What do you think?
Rate this book
We Are Not Machines: The Fight for the Future of Work
Automation was supposed to free us. Instead, what if it is turning us into robots? An investigation into the real impact of AI and automation on work—through the eyes of those living it.
From Czech subtitlers and Amazon warehouse strikers to ex-journalists in data farms, this is a vivid, urgent look at what happens when human labor becomes machine-compatible. Human Robots asks the question no algorithm can what kind of future do we want for ourselves—and our souls?
Drawing on interviews, site visits, and lived experiences, the author illuminates abstract debates with real human stories. Taken together, they reveal that the dream of freedom through technology is being reversed. Rather than liberating people, many new systems impose faster, lonelier, and more micromanaged labor.
As Sarah O’Connor writes, “Automation was meant to do away with dull, dirty, dangerous tasks. It was meant to free us up for more interesting and creative work. So why was my notebook filling up with stories of good jobs turned bad, and bad jobs turned worse? These people were not being liberated by machines. Instead, they were being crunched into systems run by machines and paced by machines, in which important concepts such as fairness, intelligence, even human-ness itself, were being quietly redefined by machines. And that left me with a question. A question that prompted me to write this book. We think we’re robotising our work, but what if we’re actually robotising ourselves?
From Czech subtitlers and Amazon warehouse strikers to ex-journalists in data farms, this is a vivid, urgent look at what happens when human labor becomes machine-compatible. Human Robots asks the question no algorithm can what kind of future do we want for ourselves—and our souls?
Drawing on interviews, site visits, and lived experiences, the author illuminates abstract debates with real human stories. Taken together, they reveal that the dream of freedom through technology is being reversed. Rather than liberating people, many new systems impose faster, lonelier, and more micromanaged labor.
As Sarah O’Connor writes, “Automation was meant to do away with dull, dirty, dangerous tasks. It was meant to free us up for more interesting and creative work. So why was my notebook filling up with stories of good jobs turned bad, and bad jobs turned worse? These people were not being liberated by machines. Instead, they were being crunched into systems run by machines and paced by machines, in which important concepts such as fairness, intelligence, even human-ness itself, were being quietly redefined by machines. And that left me with a question. A question that prompted me to write this book. We think we’re robotising our work, but what if we’re actually robotising ourselves?
248 pages, Hardcover
First published June 4, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 12, 2026
This book felt like reading someone's journey from techno-optimism to techno-realism and, at times, even techno-pessimism.
I went into it expecting another doom-and-gloom story about AI. At times it certainly felt that way, but what makes this book different is how personal it is. Sarah doesn't just talk about technology; she talks to the people whose lives have been shaped by it. That gives the book a human dimension that many AI books are missing.
As I was reading, I kept thinking about the concept of the tragedy of the commons. The biggest technology companies seem to capture most of the value, while ordinary people are left dealing with the consequences. People are stripped from work that gave them a sense of purpose and pushed into roles where they become extensions of machines. The examples from warehouses especially stayed with me: relentless pace, little autonomy, endless repetition - all in the service of faster delivery and ever-increasing consumer expectations.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is that it challenges an assumption many of us had about AI. We were told that automation would take over the dangerous, dirty, and dull work. Instead, we're seeing it move into creative and knowledge-based jobs. Graduate-level work, writing, analysis, design - areas that many thought were uniquely human - are increasingly being automated. What that means for society over the next decade remains an open question.
Sarah also pushes back against the way we talk about AI. We often hear it described as a tsunami: a force that is coming whether we like it or not. She argues that this language is unhelpful because it implies we have no choice. Technology is not a natural disaster. It is created by people, deployed by people, and governed - or not governed - by people. We still have agency, but exercising it requires collective action.
If technology is a tool, what tools liberate and what tools oppress?
It's a simple question, but a powerful one.
I also appreciated the discussion on the Luddites. Today, anyone who questions technological progress risks being labelled anti-technology. But that's not really what the Luddites were about, and it's not what many critics of AI are arguing either. Current debate centers around a choice between embracing technology or opposing it. That's a false choice. The real discussion should be about what we value and what we are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of progress.
Sarah points to the Swedish labour model as an example of a different approach. Not one that blocks innovation, but one where workers, employers, and institutions work together to manage the impact of change. It is an appealing vision. That said, I'm not convinced it can easily be replicated elsewhere, especially at a time when many technology companies face limited oversight and governments are prioritising competitiveness and geopolitical advantage over regulation.
