Modern Luddites

Let’s face it: if companies could operate without employees, they likely would. Not only would it cut costs, but it might also make them more agile and adaptable. While we often see people as indispensable in many roles, other factors may play a larger role than we’d like to admit. Perhaps the fundamental demand for certain products or services has shifted, or companies have decided that automating certain tasks is simply more cost-effective, gradually changing our jobs. At some point, we might find ourselves resisting or even blocking certain developments simply to avoid being replaced.

Many experts today remain optimistic about job security, but their assurances often feel misleading. When asked if jobs will disappear, they often say mundane or dangerous tasks will be replaced by more engaging work. According to them, the nature of jobs will shift, allowing us to focus on fulfilling and creative pursuits. This might hold true for some industries, but what happens if advancements outpace this transition? Companies, driven by economics rather than altruism, will likely automate tasks if that doesn’t affect the quality too much. Of course, the culture of a company and its leadership will influence these decisions, but ultimately, survival in a competitive market often wins from sentiment. Companies with the luxury to choose humans over automation will likely be exceptions, not the rule.

Meanwhile, leaders in artificial intelligence often advise the next generation to develop critical thinking, creativity, versatility, and adaptability—skills that are not easily automated or taught. They avoid naming specific careers, focusing instead on generic traits. If even the creators of these technologies are uncertain about what lies ahead, choosing a 'future-proof' job becomes even more challenging for younger generations. Emerging companies are more likely to first explore what can be automated or handled computationally before turning to human labor. After all, people are expensive, limited, and less reliable compared to machines. In the end, will humans truly end up with more enjoyable jobs, or simply the ones robots have yet to master?

My point is that, ultimately, it all comes down to economics. A physical robot may cost $30,000 upfront, but when you consider that it can work tirelessly without sick days, vacations, or the risk of quitting, the investment becomes appealing. Initially, human workers may even find themselves working alongside robots, taking pride in demonstrating what machines can’t do. Yet, this could be a false sense of security, leaving them even more vulnerable in the long run. Robots learn quickly, observing and replicating our decisions with relentless precision. While we sleep or spend time with our loved ones, robots will continue practicing until they match our level of quality.

Now, will machines suddenly match human speed, skill, or critical thinking? Probably not entirely—but they don’t need to. Even if they operate at 90% efficiency, that might suffice for both the company paying for it and the customer who benefits from the lower pricing. And over time, these systems could optimize processes and outperform humans in both speed and cost. This all depends on how easy robots and AI systems will be able to learn our skills. As I’ve explored in my article Human Speedrun, we might teach AI systems through smart glasses. In exchange, they offer to assist us with tasks as mundane as fixing a flat tire or choosing healthy groceries. Meanwhile, these systems will have absorbed vast amounts of data, turning even ordinary YouTube videos into educational material.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, envisions a future of abundance driven by AI. While this vision is enticing, the road to such a utopia could include a 'drought of human labor'. As companies optimize resources and global competition intensifies, many workers may find themselves sidelined. A universal basic income could help bridge this gap, but such systems remain far off. In the meantime, automation will continue to solidify companies’ dominance, often at the expense of traditional labor. Ironically, as consumers, we will contribute to this trend. Why pay a premium for hand-crafted goods when a machine-made alternative costs a fraction? While some may value craftsmanship or local production, most prioritize affordability. This collective behavior shapes markets and accelerates automation.

Just as the Luddites of the 19th century protested against industrial machinery, some might resist modern automation, but history suggests such efforts are futile. The original Luddites fought against the Industrial Revolution, but they weren’t just battling machines—they were up against consumer demand. For instance, if we suddenly all decide that oat milk is essential to our lives, we’ll seek the best value regardless of whether it’s made by a robot or a farmer. Economic forces, driven by consumer preferences, will always favor efficiency and affordability.

The lesson here is clear: we must stay vigilant and find ways to differentiate ourselves from machines. Maybe the advice was right: thinking critically may be the most important skill for now. Intelligent systems will inevitably take over certain tasks, not because employers are unfair, but simply because customers demand the best value for their money. And esisting these changes might only help accelerate them. Instead, we should embrace and guide these developments, ensuring that we remain relevant in an increasingly automated world. Staying ahead of AI’s capabilities in meaningful ways might prove to be our best shot at thriving in the coming decades.