![\"TORONTO,](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SEI_300638893.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Employers wanting staff to be more like machines isn\u2019t new, says O\u2019Connor<\/p>\n
Yu Ruidong\/China News Service\/Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We Are Not Machines<\/a> If you are a fan of translated films, you may have noticed the subtitles on streaming platforms have changed in recent years. They aren\u2019t wrong exactly, but they can come across as a bit, well, flat.<\/p>\n \u201cYou get the meaning, but the language? It\u2019s not as rich,\u201d Petr \u010cermoch, a translator in the Czech Republic, tells Sarah O\u2019Connor in We Are Not Machines, which explores how artificial intelligence is changing the way we work.<\/p>\n That lack of richness is usually because the streaming platform has used AI to translate a script, then had a professional translator like \u010cermoch finesse it. Agencies expect translators to do this work more rapidly and have slashed their pay rates accordingly.<\/p>\n But this new type of job is both harder and less rewarding. The translator has to look at the original source and the machine text simultaneously, meaning more effort, not less. At the same time, the joy of the work has gone. \u201cIt\u2019s just a tedious job \u2013 boring and bland and lifeless,\u201d says \u010cermoch.<\/p>\n Yet, as O\u2019Connor shows in her excellent and wide-ranging book, this is the sort of future we are increasingly being told to accept. AI replacing human translators is not a new premise, but O\u2019Connor \u2013 who is a reporter at the Financial Times and has a weekly column on work \u2013 argues that the rather lifeless translation we are getting as a result is an example of how humans are adjusting themselves<\/a> to fit into an AI-led world, rather than the other way around.<\/p>\n \n \u201c Her central premise isn\u2019t that AI is coming for all of our jobs, which is a well-trodden debate, but that we are already contorting ourselves to fit AI into our lives. That can range from accepting a lesser standard of a product, such as translation, to attempting to match our capabilities to that of AI at work, then chastising ourselves when we inevitably come up short. \u201cI have the feeling that we have somehow lost faith in ourselves\u201d, writes O\u2019Connor.<\/p>\n The book shows how this type of contortion is happening across many industries, to often-maddening levels. We hear about bosses who cannot hire excellent interns because they didn\u2019t perform well in an AI-generated test, or copywriters who are seeing their online articles being down-ranked by Google because its algorithm<\/a> believes they are too good and so must have been written by AI. In this case, writers are having to put their articles through a \u201chumanizer\u201d tool \u2013 also run by AI \u2013 which changes the copy to make it appear more \u201chuman\u201d and inserts \u201cgrammatical mistakes, punctuation mistakes and errors of meaning\u201d. Is this really the future we want, O\u2019Connor asks, one that is \u201cdamaging and deforming human writing in the process\u201d?<\/p>\n It would have been interesting to hear some of the counter-arguments from tech executives to such points, but O\u2019Connor purposely stays away from Silicon Valley, instead focusing on humans \u201cat the factory gates\u201d. We hear from people around the world, from miners in Sweden to controllers of autonomous trucks in the US.<\/p>\n Of course, as O\u2019Connor points out, employers wanting staff to be more like machines isn\u2019t new. Frederick Winslow Taylor, one of the world\u2019s first management consultants, unveiled a system in 1911 that removed factory workers\u2019 autonomy, telling them each day not only what task was to be done, but how it was to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it.<\/p>\n But AI has turbocharged this process. The book gives the example of Maria, a remote worker in Costa Rica, who is sent videos of Amazon workers putting items on shelves and has to identify anything the warehouse cameras have failed to track and itemise. Maria is expected to watch around 1200 ten-second videos during a 9-hour shift, and get an accuracy level of 99.9 per cent. At the end of the week, her bosses expect her to have made no more than three mistakes across 8000 videos. \u201cThey ask you to have the same accuracy as the machine and it\u2019s not possible,\u201d says Maria.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not all bad, however. O\u2019Connor visits a mine in Sweden where autonomous trucks mean miners have more productive and safer jobs. But the difference here is that the miners also had a powerful union that was able to decide how AI was used in their workplace. Staff didn\u2019t like the idea of a real-time positioning system tracking their movements, so it is now anonymised. \u201cAcquiescence or resistance are not the only two options available,\u201d states O\u2019Connor.<\/p>\n \n \u201c That is easier said than done, though. The subtitle to this book is: \u201cThe fight for the future of work\u201d, but at times We Are Not Machines felt like a series of fascinating feature articles, rather than a guide to possible solutions to these issues. Perhaps the answer is in simply championing our inherent human value, says O\u2019Connor. \u201cThe real danger is not that we successfully make machines in our image, but that we silently remake ourselves in theirs,\u201d she writes.<\/p>\n O\u2019Connor does offer a few practical suggestions for the fight: for example, that workers should gain a foothold over how AI is used in their industry as soon as possible. She points to Hollywood writers who negotiated how AI could be applied to their jobs, while they still had the bargaining power to do so \u2013 unlike translators, who were too late in fighting back. That process also involves working collectively, such as joining a union.<\/p>\n For a lighter look at AI, there is Joanna Stern\u2019s rather different book, I Am Not a Robot<\/a>. Stern, a former tech columnist at the Wall Street Journal, chronicles a year of using AI and robots to help her with everything from dental work to mammograms, cleaning to cooking. It\u2019s an engaging introduction to AI, but it is a bit uneven. Stern also inserts a joke every couple of paragraphs, which can detract from the more serious subjects she addresses, such as the climate impact of AI.<\/p>\n It was telling, however, that even after a year of using AI for everything possible, Stern had much the same message as O\u2019Connor at the end of her book: that we should work with AI, not for it. \u201cThe moment you let it do most of the thinking for you, the atrophy begins, and you lose control,\u201d Stern writes. As we increasingly work alongside AI, such a mantra will be important to remember.<\/p>\n Tom Knowles is a technology and business journalist based in London<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Three more great books on artificial intelligence<\/p>\n Code Dependent<\/a> The Financial Times\u2018s AI editor examines how AI is infiltrating policing, welfare, justice and health, to the point where lives are being altered \u2013 and often ruined \u2013 by systems hardly any of us understand.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n
Sarah O\u2019Connor, Allen Lane (UK); Godine<\/a> (US, out 11 August)<\/p>\n
\n O\u2019Connor writes of how she \u2018has the feeling that we have somehow lost faith in ourselves\u2019
\n \u201c\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n![\"New](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SEI_3006398781.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n It\u2019s not all bad \u2013 she visits a Swedish mine where autonomous trucks mean miners have safer jobs
\n \u201c\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n![\"New](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SEI_300639899.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
by Madhumita Murgia<\/p>\n![\"New](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SEI_300639887.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"New](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SEI_300639867.jpg\")
<\/p>\n