Will AI Spark a New “Tragedy of the Commons”?
In 1968, the ecologist Garret Hardin wrote a paper on the “tragedy of the commons,” in which individuals acting in their own self-interest deplete a shared resource, contrary to the common good. Hardin’s example was a town pasture that is open to all. Each shepherd sends more and more animals to the pasture because they can graze there at low or no cost. Eventually, the pasture becomes bare, the animals do not have enough to eat, and both humans and livestock suffer.
We are seeing a similar conflict between short-term self-interest and long-term societal good play out in the environmental, political, and business arenas. I believe it also applies to the artificial intelligence (AI) race. Many high-profile companies have announced layoffs they attributed to AI. According to the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, AI was a factor in 49,000 announced job cuts in the first four months of 2026. Undoubtedly, there have been many more since, and there are many more to come.
Companies are eager to realize AI’s promise of greater efficiency and lower costs. But decision-makers must recognize that replacing people with automation could generate problems for both their own businesses and society at large.
The Risks of Dependence and Lost Expertise
First, companies that replace workers with AI may become reliant on the technology, opening the way for AI vendors to profit from their customers’ dependence. Eventually, venture capital organizations and AI vendors will need to recoup the trillions of dollars they are investing in developing powerful AI models and building data centers. Vendors will charge very high prices - and if their customers have become too dependent on AI, they will have no choice but to pay up.
Second, businesses may lose valuable expertise, institutional knowledge, and “owners” of relationships with customers and suppliers. These are things machines cannot replace. Decisions about where and how to apply AI must therefore be strategic. Otherwise, AI could potentially compromise a company’s service quality, customer and supplier relations, and reputation.
Third, AI is contributing to a dearth of lower-level jobs. Eliminating such jobs should be done with care. Investing in talent development ensures the availability of expertise when a disruption impedes digital operations. Human experts will also be needed to monitor, troubleshoot, and develop automation. Besides, if businesses eliminate jobs that provide foundational experience and knowledge, where will future managers and decision-makers come from?
The Wider Cost to Society
Finally, reductions in job opportunities and career paths for younger professionals will exacerbate the unemployment and underemployment they are already experiencing. Plus, unemployed people have little or no income to purchase goods and services or to buy homes. The resulting reduction in demand will affect everyone - including the very companies that eliminated those jobs. This is the AI version of the tragedy of the commons.
Unfortunately, corporate leaders may believe their only options are to increase their use of AI and to let more people go. I hope decision-makers will not allow themselves to be caught up in the AI race without carefully considering all potential outcomes – not just now, but also in the future.
Dr. Yossi Sheffi is Founder and Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (MIT CTL) and the Elisha Gray II Professor of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Sheffi founded or co-founded six successful companies and has received many awards and recognitions, including the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals’ Distinguished Service Award. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Supply Chainer.