The book closes with a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be."
That quote neatly captures the book's central message. We spend a lot of time asking what AI can do. We spend far less time asking where we actually want to go.
For me, that's what made this book memorable. It's not really a book about AI. It's a book about people, power, and choice. It reminds us that technological progress is not something that happens to us. We still get to decide how it shapes our lives and our societies.
Would I recommend this book? Absolutely.
Not because it has all the answers, but because it asks the right questions. Whether you're excited about AI or worried about it, this book forces you to think beyond the technology itself and focus on the human consequences. I found it thought-provoking, uncomfortable at times, and ultimately very worthwhile.
I went into it expecting another doom-and-gloom story about AI. At times it certainly felt that way, but what makes this book different is how personal it is. Sarah doesn't just talk about technology; she talks to the people whose lives have been shaped by it. That gives the book a human dimension that many AI books are missing.
As I was reading, I kept thinking about the concept of the tragedy of the commons. The biggest technology companies seem to capture most of the value, while ordinary people are left dealing with the consequences. People are stripped from work that gave them a sense of purpose and pushed into roles where they become extensions of machines. The examples from warehouses especially stayed with me: relentless pace, little autonomy, endless repetition - all in the service of faster delivery and ever-increasing consumer expectations.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is that it challenges an assumption many of us had about AI. We were told that automation would take over the dangerous, dirty, and dull work. Instead, we're seeing it move into creative and knowledge-based jobs. Graduate-level work, writing, analysis, design - areas that many thought were uniquely human - are increasingly being automated. What that means for society over the next decade remains an open question.
Sarah also pushes back against the way we talk about AI. We often hear it described as a tsunami: a force that is coming whether we like it or not. She argues that this language is unhelpful because it implies we have no choice. Technology is not a natural disaster. It is created by people, deployed by people, and governed - or not governed - by people. We still have agency, but exercising it requires collective action.
If technology is a tool, what tools liberate and what tools oppress?
It's a simple question, but a powerful one.
I also appreciated the discussion on the Luddites. Today, anyone who questions technological progress risks being labelled anti-technology. But that's not really what the Luddites were about, and it's not what many critics of AI are arguing either. Current debate centers around a choice between embracing technology or opposing it. That's a false choice. The real discussion should be about what we value and what we are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of progress.
Sarah points to the Swedish labour model as an example of a different approach. Not one that blocks innovation, but one where workers, employers, and institutions work together to manage the impact of change. It is an appealing vision. That said, I'm not convinced it can easily be replicated elsewhere, especially at a time when many technology companies face limited oversight and governments are prioritising competitiveness and geopolitical advantage over regulation.
The book closes with a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be."
That quote neatly captures the book's central message. We spend a lot of time asking what AI can do. We spend far less time asking where we actually want to go.
For me, that's what made this book memorable. It's not really a book about AI. It's a book about people, power, and choice. It reminds us that technological progress is not something that happens to us. We still get to decide how it shapes our lives and our societies.
Would I recommend this book? Absolutely.
Not because it has all the answers, but because it asks the right questions. Whether you're excited about AI or worried about it, this book forces you to think beyond the technology itself and focus on the human consequences. I found it thought-provoking, uncomfortable at times, and ultimately very worthwhile.
August 8, 2026
If I had only one word to sum up We Are Not Machines it would be this:
Wow.
The book explores how AI and automation will impact the future of work. However, that description does not do it justice. What you’re actually treated to is a beautiful array of human stories - snapshots of lives defined by beauty and struggle, all framed through the lens of technological change. These real world examples, backed up with statistical research and historical examples, show how this change impacts our mind, body and soul. They also look not just at where we are, but what changes may be coming, all in an engaging and emotive style.
What I was also struck by was this:
The rise of machines is not just down to the developers, it’s also down to our collective greed. From businesses trying to increase profits to us wanting products faster, we’re pushing our fellow humans to the limit and for some, that means machines are inevitably the answer. However, stories in this book give me hope. My favourite is about Dominic who gave up being a lorry driver to start his own business tending graves.
“Every now and then, our conversation was interrupted by church bells. It was his phone - he had downloaded the ringtone so that he wouldn’t disturb the peace.”
It’s this level of humanity that we need for the future of work to thrive.
Thank you to the author, publishers and NetGalley for access to this arc in return for an honest review.
