Crypto news

Imagine a truck driver where the algorithm doesn't just plot the route but controls every movement, fines them for singing, and demands impossible endurance. This isn't science fiction but a new reality I increasingly observe in the industry. This isn't about augmenting humans with machines but about a complete inversion of roles, where humans become mere executive organs for artificial intelligence.

An Inverted Myth: From Symbiosis to Subordination

In his new work, writer Cory Doctorow introduces a clear dichotomy that divides human-technology interaction into two models. The classic "centaur" is a symbiosis where humans remain the "head" making decisions, while the machine serves as the "body." This concept, borrowed from Garry Kasparov after his famous match against Deep Blue, has proven its effectiveness: a grandmaster with AI support consistently beats both pure AI and a human alone.

However, modern reality has shifted the emphasis. The "inverted centaur" is a "mechanical head on a human body," where humans are meant to serve the machine at an inhuman, machine-like pace. The question now isn't whether AI can boost productivity, but who controls this process and in whose interests it operates. The future belongs to people only if we remember: what matters isn't the technology itself, but for whom and for what purpose it is applied.

Where We Encounter "Inverted Centaurs"

This isn't an abstract threat but a widespread practice in the modern economy. The most striking example is manual laborers under algorithmic oversight. Delivery drivers, whose vans are equipped with AI cameras, are forced to skip breaks to meet the schedule set by the system. A similar situation exists in warehouses, where algorithms distribute tasks and monitor speed, forcing employees to adapt to a machine rhythm.

In software development, the introduction of AI assistants creates a new type of dependency. Programmers are transformed from creators into controllers, forced to review and correct generated code in volumes dictated by the tools' performance rather than human capabilities. The most systemic case is the "human-in-the-loop" model, where specialists (lawyers, doctors, financiers) verify AI-generated decision drafts at "superhuman speed," bearing full responsibility for algorithmic errors. In the media industry, three journalists with AI tools are forced to produce the volume of content that ten people once created, turning into editor-filters of machine drafts.

The Economy of Subordination and the AI Bubble

The key driver of this transformation is economic gain. The employer sees "happy arithmetic": replace ten employees with three using AI tools, shifting the increased workload and risks onto them. Savings are achieved not through efficiency but through redistributing responsibility and intensifying labor. That's why management loves AI—it uses it as a tool of control, not subordination.

Giant corporations fuel this process by inflating a financial bubble around AI, which I estimate at $1.4 trillion. The seven largest companies make up more than a third of the stock market, but their models rely on mutual expectations. When the bubble bursts, only a "useful residue" will remain—cheap open-source models for local tasks. The paradox is that savings on AI verification are illusory: the cost of human review is comparable to doing the task independently, unless employees are forced to work faster and longer for free.

The Social Cost and the Way Forward

Becoming an "inverted centaur" isn't just about overwork but about "renouncing humanity." People lose autonomy and creative agency, becoming executors of algorithmic commands while bearing responsibility for others' mistakes. This leads to chronic stress and burnout. Perception of AI directly depends on voluntariness: those who choose the tool themselves see it as beneficial; those who are coerced see it as harmful.

Doctorow proposes two levels of resistance: individual—consciously using AI as a tool while preserving critical thinking, and political—regulatory initiatives that consider not only safety but also the distribution of power. Workers should have a voice in the implementation of automation, not just a right to compensation upon layoffs. After the bubble collapses, an opportunity will open for a true "centaur" model, where humans use technology rather than the other way around.

My analysis: the "inverted centaur" concept isn't just a philosophical metaphor but an accurate description of the current trend in corporate automation. For the crypto industry, where decentralization and autonomy are key principles, this is an important warning: technology should serve humans, not turn them into biological appendages of an algorithm. The question of control over AI will become as important as the question of control over finance.