Crypto news

Imagine a truck driver where every gesture is scanned by a neural network, the route is dictated by an algorithm, and the slightest deviation from the schedule results in an automatic fine. This is not a dystopian plot but the everyday reality of the modern economy. Here, the human no longer controls the machine—the machine controls the human.

In his work "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI," writer Cory Doctorow introduces the term "the reverse centaur problem," describing an inversion of the classic symbiosis between humans and technology. This concept deserves close attention because it exposes profound changes in the nature of labor under the influence of artificial intelligence.

The Centaur and Its Shadow: From Kasparov to Algorithmic Servitude

The classic "centaur" is a human enhanced by technology. This model, popularized by Garry Kasparov after his historic defeat by Deep Blue, presupposes a symbiosis where the human remains the "head" making decisions, while the machine serves as the "body" performing routine operations. Such a union, as Kasparov showed, consistently surpasses both pure AI and a lone human in "advanced chess."

However, as I note in my analytical reviews, as technology has advanced, the shadow side of this collaboration has also emerged. The "reverse centaur" is a complete inversion: a "mechanical head on a human body." In such a system, the human is reduced to the role of an auxiliary element, "called into service as an assistant to the machine, at an inhuman, machine pace." The key question shifts from "can the machine improve efficiency" to "whom does it obey and in whose interests does it work."

Where Do We Encounter Reverse Centaurs?

Doctorow provides numerous examples, and they are, alas, ubiquitous. The most striking are Amazon drivers and warehouse workers. AI cameras in vans track every movement, even prohibiting singing behind the wheel. The algorithm builds the route and sets standards that "require superhuman endurance," forcing people to skip meal and bathroom breaks. Here, the human performs the physical work that the machine cannot, but all administrative and control functions are delegated to AI.

A similar situation is emerging in the field of programming. Code auto-generation tools such as Copilot, instead of freeing developers, turn them into "supervisors" forced to check and correct machine code at a frantic pace determined by AI performance. This creates an illusion of efficiency, but in reality, it merely shifts the burden and responsibility onto the human.

Particularly noteworthy is the systemic case of "human-in-the-loop." In law, medicine, and finance, AI generates draft decisions, and the expert is obliged to verify them. In practice, this means processing vast amounts of information at "superhuman speed" with full responsibility for algorithmic errors. The specialist absorbs all the "friction" of the system, losing the creative component and gaining chronic stress. In the media industry, this looks even more cynical: three journalists with AI are forced to produce the volume of content that ten people once created, turning from authors into filter-editors.

The Economy of Paradox and the AI Bubble

The root of the problem lies in "power asymmetry." The employer sees "happy arithmetic": replacing ten employees with three using AI tools. However, the savings are achieved not through increased productivity but through redistributing the workload onto the remaining workers and shifting risks onto them. The cost of verifying AI results is often comparable to the cost of independently completing the task, but the employer shifts these costs onto the employee, forcing them to work more intensely and longer.

Doctorow also links this to the AI market bubble, which he estimates at $1.4 trillion. The seven largest companies make up more than a third of the stock market, but their models are sustained by mutual expectations. After the bubble bursts, which the author believes is inevitable, only a "useful residue" will remain—cheap open models for local tasks. However, as I believe, it is precisely now, during the period of maximum euphoria, that it is important to understand that technology itself is neutral. The problem is not AI, but who controls its application and distributes the benefits of automation.

The future is not predetermined. We stand before a choice: to use AI as a tool to enhance human potential or to become its "biological appendage." The answer depends on our capacity for critical thinking and our willingness to defend the right to autonomy and creative labor. Technology is not a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle; it is a lever that can either free us or ultimately enslave us. The choice is ours.