Wow.
The book explores how AI and automation will impact the future of work. However, that description does not do it justice. What you’re actually treated to is a beautiful array of human stories - snapshots of lives defined by beauty and struggle, all framed through the lens of technological change. These real world examples, backed up with statistical research and historical examples, show how this change impacts our mind, body and soul. They also look not just at where we are, but what changes may be coming, all in an engaging and emotive style.
What I was also struck by was this:
The rise of machines is not just down to the developers, it’s also down to our collective greed. From businesses trying to increase profits to us wanting products faster, we’re pushing our fellow humans to the limit and for some, that means machines are inevitably the answer. However, stories in this book give me hope. My favourite is about Dominic who gave up being a lorry driver to start his own business tending graves.
“Every now and then, our conversation was interrupted by church bells. It was his phone - he had downloaded the ringtone so that he wouldn’t disturb the peace.”
It’s this level of humanity that we need for the future of work to thrive.
Thank you to the author, publishers and NetGalley for access to this arc in return for an honest review.
July 29, 2026
Bit of a let down; all good points and examples of the dehumanizing effects of increased digitalisation, ai-ification (if that’s even a term) and robo-ification but don’t expect a conceptual deep dive as to how exactly these developments play out on a fundamental level.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
We Are Not Machines: The Fight for the Future of Work is, despite its name, a hopeful book. The dominant fear today about AI is that machines will take our jobs. Author Sarah O'Connor's concern is that the more immediate harm is that work is being reshaped to make humans more machine-like: more surveilled, more paced, more repetitive, more isolated, with less judgment, creativity, and autonomy. As she writes, "The real danger isn't that we make machines in our image, but that we silently remake ourselves in theirs."
O'Connor, an associate editor at the Financial Times who pens a weekly column about the world of work, has written a series of case studies, including TV subtitle translators reduced to editing AI output, Amazon warehouse workers adapting to ever more autonomous warehouses, job candidates being interviewed by AI software, and long-haul truck drivers grappling with fragmented work and the threat of self-driving trucks. She also documents counter-examples where workers shaped the technology and its implementation to make work better rather than worse. Nurses in the Netherlands, for instance, rejected the Taylorized approach to home healthcare and developed a new model that delivers both better healthcare and better healthcare jobs.
More important than the discussion of technology is the discussion of the politics and design of work. As she writes,
My biggest critique is whether O'Connor's success stories can be generalized. Three of her hopeful cases (a Swedish mine, Dutch nurses, and the Writers Guild of America) come from contexts with unusual institutional leverage: codetermination law, social-democratic regulation, or guild-specific bargaining power. Another, a long-haul trucker who quit to start a gravesite maintenance business, is an individual exit. None of these offers a clear path for the millions of workers whose labor markets are shaped more by competition than by collective voice. O'Connor's diagnosis is global. Her prescriptions are not. The subtitle promises a fight, and a fight requires a theory of how it's won outside the contexts where it already has been.
None of that diminishes what the book does well. O'Connor pays attention to actual work, which most books in the genre don't. The book's most important readers aren't the workers she profiles or the policymakers she addresses, but the managers, executives, and technologists making deployment decisions every day. As one of those readers, I found her diagnosis sharp and uncomfortable in the right ways.
Thanks to NetGalley for the advance copy. All views are mine and mine alone. Other than a free copy of this book, I was not compensated for this review.
O'Connor, an associate editor at the Financial Times who pens a weekly column about the world of work, has written a series of case studies, including TV subtitle translators reduced to editing AI output, Amazon warehouse workers adapting to ever more autonomous warehouses, job candidates being interviewed by AI software, and long-haul truck drivers grappling with fragmented work and the threat of self-driving trucks. She also documents counter-examples where workers shaped the technology and its implementation to make work better rather than worse. Nurses in the Netherlands, for instance, rejected the Taylorized approach to home healthcare and developed a new model that delivers both better healthcare and better healthcare jobs.
