Crypto news

Imagine a truck driver where the algorithm doesn't just plot the route but controls every movement, fines you for singing, and forbids you from glancing at your phone. In this system of coordinates, the human is not an operator but a peripheral device. This is not dystopia but the daily grind of the modern economy, which writer Cory Doctorow in his new work "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI" calls the "reverse centaur problem."

Inverting the Myth: From Symbiosis to Parasitism

In the classic "centaur" model, popularized by Garry Kasparov after his defeat by Deep Blue, technology amplifies the human. A bicycle, autofill, or a chess engine are tools where the human remains the "head" making decisions. However, the reverse centaur is a "mechanical head on a human body." Here, the machine dictates the pace, sets the standards, and defines the logic of actions, while the human plays the role of muscles, unable to exist autonomously.

My analysis shows that the key shift occurred not in technology but in the distribution of power. Kasparov proved that a human-AI hybrid is stronger than either alone. But Doctorow exposes the underside of this symbiosis: when control over the "head" passes to the corporation owning the algorithm, the human becomes expendable material.

Where Reverse Centaurs Dwell

The most striking examples are in sectors with "manual" labor. Amazon drivers are forced to skip breaks to meet the "superhuman" schedules generated by AI. In warehouses, algorithms distribute tasks, turning employees into appendages of the conveyor belt. This is not automation for efficiency but automation for control.

Even in the sphere of intellectual labor, the situation is no better. Programmers using GitHub Copilot and Codex are transformed from creators into verifiers, whose task is to fix code generated by the machine. In media, three journalists with AI are forced to produce the volume of content that ten people used to create. Their job is not to create but to filter "plausible words" from chatbots.

The "human-in-the-loop" model looks particularly cynical. Lawyers, doctors, and financiers bear full legal responsibility for decisions that are actually made by the algorithm. They "absorb the friction" of the system, working at superhuman speed and taking on all the risk of AI errors.

The Economy of Subordination and the Bubble

The spread of this model is not an accident but a consequence of "fun arithmetic" for the employer. Ten employees are replaced by three with AI tools. The savings arise not from increased productivity but from shifting the burden and responsibility onto those who remain. Those who implement AI never become reverse centaurs—they merely gain a new lever of control.

Doctorow estimates the current AI bubble at $1.4 trillion, noting that the seven largest companies make up more than a third of the stock market. Will it burst? Likely, yes. But, as I often note in market analysis, the real value will remain in cheap open models running locally. Meanwhile, the giants fueling this bubble with obligations will likely walk away with the money, leaving behind only a "useful residue."

Analyst's Conclusions

The key paradox that Doctorow dissects is the economics of verification. If every AI result requires human review, the cost of such labor is comparable to doing the task independently. Profit appears only when the costs of verification are shifted onto the employee, forcing them to work more for the same pay.

From my point of view, this is not a technological problem but a problem of bargaining power. AI is a tool. But in the hands of those who control capital, it becomes a club for extracting surplus value from those who have no voice. The future, as the author rightly notes, is not predetermined. The question is whether we can stop being the "body" for someone else's machine and reclaim our role as the "head."