Introduction
If you’re reading this for any reason, welcome. What follows is just a ramble—it’s neither particularly insightful nor educational. These paragraphs capture the thoughts of a twenty-something man navigating a very strange time.
As I write this blog post, I find myself applying for “proper” jobs. While I have alternative ambitions beyond a steady 9-to-5 (not that there’s anything wrong with that), the reality is that I need a better income than what my current job offers. Until I secure a position that aligns more closely with my aspirations, I must undergo this rite of passage into the adult world of “proper” work. This ongoing search for a “real job” has prompted me to reflect on how our concept of work might change with the increasing integration of artificial intelligence. So, like any good digital native, I’ve decided to document my thoughts on my blog for the world to read. Unlike some, I’m not under any illusions of brilliance. My reflections are likely quite ordinary for someone in my situation, suggesting a shared anxiety about AI’s impact on our professional lives. This is not the account of some hidden genius seeking attention through yet another pointless blog. Rather, it is a personal narrative of an average guy, perplexed and trying to find his way in life.
In the end, I doubt these paragraphs will hold much value for anyone but my future self. Hopefully, one day I’ll look back and laugh at my own ignorance and absurdity. As you read on, expect a lack of coherence and consistency—this reflects the distracted mind of someone attempting to navigate a future that feels like a wibbly-wobbly web of technology. The central theme here is “work,” specifically defined as “activity involving mental or physical effort done to achieve a purpose or result,” contextualised within socio-economic terms. More specifically, I’m framing work within the contemporary context of Britain in 2024. When I talk about “work,” I refer to what people do to earn a living and support themselves and others financially. This may come off as a clumsy interpretation of the word “work,” but if that irritates anyone (or “triggers” them, ha), I’ll simply say: “unlucky.”
Work as Bullshit
In the professional world, there’s been a rise in what anthropologist David Graeber calls “bullshit jobs.” According to Graeber (2018), these jobs are designed to make people look busy. Essentially, they are constructed to allow upper management to justify their authority. Bullshit jobs are often entrenched in organisational logic, which can result in positions that, paradoxically, hinder productivity and efficiency. In simple terms, those performing these jobs operate under the illusion that they are fulfilling an essential socio-economic function.
Instead of pursuing passion projects and creative endeavours, individuals find themselves tethered to their work laptops. Whether at home, in the office, or in a local café, they are expected to produce documents and materials that serve only to display productivity. This creates a cycle in which people rise, gulp down quick coffee, commute to their designated workspace, and settle into their chairs—ready to tackle the endless grind of more bullshit. Seated in a sedentary position, they remain fixated on their screens, churning out reports, sending pointless emails, drafting internal PR content, and creating spreadsheets—tasks that often hold little value for anyone, including those at the top of the corporate ladder. This time spent on meaningless tasks could instead be dedicated to pursuits that are intrinsically valuable, like chasing one’s dream of becoming a full regenerative farmer, for example.
Returning to the issue of AI, is it reasonable to suggest that autonomous AI agents could free us from pointless tasks? Can we envision a world where AI handles monotonous administrative responsibilities, allowing us to focus on what truly adds value to our lives? Or is that idea too radical? Graeber (2018), a self-identified anarchist, had a worldview that significantly differs from mine. This isn’t to criticise him—he raises undeniably valuable points worth considering. I mention his anarchist perspective not to mount a deep and scathing counterargument, as I doubt that I’m knowledgeable enough to craft a coherent rebuttal. Instead, I aim to apply Graeber’s concept of “bullshit jobs” to highlight the absurd lengths we go to just to earn a living. His views stand in stark contrast to what we typically accept as “normal” or “logical” within our socio-economic framework.
I don’t claim expertise in anarchism (or really anything else, for that matter), but Graeber, as a good anthropologist, rightly challenges core assumptions, biases, and practices that we take for granted. As work becomes increasingly impacted by automation and businesses employ AI technologies to enhance productivity, might we inadvertently create even more meaningless tasks for people? At the moment, universal basic income is a prominent topic in public discussions. With AI becoming more integrated across various industries, will universal basic income become necessary? This poses an interesting question, especially if humans find themselves struggling to compete as the sole intelligent agents in the labour market.
When engaging in these thought experiments, I don’t intend to recreate dystopian or utopian images of the future. The continued introduction of AI into the workplace could potentially eliminate the bullshit jobs that have become widespread in global capitalism. Perhaps AI-powered automation will free us from tedious tasks, enabling individuals to pursue their genuine passions. This shift could provide opportunities for people to contribute to society in ways that hold both economic and intrinsic value.
However, I don’t want this to be a heavily political essay. My main point is that the rise of autonomous AI agents in the workplace will compel us to reassess which roles are essential and which are trivial—a seemingly obvious observation. Should we not pay attention to radical suggestions? After all, the advent of AI technology will create conditions that demand a new perspective. If AI is set to outperform people in the workplace, shouldn’t we reconsider how we value and relate to work? Upon reflection, many of us might realize that the jobs we dedicate ourselves to could be regarded as meaningless. I suspect that AI will lay bare the hollowness of many contemporary ‘white-collar’ roles, exposing the truth that many of these positions exist only because society, markets, governments, and employees have perpetuated the myth that they are vital to our economic stability. While such roles may appeal to those who thrive on bureaucratic tasks, it’s likely that a significant number of individuals in administrative positions find their work demoralising.
