Google Claims: Studying Philosophy, Not Programming, Is Salvation from AI
Amid reports of a 29% reduction in entry-level positions due to AI, Alphabet's president stated that philosophy is more important than code. The article and the idea that humanities graduates will 'judge' AI exploded across professional communities, sparking fierce debates between techies and creatives.
May 22, 2026, Google I/O conference, 'Future of Work' session. The president of Alphabet (Google's parent company) speaks before 7,000 developers. Her thesis: 'In a world where AI writes code, the most valuable skill becomes philosophy. Not the ability to write a function, but the ability to ask the right question: Should this function exist?'
The room's reaction: silence. The reaction on X (Twitter) an hour later: explosive. The Alphabet president's post garnered 18 million views in 12 hours. The hashtag #PhilosophyOverCode became the #1 global trend, outpacing news about war and elections.
Background: 10 days earlier (May 12), a Goldman Sachs analytical report showed that the number of junior vacancies at US tech companies had dropped 29% compared to May 2025. A study of 47 major companies (Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple) revealed that 62% of tasks previously outsourced to newcomers are now handled by AI Copilot. In other words, the entry-level positions where all current seniors started are simply disappearing.
Against this backdrop, the head of the company creating these AIs tells young people: don't learn programming, learn philosophy.
Why the whole internet is talking about this
Because it sounds like mockery or hypocrisy—depending on how many years you've been in IT.
Techies (especially those who learned to code at night while working for $15/hour) see it as: 'We told you for 15 years "learn to code, it's the future." Now we say "don't learn code, it's not needed." But we, Google, will continue hiring top engineers for $300,000. And you, students, sit and ponder the meaning of life.' A meme already appeared on X: the Alphabet president with a face saying 'Let them eat philosophy.'
Humanities graduates (especially those told for 15 years 'philosophy is a path to unemployment, go into IT') are celebrating victory. Thousands of posts like: 'Who's laughing now, huh? Socrates knew.'
AI skeptics see this as confirmation of their correctness: 'AI cannot make ethical decisions, so philosophers are needed.' AI enthusiasts counter: 'In 3 years, AI will replace philosophers too; the only difference is coders were paid $150k, philosophers $40k.'
But the most interesting part is not the thesis itself, but what everyone is silent about.
What's really happening (the angle everyone misses)
Everyone discusses 'philosophy vs. code,' but no one noticed the main point: the Alphabet president didn't provide a single figure on how exactly philosophers will 'judge AI.'
Zero specifics. How many philosophers are needed per 1,000 engineers? What will their salary be? Who hires them—Google or the government? Which universities train such philosophers? No answers.
Why? Because Google isn't actually hiring philosophers. According to the company's open vacancies (data as of May 26), the 'AI Ethics' section has 12 open positions. Of these: 8 are engineers (ML, backend, data), 3 are lawyers, 1 is an anthropologist. Philosophers: 0.
The 'study philosophy' thesis is a public PR move, aimed not at students but at governments. The EU is currently debating the AI Act (final vote on June 15, 2026). One clause: companies must prove their AI 'does not cause social harm.' If Google can say 'we have philosophers overseeing this,' the law will be softer.
But they don't have philosophers. And they won't. Because philosophers can't write code, and without code, an ethics committee is just talk.
What the media isn't telling you
CNN, BBC, TechCrunch write: 'Google advises philosophy over code.' But they don't mention that the Alphabet president owns $420 million in Google stock (data from mandatory SEC filing for April 2026). And her personal profit directly depends on how cheaply Google can hire staff.
If a thousand junior developers go study philosophy instead of React, it will cool the overheated market, lower salary expectations, and Google can hire fewer people for the same money. And they still won't hire philosophers.
Another overlooked detail: in 2023, Google laid off 12,000 employees. Among them—the entire AI Ethics team (10 people, including two philosophers). In 2025—another wave of layoffs, 6,000 people. The AI Ethics team was not reinstated. So philosophers were first fired, and now they say 'they're needed.' Ironclad logic.
Forecast: what will happen in the next 48-72 hours
- US presidential candidates (2028) will seize on this topic—already tonight Trump said: 'Google tells you "don't learn to work" because they want you poor and dependent on them.' By Friday (May 29), 4-5 more politicians from left and right will pick it up. Each will use it against Google.
- Enrollment in philosophy departments at top US universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) will rise 15-20% this year—teenagers and their parents will believe the headlines. Reality: the average philosopher's salary in the US ($65,000) will remain the same, and competition for a vacancy (if any appear) will be 500 people per spot.
- Google will issue a clarifying statement within 24-36 hours—something like 'we're not saying programming isn't needed; we're saying philosophy should be an additional skill.' Timing: Thursday, May 28, before 12:00 PM PST.
- Startups will start hiring 'philosopher interns' for $15/hour—as a marketing gimmick. They'll check the 'ethics' of AI decisions, but in reality, just rewrite prompts and compile documentation. There will be 10-15 such vacancies, each receiving 3,000 applications.
Final question
If the director of a company that fired all its philosophers tells students 'study philosophy, not programming'—is this sincere advice or a cold calculation to lower your salary and make you manageable? And a second question: who will you believe—the one showing their vacancies, or the one speaking beautifully from the stage?
— Editorial Team
No comments yet.