Article
Will AI take my job?
On the sixth of June 2024, I was at the afterparty of the ZirconTech Summit — a gathering of Slovak e-commerce leaders — just outside Bratislava. I asked one of the attendees what he thought would be the biggest change in e-commerce over the next decade.
That person was Martin Volek — one of the first Google-certified trainers in Slovakia and a regular guest on Slovak business programmes.
He said: "Your profession will cease to exist. Don't let it weigh on you. But it will happen."
I went quiet. I do not remember what I said next. The conversation carried on. But I kept that sentence.
Martin saw a few things more clearly that evening than I did.
Two fears about AI: losing your job, or falling behind
What I see today is fear.
At Mixit, where I work as Head of Performance, and at events like that summit, I mostly run into two kinds of fear. Usually they come packaged with jokes. The kind of joking where you can hear the fear underneath.
The first is the fear of losing your job. People hear that AI will replace knowledge work, the things we do on a computer.
The second fear is felt, paradoxically, by those who are ahead with AI. They fear falling behind. Something important is slipping past them. A new model, a method someone came up with last week. They spend evenings and weekends trying to keep pace.
You cannot keep up with AI — and you do not need to
The fear of falling behind on AI has one simple source. The amount of AI content being published is more than anyone can read. A better summariser will not solve it. Even if some agent scraped and summarised everything, that summary still would not fit inside a normal life with work, sleep, and the time needed to actually apply anything.
Hours spent watching AI videos do not make you better at your job. What counts is whether you watch the thing that moves your work forward, and whether you apply it.
My own consumption of AI news is now nearly zero. Thirty minutes a day at most. What I have instead is access to people in Slovakia and Czechia whose businesses are built on applying AI and who know what actually works. I will learn more from five sentences with one of them than from ten YouTube videos.
I have stopped watching most AI influencers. They talk about short-term viral trends, not about how to actually apply things that make sense.
What changed over twenty-two months
My job title has not changed since the ZirconTech summit. But what I do during the day is ninety percent different.
In June 2024 I spent hours every week on manual data work. In April 2026 I do none of that. What I do is give feedback to agents when they make a bad call. My work has shifted up one level. I no longer do spreadsheet work by hand. I work with the reasoning of the system that works with the data.
It changed gradually and fairly quickly at the same time.
What delegating judgement to AI looks like
I have delegated more of my thinking than I ever thought possible. This is what Martin saw more clearly than I did. For example, when we are considering deploying a new intelligent feature on our company website, the model does the research, weighs the options — tools, costs, time, trade-offs — and puts them in a table, from which it picks the best option. I read the table and check whether the logic holds. The final call is still mine or someone from leadership. But the weighing and comparing is no longer mine.
In certain cases it has gone further.
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
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
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?
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.
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.
More articles
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.
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.
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.