Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What If AI Simply Ruins Your Job Instead of Taking It? - Trumponomics
Jun 26, 2026 Trumponomics (Audio)
Artificial intelligence is often discussed in terms of how many jobs it will eliminate, but Sarah O’Connor argues the more immediate concern may be how it diminishes work enjoyment. Speaking on Bloomberg’s Trumponomics podcast about her new book, We Are Not Machines: The Fight for the Future of Work, the Financial Times columnist said AI and automation are increasingly reshaping jobs around the strengths and limitations of machines, leaving workers to perform narrower, less-rewarding tasks.
Artificial intelligence is often discussed in terms of how many jobs it will eliminate, but Sarah O’Connor argues the more immediate concern may be how it diminishes work enjoyment. Speaking on Bloomberg’s Trumponomics podcast about her new book, We Are Not Machines: The Fight for the Future of Work, the Financial Times columnist said AI and automation are increasingly reshaping jobs around the strengths and limitations of machines, leaving workers to perform narrower, less-rewarding tasks.
Transcript
There are conflicting viewpoints whether AI tools give people more or less agency and control over their lives.
For instance The Wall Street Journal in July 2025, "AI Is a Boon to ‘High Agency’ People":
High-agency folks have always been around but either had to become specialists or hire specialists to get things done.
Tools now exist that can “make their vision happen,” [data scientist Gian] Segato says. “AI isn’t democratizing the information part that is done by the internet. It’s democratizing actually making things.” High-agency people “have vision and drive—and now the tools.” And they’re cheap. “Intelligence just went from ‘I need to pay an engineer $200,000 a year’ to paying 20 bucks a month.”
Tools now exist that can “make their vision happen,” [data scientist Gian] Segato says. “AI isn’t democratizing the information part that is done by the internet. It’s democratizing actually making things.” High-agency people “have vision and drive—and now the tools.” And they’re cheap. “Intelligence just went from ‘I need to pay an engineer $200,000 a year’ to paying 20 bucks a month.”
However, a New York Times Magazine story from this month warned:
We are willing to fork over our data, time and attention, ceding control to Claude so that we may feel a little more in control of our lives. But is that an illusion? [...] Claude can tell you to meditate, but it can’t meditate for you. You still have to use your own brain for that.
The reporter who wrote that magazine story, Sophie Haigney, also offered a critique of "high agency" back in April:
To valorize agency without also emphasizing its purpose allows us to ignore harder questions like: How do I live a good life? And what about the collective good? The smash-and-grab mentality elides these questions. Have we forgotten that life might be better lived in concert with others?
The lesson here? Those tempted by the future of a full automated, frictionless life eliminating all inconveniences and hassles have to be careful what they wish for.