More important than the discussion of technology is the discussion of the politics and design of work. As she writes,
"Technological change is not actually analogous to a natural phenomenon like a 'tsunami' that is sweeping towards us whether we like it or not. For technology companies, which want to head off the threat of regulation, these are very useful metaphors in their conversations with policymakers. Nobody want to look like the fool who thinks you can hold back the tide. But, as the stories in this book make clear, technology is designed by people, made by people, and adopted by people. (emphasis mine)"
My biggest critique is whether O'Connor's success stories can be generalized. Three of her hopeful cases (a Swedish mine, Dutch nurses, and the Writers Guild of America) come from contexts with unusual institutional leverage: codetermination law, social-democratic regulation, or guild-specific bargaining power. Another, a long-haul trucker who quit to start a gravesite maintenance business, is an individual exit. None of these offers a clear path for the millions of workers whose labor markets are shaped more by competition than by collective voice. O'Connor's diagnosis is global. Her prescriptions are not. The subtitle promises a fight, and a fight requires a theory of how it's won outside the contexts where it already has been.
None of that diminishes what the book does well. O'Connor pays attention to actual work, which most books in the genre don't. The book's most important readers aren't the workers she profiles or the policymakers she addresses, but the managers, executives, and technologists making deployment decisions every day. As one of those readers, I found her diagnosis sharp and uncomfortable in the right ways.
Thanks to NetGalley for the advance copy. All views are mine and mine alone. Other than a free copy of this book, I was not compensated for this review.
July 15, 2026
Too many commentators on AI seem to be advocates or skeptics, so this seemed to be a rare attempt to describe precisely how it has changed the world of work, rather than persuade the reader that AI is brilliant or terrible. O'Connor addressed this directly, and stated it was not meant to be 'on the one hand... on the other...'. To that end, she succeeded, although she did seem to run out of material and this is better understood as an insight into modern work rather than AI specifically.
The first case study was a modern Amazon warehouse and an interesting insight into what is bad about jobs and what people think is bad about jobs. The old complaints in the media were that warehouse employees geared up for a day of exercise and were moving on their feet all day, while the modern buildings have robots doing the movement while stationary pickers take the right item out of the piece of storage shelfing brought to their position. Only now, this role is even worse because the lack of movement means there is no opportunity to chat to colleagues, and the stillness is incredibly boring, while the increased efficiency means there are fewer jobs to go round. The AI element was identifying which items are put in each storage space, while humans still have to do the actual picking up of the items, spotlit for them at their station.
This was contrasted with the tech utopia of AI doing the things we humans don't want to do and freeing us up to engage in more stimulating content. O'Connor found that it wasn't easy to foresee, with translators becoming worse paid and less stimulated, and coders doing less of the boring elements of the job. The lesson appeared to be, unionise so you can shape the direction of travel, whether than was mining in Sweden (having an office space underground in order to qualify for higher pay under collective bargaining rules seemed the stuff of a US right-wing parody of inefficiency but was presented as quirky here) or TV writers in LA. Even the case study of the writers was fairly sobering, however, as they only had power as AI wasn't good enough to replace them at the time of bargaining, which could be much likelier in three years time.
O'Connor seemed to run out of steam when it came to finding out about AI, with general office roles and classic white collar jobs (pre-covid city centres did not make their money at lunchtimes from translators and coders) generally excluded, and the last chapter about care more to do with the human touch vs amoral capitalism than modern advances in computing.
The book was interesting and well-written, but it didn't offer much more than a snapshot into AI and its effect on employment. O'Connor set out to find what AI was changing, and instead had a few case studies about the modern workplace and relative safety. Only sometimes did that cover AI more than tangentially, perhaps it wass just too speculative when it was written.
The first case study was a modern Amazon warehouse and an interesting insight into what is bad about jobs and what people think is bad about jobs. The old complaints in the media were that warehouse employees geared up for a day of exercise and were moving on their feet all day, while the modern buildings have robots doing the movement while stationary pickers take the right item out of the piece of storage shelfing brought to their position. Only now, this role is even worse because the lack of movement means there is no opportunity to chat to colleagues, and the stillness is incredibly boring, while the increased efficiency means there are fewer jobs to go round. The AI element was identifying which items are put in each storage space, while humans still have to do the actual picking up of the items, spotlit for them at their station.
This was contrasted with the tech utopia of AI doing the things we humans don't want to do and freeing us up to engage in more stimulating content. O'Connor found that it wasn't easy to foresee, with translators becoming worse paid and less stimulated, and coders doing less of the boring elements of the job. The lesson appeared to be, unionise so you can shape the direction of travel, whether than was mining in Sweden (having an office space underground in order to qualify for higher pay under collective bargaining rules seemed the stuff of a US right-wing parody of inefficiency but was presented as quirky here) or TV writers in LA. Even the case study of the writers was fairly sobering, however, as they only had power as AI wasn't good enough to replace them at the time of bargaining, which could be much likelier in three years time.
