Article
Automating Repetitive Work: What AI Takes, and What Stays Human
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 Agriculture, Industry, and Digitalisation Turned Human Work Into Robotic, Repetitive Tasks
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.
Robotic Process Automation: Automating Office Spreadsheets and Reports
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?
Continue reading for free
Enter your email to keep reading for free. This also subscribes you to my monthly newsletter. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
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?
What is robotic process automation (RPA)?
What repetitive tasks can office automation and RPA take over?
What is the difference between robotic process automation and physical or humanoid robots?
Will automation free humans from boring, repetitive work?
Related articles
I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.
Sixteen of twenty-seven sources did not check out. They did not exist, led to dead links, or claimed something that was not in them. The report came from one of the largest consulting firms in the world. It was meant to be about cybersecurity. They pulled it.
Seventy per cent. That is where the first AI output begins, even when you give it the full company context and the best examples from the past. We are talking about the kind of output that cannot be defined programmatically. It is more complex. Often it is creative work. On one repeated type of output I reached eighty per cent within a week. Every further percentage point is harder than the one before.
More articles
A few weeks ago I installed a small local AI model on my laptop that watches a live camera feed. I turned the webcam on in the dark, and in near total darkness it recognised me and the objects in the room. That such things exist, I have known for a long time. What opened my eyes was the accessibility. I installed it in one prompt, free, and it runs entirely on my machine, sending data nowhere.
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too: professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement, knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing: the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
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.
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.
