Teaching the Machine: Invisible Labour, Indigenous Knowledge, and the Politics of AI
A Cinematic Analysis of Labour, Representation, and Power in Contemporary Digital Culture
Introduction
As part of our film screening activities assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir, we were introduced to the film Humans in the Loop, a thought-provoking exploration of the hidden human labour behind artificial intelligence. This screening was not merely an opportunity to watch a film, but an academic exercise in understanding how cinema engages with contemporary technological realities through critical and theoretical perspectives. The film follows Nehma, an Adivasi woman whose work in training AI systems reveals the complex relationship between human knowledge, machine learning, and structures of power. Watching the film within an academic framework encouraged me to reflect on how cinematic techniques such as mise-en-scène, editing, and sound communicate deeper ideological meanings. It also prompted important questions about invisible labour, epistemic inequality, and the politics of representation in the digital age. This blog attempts to analyze the film through film theory, particularly Marxist, postcolonial, and formalist perspectives, in order to understand how cinema exposes the human presence within technological systems that are often presented as autonomous and neutral.
Teaching the Machine: A Cinematic and Theoretical Analysis of Humans in the Loop
Cinema has always been a powerful medium for exploring the relationship between humans and technology, but Humans in the Loop offers something more intimate and political. It shifts the focus away from machines as autonomous entities and instead reveals the human labour, cultural knowledge, and ideological structures that sustain artificial intelligence. Through its cinematic form and narrative, the film becomes not just a story about AI, but a critique of power, representation, and digital capitalism. Using film theory—particularly Marxist theory, apparatus theory, semiotics, and postcolonial theory—this blog explores how the film communicates its deeper philosophical and political meanings.
Cinema as an Ideological Apparatus: Technology and Power
One of the most important ways to understand the film is through Apparatus Theory, which argues that cinema is not neutral but shapes how viewers see and understand reality. Just as cinema frames reality through the camera, AI frames reality through data.
In the film, the computer screen becomes a powerful visual symbol. The screen does not simply display information; it represents authority and control. When Nehma labels images, the camera often focuses on her face and the screen together, creating a visual relationship between human subject and technological system. This framing suggests that technology depends on human perception, yet it also positions humans as subordinate to the machine’s structure.
The irony is clear: the machine appears dominant, but it cannot function without human input. This reflects how technological systems maintain ideological power by hiding their dependence on human labour. The film exposes this illusion by showing the human behind the machine.
From an apparatus perspective, both cinema and AI function similarly—they organize reality, shape meaning, and influence perception. The viewer becomes aware that technology, like cinema, is not neutral but ideological.
Invisible Labour and Marxist Film Theory
The film strongly reflects Marxist film theory, which focuses on labour, class, and exploitation. According to Marxist theory, capitalism often hides the labour that produces commodities. In this film, AI becomes the commodity, and Nehma’s labour becomes invisible.
The repetitive scenes of data labelling emphasize monotony and alienation. Nehma performs the same actions repeatedly, suggesting mechanical routine. The editing reinforces this feeling, using slow pacing and repetition to show how labour becomes exhausting and depersonalizing.
This reflects Marx’s concept of alienation, where workers become disconnected from the product of their labour. Nehma contributes to AI development, but she does not control it or benefit from it. Her knowledge becomes part of a system that exists beyond her.
The film also critiques digital capitalism, where corporations profit from the intellectual labour of marginalized workers. AI is presented as advanced and intelligent, but the film reveals that its intelligence is built on exploited human effort.
By visualizing this invisible labour, the film challenges viewers to rethink their assumptions about technological progress. It shows that behind every intelligent machine, there is a human worker whose labour remains unrecognized.
Semiotics and the Conflict Between Nature and Technology
Using film semiotics, we can understand how visual symbols create meaning. The film constantly contrasts two important spaces: the forest and the digital workspace.
The forest represents life, tradition, and indigenous knowledge. It is filmed using natural light, open spaces, and fluid camera movement. These visual choices create a sense of freedom and connection.
In contrast, the digital workspace is confined and controlled. The lighting is artificial, and the camera is often static. This creates a feeling of restriction and isolation.
These spaces function as signifiers. The forest signifies freedom, identity, and lived experience, while the computer signifies control, abstraction, and technological authority.
This contrast reflects a deeper philosophical conflict. Indigenous knowledge is experiential and relational, while AI knowledge is abstract and categorical.
The film suggests that technological systems cannot fully capture human experience. By reducing reality to data, AI loses emotional and cultural meaning.
Thus, the visual language itself becomes a critique of technological reductionism.
Postcolonial Theory and Epistemic Hierarchies
The film can also be understood through postcolonial film theory, which examines how power shapes knowledge and representation.
Historically, indigenous communities have been excluded from dominant knowledge systems. Their knowledge has often been ignored, appropriated, or devalued.
In the film, Nehma’s role reflects this hierarchy. She teaches the machine, yet her knowledge is not recognized as intellectual authority. Instead, it becomes raw material for technological systems.
This reflects what scholars call epistemic hierarchy—a system where certain forms of knowledge are valued more than others.
Western scientific knowledge is often seen as objective and superior, while indigenous knowledge is seen as subjective or primitive.
The film challenges this hierarchy by showing that AI depends on indigenous knowledge for its development.
This reverses traditional power relationships. The so-called “primitive” subject becomes the teacher, while the advanced machine becomes the learner.
This creates a powerful political statement: technology is not independent of culture but dependent on marginalized knowledge systems.
Formalist Film Analysis: How Cinematic Techniques Create Meaning
From a formalist perspective, the film’s meaning emerges through its cinematic techniques.
Cinematography
The camera often uses close-up shots of Nehma’s face. This emphasizes her emotional experience and reminds viewers that technological systems affect real people.
Wide shots of the forest create a sense of openness, while close shots of the workspace create confinement.
This visual contrast reinforces the thematic conflict between freedom and control.
Editing
The editing rhythm plays a crucial role. Slow editing during labour scenes emphasizes monotony and repetition.
This allows viewers to feel the emotional weight of invisible labour.
In contrast, scenes in nature have smoother transitions, suggesting harmony.
Sound Design
Sound is used symbolically. Natural sounds—birds, wind, and silence—create a sense of connection.
Mechanical sounds—keyboard typing, machine noise—create tension and alienation.
This contrast reinforces the emotional difference between natural life and digital labour.
Through these formal techniques, the film communicates its themes without relying only on dialogue.
The Human-in-the-Loop as a Philosophical and Political Metaphor
The title itself carries deep meaning.
Technically, “human in the loop” refers to human involvement in AI training.
But the film expands this into a broader metaphor.
It suggests that humans are always inside technological systems—not outside them.
Technology is not independent; it is shaped by human labour, culture, and ideology.
At the same time, humans are also shaped by technology.
This creates a loop of mutual dependence.
However, the film shows that this relationship is not equal.
Power remains concentrated in technological and corporate systems.
This makes the human both necessary and marginalized at the same time.
Emotional Engagement and Spectatorship
The film also shapes how viewers emotionally respond.
Instead of presenting AI as exciting or futuristic, it presents it as exhausting and human-dependent.
This creates empathy for the worker rather than admiration for the machine.
This shift in perspective is politically important.
It challenges dominant narratives that celebrate technological progress without questioning its human cost.
The viewer begins to see technology differently—not as magic, but as labour.
Conclusion: Cinema as Resistance
Ultimately, the film is not just about AI. It is about power, labour, and knowledge.
Through its cinematic techniques and narrative, it exposes the hidden human structures behind technological systems.
Using Marxist theory, we see how labour is exploited.
Using apparatus theory, we see how technology shapes ideology.
Using semiotics, we see how visual symbols communicate philosophical meaning.
Using postcolonial theory, we see how marginalized knowledge becomes essential yet unrecognized.
The film challenges viewers to rethink their relationship with technology.
It reminds us that behind every intelligent machine is a human being.
And perhaps most importantly, it shows that cinema itself can function as a tool of resistance—making visible what technology tries to hide.
Comments
Post a Comment