O'Connor seemed to run out of steam when it came to finding out about AI, with general office roles and classic white collar jobs (pre-covid city centres did not make their money at lunchtimes from translators and coders) generally excluded, and the last chapter about care more to do with the human touch vs amoral capitalism than modern advances in computing.
The book was interesting and well-written, but it didn't offer much more than a snapshot into AI and its effect on employment. O'Connor set out to find what AI was changing, and instead had a few case studies about the modern workplace and relative safety. Only sometimes did that cover AI more than tangentially, perhaps it wass just too speculative when it was written.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
I read this book mainly because, for some time now, I’ve been thinking a lot about how AI is going to impact the world we live in. People who stand to gain from the widespread adoption of AI can’t help but tell us that this is just like any other technological progress that has happened over the past centuries, but this time feels different, at least to me. Not to mention that even if the world eventually stabilizes, there will likely be a period of deep unrest. Very selfishly, I do not want that period of unrest to coincide with the years when I am working and earning for myself.
This book couldn’t have come at a better time. It gave me a much deeper appreciation for how humans are thinking about AI. We might argue all day that AI’s job is to take over the boring parts of work or tasks that are unsafe for human beings. But eventually, AI adoption is not going to be driven by people who care about humans; it will be driven by people who care about profits, as has always been the case.
This book was a timely reminder of how AI is already impacting diverse industries such as education, palliative care, mining, and, of course, translation and how human beings are still being human beings, showing resilience and perseverance in the way they continue to live their lives.
I think this will be the ultimate test of how we want human beings to live, because AI is not just eroding work itself; it is also eroding the sense of pride and identity that many of us associate with our work. Whether that is good or bad is a debate for another time. It is also eroding the money we earn from working, money that enables us to do whatever we want in this world, so it feels like a double whammy.
This book will make you think deeply about these questions and whether we might want to take things into our own hands.
I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley but it doesn't impact my opinion in any way.
This book couldn’t have come at a better time. It gave me a much deeper appreciation for how humans are thinking about AI. We might argue all day that AI’s job is to take over the boring parts of work or tasks that are unsafe for human beings. But eventually, AI adoption is not going to be driven by people who care about humans; it will be driven by people who care about profits, as has always been the case.
This book was a timely reminder of how AI is already impacting diverse industries such as education, palliative care, mining, and, of course, translation and how human beings are still being human beings, showing resilience and perseverance in the way they continue to live their lives.
I think this will be the ultimate test of how we want human beings to live, because AI is not just eroding work itself; it is also eroding the sense of pride and identity that many of us associate with our work. Whether that is good or bad is a debate for another time. It is also eroding the money we earn from working, money that enables us to do whatever we want in this world, so it feels like a double whammy.
This book will make you think deeply about these questions and whether we might want to take things into our own hands.
I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley but it doesn't impact my opinion in any way.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Sarah gets her shoes dirty researching and interviewing human workers about exploitation of labor due to automation. Sarah has also done a good job balancing every perspectives on the usage of LLM on the tech industry.
The beginning of the last chapter feels a little bit strange and left me with an unpleasant feeling. It contains some weirdly contradicting sentiments about generative AI usage and its 'benefits' compared to all of the things about AI that has been told in the book. It's almost like this last section is dedicated for those companies that she has been investigating rather than the readers that are on the other side of the work.
It's obvious that these so called visionaries are not acting in the interest of humanity but only to themselves. To gain, hoard, and concentrate wealth and power. "Effective altruism" as they call it. Now they're attempting to capitalize on the concept of intelligence and doing absolutely anything to get to that point. "Do not think. Let us do the thinking for you." Don't let them get away with it!
The beginning of the last chapter feels a little bit strange and left me with an unpleasant feeling. It contains some weirdly contradicting sentiments about generative AI usage and its 'benefits' compared to all of the things about AI that has been told in the book. It's almost like this last section is dedicated for those companies that she has been investigating rather than the readers that are on the other side of the work.
It's obvious that these so called visionaries are not acting in the interest of humanity but only to themselves. To gain, hoard, and concentrate wealth and power. "Effective altruism" as they call it. Now they're attempting to capitalize on the concept of intelligence and doing absolutely anything to get to that point. "Do not think. Let us do the thinking for you." Don't let them get away with it!