Wouldn’t it be better to employ AI to manage these tedious responsibilities, allowing us to invest more time in pursuits that align with our passions? Microsoft’s new autonomous AI agents could offer a way to relieve the burdensome drudgery that currently plagues the labour market. After all, who doesn’t wish to spend less time crafting the ‘perfect emails’ for recipients who may never appreciate the effort? Instead of laboriously responding to emails, wouldn’t we prefer to engage in activities we genuinely enjoy? There’s more to life than work, yet work does play a significant role in shaping an individual’s sense of self-worth. It’s evident that our relationship with work has substantial flaws—especially in Western cultures. I apologise for generalising when referring to the ‘West’; I’m not particularly fond of that heuristic.
This dynamic often frames work as a self-sacrificial endeavour where we sacrifice our time and energy for a steady income. Alan Watts encapsulates the absurdity of this situation in a speech titled “What If Money Was No Object.”:
“But it’s absolutely stupid to spend your time doing things you don’t like, in order to go on spending things you don’t like, doing things you don’t like and to teach our children to follow in the same track. See what we are doing, is we’re bringing up children and educating them to live the same sort of lives we are living. In order that they may justify themselves and find satisfaction in life by bringing up their children to bring up their children to do the same thing, so it’s all retch and no vomit. It never gets there. And so, therefore, it’s so important to consider this question: What do I desire?”
Work as a sociotechnical event
Before we reassess how socio-economic life is conducted, it’s essential to consider the immediate implications of introducing powerful autonomous AI agents. During the COVID-19 pandemic, technologically reliant societies depended on technology to preserve, and potentially maximise, the productivity and distributive capabilities of their economies. Since then, these societies have developed and labelled new work arrangements that reflect our post-pandemic ‘new normal’. These arrangements blend digital technology with human dynamics, fostering multiple online communication channels. People now utilise technology to navigate hybrid and remote employment landscapes. Work is no longer confined to traditional settings; individuals can perform tasks from wherever they find themselves.
Digital technologies have undeniably transformed our work rituals and arrangements. With this transformation in mind, consider the integration of powerful autonomous AI agents into our work contexts. This adds an additional layer of technology that workers must adapt to. Although AI is already a significant technological presence in many organisations, it will be fascinating to observe how increasingly sophisticated autonomous technologies influence the nature of work.
As regular citizens of technologically reliant societies become immersed in AI, we can only speculate on how the global economic and social landscapes will shift structurally. For those who identify as poststructuralist or postmodernist deconstructionists, let’s clarify what I mean by ‘regular citizens’. If this concept confuses you, I suggest you tone down any anger or pride, venture out, and engage with people beyond your usual social circles. A visit to local cafes, pubs, gyms, or saunas can expose you to the diverse individuals who make up that category. These are the doers who often focus less on power dynamics and more on practicalities.
Contemporary commentary among AI ‘experts’ makes it challenging to gauge the size and scale of the upcoming AI revolution and its ramifications for crucial aspects of our lives, including employment and work. What is clear, however, is that any potential changes will likely not occur overnight. Instead, it seems probable that over the next 5-10 years, AI will become increasingly integrated into the human experience. The general public will gradually acclimate to ‘innovative’ AI sociotechnical transformations through the incremental release of new hardware and software in consumer markets. These technological advancements will slowly become essential to our lives until AI is perceived as vital for societal survival. Just as owning a digital device that accesses the internet is now fundamental for those in the workforce, AI will similarly become a crucial component for individuals operating within technologically reliant societies of the global capitalist economy.
Work in the Future
As a regular person sitting in the middle of Britain’s stratified class structure, I find it fascinating to consider how AI-related changes will be shaped by market dynamics, the behaviours and decisions of everyday people, and the choices made by those in positions of authority who influence our social, economic, and political landscape. Personally, I struggle to engage in this discussion since I don’t completely understand the technical functions behind AI output. I recognise this shortcoming and am actively working to improve my knowledge. However, as I write this, I find myself drawn into the doom and gloom narratives spun by those who have the power to shape information for the masses (but I won’t say more about that).
While artificial intelligence carries unprecedented risks and threats to humanity, it is also an exciting time to be alive. We will never achieve perfection—history has shown us that. But who really desires perfection anyway? If AI can enhance our lives based on the metrics we, as a democratic society, deem important, then surely our future holds promise, right? It’s up to us as citizens to decide what we value and to promote positive change through our actions, regardless of what conventional wisdom might suggest.
