Leverage vs Exploitation: How Christians Can Use AI and Technology Ethically

Why this distinction matters now

AI has introduced a new kind of leverage.

A single person can research faster, analyse more information, prototype ideas, automate repetitive work and operate with capabilities that previously required a larger team.

Recent research is finding measurable productivity effects from AI adoption, although the size and distribution of those gains vary by firm, sector and implementation. An EIB study using data from more than 12,000 firms found that AI adoption increased labour productivity in its European sample, with the authors also cautioning that longer-term employment effects remain uncertain. Read the EIB research →

But greater productive power creates a moral question:

Who benefits from the leverage?

That is where leverage and exploitation can begin to diverge.

What is leverage?

Leverage means using a resource to increase capacity.

Financial capital can be leverage.

Technology can be leverage.

Knowledge can be leverage.

A good system can be leverage.

A strong relationship can be leverage.

AI can be leverage.

The important feature is that leverage multiplies capability.

A person using AI to reduce repetitive administration may gain time for higher-value work.

A small business using AI to improve customer service may serve more people.

A creator using AI to organise research may spend more time developing original ideas.

That is productive leverage.

What is exploitation?

Exploitation happens when increased power is used to extract value unfairly or at the expense of another person's dignity, freedom, safety or legitimate interests.

Examples can include:

• disguising excessive workload as “efficiency”
• using technology to monitor people unnecessarily
• reducing human agency without meaningful safeguards
• paying people less while capturing disproportionate gains from their increased output
• manipulating customers with personalised persuasion
• using vulnerable people's data without appropriate consent
• replacing responsibility with automation when human judgment is still necessary

The fact that something is technologically possible does not make it ethically acceptable.

The L.E.V.E.R. test

Before deploying AI or another powerful tool, ask L.E.V.E.R.

L — Lift

What genuine capability does this increase?

E — Equity

Who receives the benefits, and who carries the costs?

V — Voice

Do the people affected retain meaningful agency and a way to raise concerns?

E — Evidence

Do we have evidence that the system actually improves the outcome rather than merely appearing efficient?

R — Responsibility

Who remains accountable when the system makes a mistake?

If you cannot answer those questions, the leverage may not yet be responsibly designed.

Leverage should increase human capacity

A healthy AI workflow often looks like:

HUMAN PURPOSE

↓

AI ASSISTANCE

↓

HUMAN REVIEW

↓

BETTER OUTCOME

The tool helps the person accomplish something.

The person remains responsible for the result.

This is augmentation.

But leverage can also become extraction

A different workflow looks like:

TARGET

↓

AUTOMATE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE

↓

REMOVE HUMAN AGENCY

↓

EXTRACT MORE

↓

PASS THE RISK DOWNWARD

That may improve a narrow efficiency metric while making the overall system worse for people.

A business should not confuse more output with more value.

The productivity question is incomplete

When a new technology increases productivity, we usually ask:

“How much more can we produce?”

Christian stewardship adds another question:

“What should the additional capacity be used for?”

Perhaps it allows a worker to spend more time solving difficult problems.

Perhaps a business can lower prices.

Perhaps owners can reinvest in training.

Perhaps workers can gain more flexibility.

Perhaps profits can support growth and employment.

Perhaps a creator can produce resources that serve people who previously had limited access.

The productivity gain is only the beginning of the stewardship decision.

Who captures the gain?

AI can create economic value.

But value creation and value distribution are different questions.

A useful framework is:

CREATE — Did the technology produce genuine additional value?

CAPTURE — Who receives the financial benefit?

SHARE — Who else should reasonably benefit?

REINVEST — What should be put back into people, systems or future capacity?

PROTECT — Who needs protection from the downside?

This is not a demand that every business distribute every gain equally.

It is a reminder that stewardship includes the consequences of how gains are allocated.

AI and the one-person business

One of the most interesting effects of AI is the possibility of giving a very small business capabilities that once required more people or capital.

OpenAI reported in May 2026 that at least four million people in the US used ChatGPT during March 2026 to help plan, start, run or grow a business. Read the source →

That can be genuinely empowering.

But it also creates a temptation:

“If one person can now do the work of five people, why would I ever hire five people?”

That is not purely a technical question.

It is a business, social and ethical question.

More capability does not automatically mean less humanity

A powerful tool can allow a person to do more while remaining deeply human.

AI can handle repetitive tasks while people focus on:

• relationships
• judgment
• creativity
• leadership
• care
• complex decisions
• accountability
• meaning

The goal should not automatically be human-free.

Sometimes the goal should be human-capable.

A Christian leverage ladder

LEARN

Increase understanding.

AUTOMATE

Remove unnecessary repetition.

AUGMENT

Use technology to improve human capability.

MULTIPLY

Serve more people or create more value.

DISTRIBUTE

Allow the benefits to reach beyond the creator or owner.

LEGACY

Use increased capacity to create something that outlasts the immediate transaction.

That is a very different vision from simply maximising extraction.

What about replacing work?

This is one of the hardest questions.

Some tasks will likely be automated.

Some roles will change.

Some new forms of work will emerge.

Current research is mixed on the scale and timing of employment effects. The EIB study found productivity gains without evidence that those gains were driven by short-run job displacement in its sample, while the authors caution that longer-term effects remain uncertain. Read the EIB research →

So humility matters.

We should not confidently predict either:

“AI will take all the jobs.”

or

“AI won't change employment.”

Both are stronger claims than the evidence allows.

The dignity of work

Work is not valuable only because it produces economic output.

Work can provide:

• purpose
• contribution
• skill development
• relationships
• responsibility
• creativity
• provision
• service

If technology removes a task, that does not mean the human being has become less valuable.

A Kingdom approach therefore asks what new forms of meaningful contribution can emerge as routine work changes.

When leverage becomes exploitation

Watch for warning signs:

The gain is one-sided

One party receives almost all the benefit while another absorbs the cost.

Human agency disappears

People cannot understand, challenge or appeal important decisions.

Efficiency becomes the only value

Everything is measured by output and nothing by wellbeing, quality or dignity.

Risk is transferred downward

Owners capture upside while workers or customers carry the downside.

Technology becomes an excuse

“AI decided” becomes a way to avoid human responsibility.

People become data points

The person is treated primarily as something to optimise rather than someone to serve.

The customer side matters too

A business can exploit customers with AI just as easily as it can exploit workers.

Personalisation can become manipulation.

Recommendation systems can become pressure systems.

Automation can hide poor service behind a polished interface.

AI-generated persuasion can make false claims feel credible.

The ethical test remains:

Does this increase the customer's ability to make a good decision, or does it increase my ability to control the customer's decision?

A practical founder checklist

Before using AI in a business, ask:

• What problem are we solving?
• What human capability are we increasing?
• What work are we removing?
• Who benefits from the saved time?
• Who carries the risk?
• What happens when the system is wrong?
• Can a human review important decisions?
• Are people informed when AI materially affects them?
• Are we protecting personal information appropriately?
• Would we be comfortable explaining the system publicly?

The stewardship principle

The strongest form of leverage is not:

“How much can I extract with this tool?”

It is:

“How much good can I responsibly accomplish with the capacity this tool gives me?”

That reframes technology.

AI becomes a stewardship question.

Capital becomes a stewardship question.

Business becomes a stewardship question.

Power becomes a stewardship question.

Final thought

Leverage is not the enemy.

Profit is not the enemy.

Technology is not the enemy.

The danger is forgetting the person on the other side of the system.

Christians do not need to reject powerful tools.

But power should come with responsibility.

Multiply capacity without diminishing dignity.

That is the line.

Frequently asked questions