Kong Baptist University.

A recent roundtable discussion on digitalization brought together scholars from diverse fields, including automation, education, and digital humanities. Professor Neil Selwyn, Professor Cecily Raynor, Professor Meredith Martin, Professor Pieter Francois, and Professor Julian Thomas engaged in an interdisciplinary discussion on the profound impact of digitalization and AI technologies on social structures, higher education, and academic research. It has completely overturned two core beliefs I previously held about digital technology: First, I had firmly believed that technology is a value-neutral tool, and that digital inequality is merely the result of the abuse of power through technology; second, I had believed that the increased efficiency brought about by digital tools would inevitably drive the in-depth development of academic research.

Digital Transformation: The Technological Amplification of Old Inequalities and the Entrenchment of New Power Structures

Before this roundtable discussion, I had naively believed that digitalization was a neutral technological force. I was convinced that technology would naturally level the playing field and break down traditional social barriers. I also once thought that job losses caused by automation were a brand-new problem unique to the digital age, one that could be solved simply by providing workers with technical retraining.

But Professor Selwyn’s perspective dispelled this misconception of mine. He revealed that digital unemployment is not a break with the past, but rather an intensification of the power struggle between labor and capital that has existed since the Industrial Revolution. This made me realize that when we talk about “tech-driven layoffs”, we often overlook a fundamental fact: companies are using digital tools to shift more risk and uncertainty onto workers, while concentrating more power and profits in their own hands.

Professor Raynor’s insights further deepened this understanding. She precisely identified two specific sources of power in the digital age: control over the narrative, and control over the connection between the digital and physical worlds. This instantly clarified a phenomenon I had observed but could not articulate: why companies like ride-hailing and food delivery platforms can exert unprecedented control over workers. It is because they not only possess the technology but also control the digital market that generates demand, and they monopolize the channels connecting workers and consumers.

This made me realize that digitalization in and of itself does not lead to inclusivity. Technology is not neutral in and of itself; from the moment it is developed (and even before it is released to the public), it serves as a tangible manifestation of power relations. Because technology is designed with a predefined image of the “standard user” in mind, any group that does not fit this image is likely to be marginalized or excluded. If the underlying power structures remain unchanged, digital tools will only be used by those who already hold power to amplify existing inequalities. Therefore, the fact that managers use their control over digital tools to strengthen their dominance over workers, or even directly replace them, is not the “Original Sin” of technology. Rather, it is power leveraging technology to achieve more covert and efficient domination. It is not only consumers who bear the brunt of the inequality, but workers as well.

I believe this inequality exists not only between social classes but has also permeated the landscape of disciplinary development. The elimination of traditional undergraduate programs by some universities (such as Communication University of China recently discontinuing 16 undergraduate programs) essentially reflects how the digital wave has further exacerbated inequalities in resource allocation and discourse power among disciplines. I used to simply attribute this to the impact of the digital revolution on traditional disciplines. But now I realize that, at its core, digital technology has reproduced a new hierarchy of disciplines by reshaping academic evaluation systems and resource allocation mechanisms. Disciplines that can be rapidly transformed into digital technologies and generate quantifiable outcomes and economic value have gained increasing resources and influence. Meanwhile, traditional humanities and social sciences, which are difficult to digitize and quantify, face the risk of being marginalized or even eliminated.

While I hope that digitalization will break down disciplinary boundaries, I am forced to confront the fact that it is simultaneously creating new disciplinary hierarchies and barriers. This is precisely one of the most fundamental paradoxes of digital transformation.

The Paradox of the Value of Technological Tools: Increased Efficiency vs. the Alienation of the Essence of Learning and Research

Professor Francois mentions that AI and digital tools can save time and effort in academic research, but this increase in efficiency should not serve as an excuse to reduce the investment in critical thinking. On the contrary, it should drive us to explore deeper questions and produce more diverse academic outputs. This reminds me that what truly defined Tang Sanzang was not the scriptures themselves, but the 81 trials he endured on his quest to obtain them. Professor Francois pointed out that the core value of knowledge lies in the process of acquisition, rather than in the possession of a singular, homogenized outcome. This perspective resonates with Professor Raynor’s view that continuous learning is essential to keep pace with technological iteration and avoid being left behind by the times.

I believe the efficiency revolution brought about by digital tools is an inescapable gift of our era. However, we face the risk of alienation, equating the convenience of these tools with progress in critical thinking. In today’s education and academic research, we increasingly rely on AI to handle data organization, text generation, and logical analysis, yet we are gradually losing the ability to construct knowledge and engage in critical thinking independently. As revealed by countless debates on knowledge sharing via brain-implanted chips, when the acquisition of knowledge is reduced to a direct, singular process of assimilation, the very meaning of learning and research is completely eroded. Today, an increasing number of scholars rely on AI tools for writing literature reviews, analyzing data, and even generating first drafts of papers. Although these tools can produce large amounts of text in a short period of time, they essentially piece together and reorganize existing knowledge and are incapable of generating truly original ideas.

The deeper issue lies in the fact that AI tools are inherently programmed with specific logic for knowledge production. Trained on vast amounts of existing literature, they naturally reinforce mainstream academic paradigms and perspectives while overlooking marginal and non-mainstream voices. This means that if we use AI tools uncritically, our academic research will become increasingly homogenized, ultimately losing its drive for innovation. Clearly, the core of higher education and academic research has never been to cultivate vessels for storing knowledge, but rather to shape the ability to think independently, engage in dialectical reflection, and create new knowledge. Such abilities can only be formed through the process of autonomous exploration of knowledge and cannot be replaced by technological tools. Therefore, like the five professors, I hope that in the future, the highest level of use of digital tools will not be to perform repetitive tasks, but to expand the boundaries of thought. In this way, humanity will always preserve its agency.

In summary, I believe that optimism about the digital future must be grounded in clear-eyed, critical reflection. The boundary-breaking and convergence brought about by the digital revolution are irreversible trends. However, we must not merely be passive recipients of this technological wave; rather, we should become active co-creators of it. This co-creation involves not only mastering and applying technology, but also actively combating inequality, upholding the essence of education and scholarship, and consciously upholding academic ethics.

Reference

Tang, Beibei. (Moderator), Selwyn, Neil, Raynor, Cecily, Meredith, Martin, Francois, Pieter,        & Thomas, Julian (2026, March 20). Social, ethical, and policy implications of     technology [Round table discussion]. The 3rd International Symposium on Humanities     and Culture: Strategies and Impact of a Digital Future, Beijing Normal-Hong Kong       Baptist University (Zhuhai), Zhuhai, China.