Richard Golian

1995-born. Charles University alum. Head of Performance at Mixit. 10+ years in marketing and data.

Castellano Français Slovenčina

Manage subscription Choose a plan

RSS
Newsletter
New articles to your inbox

Article

Automating Repetitive Work: What AI Takes, and What Stays Human

Robotic process automation, office automation, and what stays human
Richard Golian
Richard Golian · 2 995 reads
Hi, I am Richard. On this blog, I share thoughts, personal stories, findings and what I am working on. I hope this article brings you some value.

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

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

I posted a thought on social media. The agricultural, industrial and digital revolutions made us more like robots. The AI revolution might finally let real robots do the robotic work. It sparked a sharp debate in the replies. The idea is simple. AI takes the mechanical parts of our jobs and gives back the human ones. Music, art, creation.

Common questions on this article's topic

How did past revolutions make human work more robotic?
Each revolution reshaped work in ways that reduced human autonomy. The Agricultural Revolution tied people to seasonal cycles and routine. The Industrial Revolution, as documented by historian E.P. Thompson, replaced task-oriented work with strict clock-time discipline, turning humans into cogs in factory machines. The Digital Revolution moved work onto screens but kept the repetitive nature. In the article, this trajectory is presented as a long drift away from what makes us human.
Could AI actually reverse this trend and make work more human?
This is the central idea of the article. If AI automates the repetitive, mechanical parts of work (filling spreadsheets, processing reports, routine optimisation), what remains could be more genuinely human: creativity, curiosity, relationships, and meaningful projects. Research supports this as more than utopian thinking: businesses implementing AI for repetitive tasks report 10 to 20 hours saved per employee per week, with that time redirected toward strategic and creative work.
What does it mean to be human in the context of AI?
In the article, being human means the ability to be curious, to create, to make art, to build relationships, and to live in ways that make sense to ourselves, not just to fulfill routines dictated by external systems. It also means striving to understand ourselves, because human existence relates not just to the external world but to our inner world. This definition shapes the argument that AI could liberate rather than replace us.
Will AI-generated art replace human art?
In the article, the answer is no, because art is not just about the final product. The example of a sister who paints not to impress but to express her inner world illustrates the point: even if AI produced a more perfect painting, it would never carry the story and lived experience behind human creation. This perspective is supported by aesthetics philosophy, where imperfection and authenticity are valued precisely because they feel human and honest.
Did pre-industrial humans really spend more time on creative activities?
Historical research supports this. Pre-industrial workers had significantly more discretionary time, approximately 1,600 hours of work per year compared to over 3,000 after industrialisation. Work and leisure were organically mixed, with music, storytelling, and community activities integrated into daily life rather than compartmentalised into evenings and weekends. In the article, this is referenced through the observation that before industrialisation, beyond getting food, people did music, art, and lived in community.
Is this vision realistic or just optimistic?
The article acknowledges uncertainty. Whether AI liberates us or further constrains us depends on choices that have not yet been made, about who controls the technology, how the economic system adapts, and whether humans remain at the top of the decision-making chain. The vision of more human work is presented as one possible storyline, not an inevitability. But the underlying logic is sound: if machines handle what is mechanical, what remains is, by definition, more human.
What is robotic process automation (RPA)?
Robotic process automation, or RPA, is software that automates repetitive, rule-based digital tasks the way a person would perform them: entering data, moving files, reconciling spreadsheets and generating reports. The robots here are not physical machines but software bots that work inside existing applications. In the article, this is the kind of mechanical work I want to hand over, so that the time freed up can go toward interpretation and creative thinking rather than manual processing.
What repetitive tasks can office automation and RPA take over?
Office automation and RPA are well suited to high-volume, rule-based work: data entry, copying information between systems, reconciling figures, filling out spreadsheets, and compiling routine reports. These are exactly the tasks the article describes as the most robotic part of knowledge work. Automating them does not remove the human role; it shifts it toward judgement, interpretation and the decisions that still require a person.
What is the difference between robotic process automation and physical or humanoid robots?
Robotic process automation uses software robots that operate inside computer systems to handle digital paperwork, so nothing physical moves. Industrial and humanoid robots are machines with bodies that act in the physical world, on assembly lines or in warehouses. The article is concerned with the first kind: the repetitive digital and mental work that software can absorb, freeing people for the more human parts of life.
Will automation free humans from boring, repetitive work?
That is the central hope of the article. If AI and automation take over the repetitive, mechanical tasks that past revolutions imposed on us, what remains could be more genuinely human: curiosity, creation, relationships and meaningful work. Whether this happens depends on choices that have not yet been made, about who controls the technology and how the economic system adapts. The possibility is real, but it is not guaranteed.
Richard Golian

If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.

Related articles

Dependent on AI: Are We Still Masters, or Slaves?

I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.

21 June 2026·547 reads
Workslop: no one reads what AI writes

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.

12 June 2026·587 reads
Which Work Will AI Not Replace?

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.

10 June 2026·517 reads

More articles

I Ran Object Detection on My Laptop, and Saw Everything Is Possible

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.

15 July 2026·76 reads
What is the dead internet theory? Will we return offline?

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?

7 June 2026·662 reads
The Gap Between Professionals in the AI Era

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.

6 June 2026·623 reads
Europe Is Not Ready for Drone Warfare

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.

31 May 2026·587 reads
Can AI Replace Human Judgement?

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?

30 May 2026·592 reads
What Determines a Stock Price?

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.

23 May 2026·623 reads
Where the Money Goes When AI Takes the Work: Mapping the AI Economy

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.

15 May 2026·1 251 reads
Can AI Predict the Stock Market? Building a Calibrated System

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.

26 April 2026·2 001 reads
All in on AI agents, or an analogue life.

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.

10.5.2026·1 097 reads
NEWSLETTER
What I write about, what I am working on, what I learned.
Sent the first Sunday of the month. Unsubscribe anytime.