When I eventually reach a stage in life where I can call myself grey and old, I wonder if I’ll be recounting to my grandchildren what the world was like when I was their age. I can imagine myself saying, “Back in my day, we had remote, hybrid, and office jobs. But today’s young people don’t even work! Now, the responsibility of work lies with AI bots.” Of course, this is purely fictitious; who knows, this scenario might unfold even before I become a grandparent. Significant changes could occur before I gain a solid footing in the job market. Ultimately, it is on the individual to adapt and face uncertainty with courage.
The reality is that I exist in a capitalist economic context where understanding AI could provide a competitive edge. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it’s simply the reality we all navigate. I accept this, but it shouldn’t dampen anyone’s spirit. After all, who says we must conform to everything? I remain hopeful that, in the hands of everyday people, open-source AI tools will create new opportunities to escape the relentless rat race, whether partially or completely. This could allow individuals to harness the power of AI technologies for creative pursuits that were once accessible only to those with ample resources and organisational capacity.
Nevertheless, I recognise that AI might also disproportionately benefit a small elite of tech owners, billionaires, and businesspeople. While this outcome is possible, I’ve never had much desire to be part of the grossly rich elite.
My optimistic outlook may be considered naive, as it’s possible that AI could deepen existing inequalities. The most powerful individuals and organizations may use its vast capabilities to entrench their position atop the socio-economic hierarchy—what some might call a Marxist nightmare. Additionally, amidst increasing geopolitical tensions, nation leaders could feel even more compelled to invest in the development of lethal AI weaponry, creating a world where leading the AI arms race becomes essential to modern warfare and the preservation of nation-states (and this is already underway).
I wonder how this shift toward AI implementation will challenge and transform traditional military careers. How will military culture evolve to incorporate AI into armed forces procedures? This topic deserves its own discussion, and I plan to explore it in greater detail later.
For now, I want to return my focus to the concept of ‘work’. What jobs will disappear? When will they disappear? What jobs will emerge in place of those that become obsolete? While it’s commonly assumed that white-collar jobs are most at risk of being replaced by bespoke AI service bots, I believe this perception detracts from the immense disruptive—or transformative—potential of AI. (As a quick side note, I recognise that the term ‘disruptive’ is overused. I feel a certain self-loathing for employing it. As a celebrated buzzword in business, I don’t use ‘disruptive’ to evoke an economic understanding, but rather in a broader context that encompasses the multiple dimensions of the human experience). AI could also lead to further disruption in the blue-collar sector. No sector exists in isolation, after all. In theory, upcoming innovations could challenge human craftsmen. For instance, with AI applied to the mass production of flat-pack house kits and 3D-printed homes, autonomous agents could design and produce easy-to-assemble, ready-made houses on demand. The material costs could be calculated with remarkable accuracy. Furthermore, physical labour currently performed by humans could be replaced by robotics and autonomous equipment. The prevailing belief is that blue-collar jobs are safe, at least in the short to medium term (the next 2-10 years). This logic appears plausible. However, history shows that predicting the future is fraught with uncertainty. Whether they are academics, sci-fi writers, politicians, or everyday individuals, people are often poor at forecasting what is to come. Hence, I believe we should remain open to the possibility of AI disrupting every sector and profession.
Conclusion
This blog post reflects my thoughts on the relationship between AI and work. It’s a jumble of ideas collected over a few days, resulting in a feeling of ambivalence. As a writer, I strive to avoid both dystopian and utopian portrayals of AI’s impact on humanity. If I were to position myself on a linear scale with utopian AI at one extreme and dystopian AI at the other, I would find myself somewhere in the middle. From a distance away from the world of AI development, it is challenging for me to take an absolute stance. However, this is what I find fascinating about AI as a concept: it encourages us to view fundamental aspects of life, like work, from new perspectives. It highlights various facets of social life and, due to its potential for transformation, prompts us to explore and challenge assumptions that we often take for granted. On one hand, AI promises technological changes that could liberate workers from monotonous tasks, allowing them more room for creative self-expression. On the other hand, it could lead to our downfall, perpetuating existing problems or, even worse, fostering conditions that might contribute to humanity’s ultimate demise. Whether these outcomes become reality is not the focus of this blog post. Instead, I wish to conclude with these observations:
Whatever the outcomes—whether the changes brought by increased reliance on AI are deemed positive or negative—these shifts will not occur instantly. Gradually, life will change, and the ways we live and work will slowly become unrecognisable. History has consistently shown that change is inevitable. This time, however, the transformations linked to AI adoption feel like we are venturing into uncharted territory. As I sit here contemplating an AI-driven future in a cosy café in a country town, I can’t help but reflect on our current position: we must now embrace a destiny that once seemed distant and abstract. Up to this point, every form of human labour—whether trivial or meaningful—has played an essential role in our shared story. At this juncture, one might wonder: has all work served a deeper purpose for humanity? Has it been to continuously devise innovative solutions for complex problems until our bureaucratic and cognitive limitations necessitated the creation of artificial intelligence? Given our biological, cognitive, and psychological limits, are we destined to create another form of intelligence to help us transcend our working constraints? As we grapple with intricate social, cultural, bureaucratic, and technological issues in tech-dependent societies, will we accept AI as our potential saviour?
Stand firm; there is more thought to come…..