We Are Not Machines by Sarah O’Connor review – can dignity at work survive the tech revolution?

2026-07-07 · Source: AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian · Field: Business & Management — Human Resources & Workforce Development, Operations & Process Management, Corporate Strategy & Leadership · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, short

Summary

Sarah O'Connor's book, "We Are Not Machines," reviewed by a Financial Times journalist, examines the future of labor amidst increasing AI and automation. The book explores how historical battles for decent working conditions are reconfigured by new technologies, drawing parallels to the 1969 Swedish miners' strike against monitoring. O'Connor visits Amazon's EMA4 warehouse in Sutton Coldfield, where robots and humans collaborate, and highlights remote workers in Costa Rica and India who audit AI camera systems by screening up to 8,000 videos weekly over nine-hour shifts. The core argument posits that the real challenge isn't technology itself, but the underlying "Taylorist" assumptions that view human labor as an optimizable component, prioritizing cost and speed over quality. Despite these trends, the book offers hopeful examples of worker agency, such as the Writers Guild of America strike and Dutch care workers establishing independent practices, asserting that the future of work remains shapeable.

Key takeaway

For HR Professionals navigating AI integration, recognize that technology's impact on work dignity stems from embedded assumptions, not just the tools themselves. You should critically evaluate new systems for "Taylorist" tendencies that might dehumanize roles or prioritize efficiency over worker well-being. Actively engage with employees to co-create policies and practices that preserve agency and craftsmanship, ensuring your organization avoids inadvertently remaking human roles in a machine's image.

Key insights

The future of work is shaped less by technology and more by underlying assumptions about human labor.

Principles

• Technological tools can embed powerful, often "Taylorist," ideas.
• Worker dignity and safety challenges often reconfigure old battles.
• Cost and speed often outweigh human quality in automation decisions.

In practice

• Workers can strike to set terms for AI use.
• Independent practices can counter rigid, time-constrained systems.
• Audit AI systems with human oversight.

Topics

• Future of Work
• AI and Automation
• Worker Dignity
• Labor Relations
• Taylorism
• Workplace Monitoring

Best for: HR Professional, Policy Maker, Consultant

Related on AIssential

• Labour will make AI ‘work for the workers’, says Liz Kendall — Governments can actively shape AI adoption to benefit workers and address societal impacts, rather than passively accepting technological change.
• Will AI Agents Free Us From Meaningless Work? A Human-Centered Analysis — Tasks workers perceive as "bullshit" are ideal for AI delegation, aligning human preference with automation feasibility.
• The "AI will automate all white collar work" crowd has a serious blind spot — Claims of imminent, mass white-collar AI automation ignore economic realities, social consequences, and the actual business models of AI companies.
• Elon Musk and co may relish march of the robots but there must be AI boundaries in the workplace | Heather Stewart — Uncritical AI adoption risks dehumanizing work and concentrating power; human agency must define technology's role.
• The Future of Work Is Predictable, If You Know Where to Look — Distinguishing predictable "Hard Trends" from influenceable "Soft Trends" is key to navigating the future of work.
• Ideas: Steering AI toward the work future we want — AI's impact on work is a complex sociotechnical shift requiring intentional design and a collaborative mindset.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian.