Kenneth Glad
Artificial intelligence is spreading through offices, warehouses and creative industries. The biggest question may not be what the software can do, but how much authority people keep over their jobs.
Cory Doctorow is a Canadian-British author and technology critic known for writing about digital monopolies, online platforms and how large tech companies reshape daily life.
In an interview with The Guardian, he argues that public discussion around AI often drifts toward dramatic fears about conscious machines, while the immediate workplace impact receives less attention.
His warning is that employers may use AI to reduce their reliance on skilled staff, organized labor and professional judgment.
The result may not be a clean replacement of people by software, but a gradual shift in which employees remain essential while losing influence over how their output is measured, priced and evaluated.
That concern fits a wider labor debate. The International Labour Organization reported in 2023 that generative AI is more likely to change duties within occupations than remove entire roles, while also stressing the need for policies on job quality, fair transitions and regulation.
The investment frenzy keeps growing
Doctorow sees the flood of AI money as a warning sign:
“When I wrote this book [last year], it was a $700bn bubble. It’s a $1.4tn bubble now,” he told The Guardian.
The book is The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI, Doctorow’s new work about how automation can turn people into support systems for machines.
Its central image is the “reverse centaur”: Not a worker made stronger by technology, but a human being pushed into supervising, correcting or serving an automated system.
A customer service agent fixing chatbot errors, a warehouse employee guided by algorithmic targets, a lawyer checking unreliable legal summaries, or an editor cleaning up a machine-written copy would fit that pattern.
In each case, the technology is presented as the main innovation, while the person remains nearby to absorb the mistakes, pressure and responsibility.
That image challenges the optimistic sales pitch, where machines take over dull duties and leave people with more rewarding roles.
In Doctorow’s reading, the software may receive the authority, while the person nearby absorbs the pressure when deadlines are missed, customers complain or automated recommendations fail.
The same pattern can appear in entry-level office work. A junior employee may be asked to review summaries, emails or reports generated by software, but without the training time that once helped people learn a profession from the ground up.
The job debate is already here
For Doctorow, the risk is not magical machine intelligence. It is a familiar workplace struggle over wages, surveillance, staffing levels and responsibility.
That matters across countries with very different labor protections. In unionized workplaces, employees may be able to negotiate how AI tools are introduced. In weaker labor markets, staff may have little room to question new monitoring systems, faster targets or sudden changes to job descriptions.
The effects may also fall unevenly. Clerical, administrative and customer-facing roles could be reshaped faster than jobs requiring physical presence, personal care or on-site judgment.
Doctorow’s broader warning is that an AI crash would not stay confined to venture capital or stock prices.
If the market turns, job cuts, public budgets and social protections could all become part of the fallout.
Sources: The Guardian interview with Cory Doctorow; International Labour Organization.