Review of advance copy
My dad saw the author give a talk at a conference and immediately knew the book would be up my alley. After just finishing university and a dissertation on how candidate AI use is changing the recruitment industry, this felt like the perfect book to read to tie up 4 years of university and it delivered!
I really enjoyed the authors anecdotal writing style, and its focus on the actual human experience. Most books on AI seem to firmly take one polarising stance, so I loved the nuance this book brought to the discussion, making concessions to either side and giving an actually realistic picture of how AI is affecting us. This is one of the first books on AI I’ve seen that actually speaks to the people most affected, instead of focusing solely on Silicon Valleys opinion.
I demolished this book in a day and found myself physically nodding along with the author at some points- 5 star read for me!
I really enjoyed the authors anecdotal writing style, and its focus on the actual human experience. Most books on AI seem to firmly take one polarising stance, so I loved the nuance this book brought to the discussion, making concessions to either side and giving an actually realistic picture of how AI is affecting us. This is one of the first books on AI I’ve seen that actually speaks to the people most affected, instead of focusing solely on Silicon Valleys opinion.
I demolished this book in a day and found myself physically nodding along with the author at some points- 5 star read for me!
July 20, 2026
I found this book strangely beautiful. Sarah O’Connor’s thoughtful interviews with workers tell us something urgent and necessary about what work means to us, and how we are losing something very precious through automation. I also really enjoyed the exploration of the Scandinavian sectoral bargaining approach which was news to me. A must read if you are interested in the future of work, how we can take back power from big corporations, and how we risk becoming robots in many areas of our lives. Something that stayed with me is the idea of setting almost ‘machine-like expectations’ for ourselves! This is no way to live or to work.
July 7, 2026
A wonderful book.
The book grew stronger as it progressed. It is about leadership and deciding when and how people control technology instead of the other way around.
I loved the case study on Dutch social care and how it has become more human and respected. It made me rethink the division of labour and reconsider hierarchy and costly administration.
This book is also a good counterpoint to Ethan Moellick’s Co-Intelligence and Sal Khan’s Brave New Words.
The book grew stronger as it progressed. It is about leadership and deciding when and how people control technology instead of the other way around.
I loved the case study on Dutch social care and how it has become more human and respected. It made me rethink the division of labour and reconsider hierarchy and costly administration.
This book is also a good counterpoint to Ethan Moellick’s Co-Intelligence and Sal Khan’s Brave New Words.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
This topic feels especially relevant as technology and automation continue to reshape workplaces. I believe efficiency matters, but employees still need fair conditions, respect, and a genuine voice in decisions that affect them, and I found playjonny useful for exploring more perspectives on the future of work. Progress should improve people’s lives rather than reduce them to numbers.
Review of advance copy
Interesting human anecdotes that give insight into the varied effects AI is having on different workplaces. Some conclusions are drawn, in particular how AI tends to be positive for those who control its use (eg coders, those with strong unions) but very negative for those who have it imposed on them. I feel that the author could have taken the arguments further, for example, examining safeguards we could seek to implement as a society.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
This is an important and timely book that steers through the hype and despair by talking to real people whose work has been impacted, positively or negatively, by AI. "The future of work can be more worthy of the human mind, more careful of the human body, more satisfying to the human soul. But not without a fight."
June 29, 2026
A very human look into individuals being affected by AI as well as just systems of work, occupations, industries etc. I liked 'meeting' all the people that I'd never have come across otherwise.
A touch on the sad, dystopian side of possible narratives but it's so well written and concludes with such interesting thoughts that, it's worth the melancholy.
A touch on the sad, dystopian side of possible narratives but it's so well written and concludes with such interesting thoughts that, it's worth the melancholy.
June 1, 2026
What I thought was going to be a read purely about the damages and issues AI is causing in the job market (or the world more broadly) turned out to be an insightful analysis on the place of machines in the modern age. Not my usual genre but a worthwhile and intriguing read nevertheless.
July 27, 2026
Well I didn't expect this to be quite so stirring. My expectation was that it would be an enlightening read on a fairly dry topic and the reality was I closed it at the end, muttered "holy shit", out loud, to myself and then stared at the wall for five solid minutes.
Review of advance copy
Excellent
August 11, 2026
A non-fiction book that reads as easily as a novel, this made me cry and it made me think. Highly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews