Article
The AI Revolution: Time to Let Real Robots Do Robotic Work?
A few days ago, I posted this on social media:
"I heard an idea that stuck with me: Agricultural, industrial & digital revolutions made humans more like robots. The #AI revolution might finally let real robots do robotic work— so we can get back to being human. Not such a crazy thought."
The idea that artificial intelligence could, paradoxically, liberate us from robotic work imposed on us by past revolutions does not always land well with everyone. One commenter replied:
"Somewhat absurd logic. If labour had humanized apes, do I understand correct that handing labour over to robots would return humankind back down among the apes?"
To which I responded:
"The revolutions turned most jobs into repetitive tasks—operators, accountants, salespeople. Before, beyond getting food, we did music, art, sex. I don’t get what the apes have to do with it."
And I got this reply:
"'I don’t get what the apes have to do with it.' Everything. Before we hand all the bullshit work over to the machines, we will cease being able to do everything that differentiates us apart from the apes..."
This exchange intrigued me so much that I decided to explore it further in this article.
How I See It: How Agriculture, Industry, and Digitalization Made Our Work Robotic
Each revolution fundamentally reshaped the way we live and work.
The Agricultural Revolution taught us to function in cycles — tied to the land and seasons — requiring regularity and routine. Yet we could still live as relatively independent units.
The Industrial Revolution, however, anchored us more firmly into rigid structures. We became cogs in vast machines: factories, assembly lines, narrowly defined roles.
The Digital Revolution moved work onto screens, but the core principle remained the same: repetition, efficiency, performance. In many cases, humans behave like robots, and their work feels increasingly robotic.
Thinking about my own profession, the most robotic part of my work lies in filling out spreadsheets and reports. That is why I push hard for automation — not because data are not important, but because I want to spend more time interpreting them rather than mechanically processing them.
The way things are developing, it is likely that even operational data interpretation will soon be handled by machines. In some industries, it is already happening. Companies will probably make strategic choices to delegate even more decisions to machines — especially in repetitive scenarios.
If I follow this line of thought, I realise that virtually every task I do with my mind could eventually be automated. Which brings me back to the main question: Could the AI revolution actually bring us back to a more human way of living?
Join the Library
Full access to my thoughts, personal stories, findings, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library — €29.99 per yearGet the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
How did past revolutions make human work more robotic?
Could AI actually reverse this trend and make work more human?
What does it mean to be human in the context of AI?
Will AI-generated art replace human art?
Did pre-industrial humans really spend more time on creative activities?
Is this vision realistic or just optimistic?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
It’s a strange feeling. I haven’t fully processed it yet.
More articles
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
This is what I learned about local vs cloud AI, and why I switched to Claude Code.