Key Takeaways
- Public sentiment toward AI has turned sharply negative, exemplified by Eric Schmidt being booed at a university commencement.
- The narrative around AI has shifted from apocalyptic super‑intelligence fears to everyday concerns about job loss, privacy, and environmental impact.
- Cory Doctorow’s latest book frames AI’s problems as rooted in a profit‑driven “enshittification” model rather than the technology itself.
- The “reverse centaur” metaphor illustrates how AI is being used to diminish worker autonomy while cutting costs.
- Investor hype and the promise of future growth sustain inflated AI valuations, creating a bubble reminiscent of the Metaverse hype.
- Doctorow argues that outrage over AI‑generated art is sometimes deliberately amplified to convince investors that labor replacement is imminent.
- Empirical data show low consumer appetite for AI‑enabled products and a high failure rate for generative AI pilots, with many firms re‑hiring displaced workers.
- If the AI bubble bursts, the economic fallout could rival the shocks of 2008 and 2020, underscoring the need to challenge the underlying capital‑driven incentives rather than the machines themselves.
The Growing Public Backlash Against AI
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s attempt to rally enthusiasm for the “AI revolution” at a University of Arizona commencement was met with loud boos from students poised to enter an “AI‑ravaged job market.” His discombobulation, the article notes, was telling: even high‑profile boosters are now facing a palpable backlash. Polls cited in the piece reveal that a majority of US voters oppose the construction of massive, resource‑guzzling data centres and believe AI will harm jobs, creativity, and human relationships. As a New York Times column put it, “AI populism is here. And no one is ready.” The sentiment is not isolated; each week brings fresh stories of writers, publishers, and academics damaging their reputations by relying on unreliable chatbots, further eroding trust in the technology.
From Superintelligent Doom to Everyday Annoyances
A decade ago, the most widely discussed downside of AI was the apocalyptic glamour of a super‑intelligent system that could annihilate humanity. Since OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT in November 2022, however, the public image of AI has “fallen to earth.” It is now viewed as a job crusher, a fact mangler, a “slop maker,” a privacy invader, a climate trasher, and a general pain in the neck. The article stresses that never before has a new technology been “rammed down our throats with such speed, determination and complete disregard for public opinion.” This rapid, top‑down deployment has fueled widespread resentment, positioning AI less as a futuristic marvel and more as an immediate inconvenience imposed by powerful tech firms.
Doctorow’s Critique and the Enshittification Framework
Cory Doctorow, whose prolific output includes fiction, nonfiction, and graphic novels, brings his signature blend of vivid analogy, righteous ire, and snarky aside to the debate. Having just published Enshittification—a polemic that coined a term to describe how Big Tech’s grow‑or‑die business model degrades online platforms—Doctorow now applies that lens to AI. He argues that the “tawdry contempt for its customers” exhibited by Silicon Valley oligarchs is a core reason AI is so reviled. As a technology, AI possesses both pros and cons, but “as a rushed project of rapacious elites, it is transparently obscene.” Doctorow’s approach is not purist; he accepts that machines can assist humans, yet he condemns the way current business models invert that promise.
The Reverse Centaur Metaphor Explained
To illustrate his point, Doctorow deploys the concept of the “centaur” from automation theory: a centaur is a person aided by a machine (e.g., a driver using GPS or someone with a hearing aid). A reverse centaur, by contrast, is a person whose freedom is curtailed by the machine’s demands—think of an Amazon warehouse worker whose pace is dictated by algorithms. In the ideal centaur scenario for radiology, a human radiologist collaborates with an AI to produce more accurate diagnoses, albeit at higher cost. The reverse centaur version, however, demotes the human to a mere results‑checking drone, more prone to error, because it is cheaper for the hospital. Doctorow quotes science‑fiction wisdom: “The most important thing about the gadget isn’t what it does, it’s who it does it for and who it does it to.” The metaphor underscores that AI’s impact hinges on whose interests the technology serves.
AI as a Hype‑Driven Investment Bubble
Doctorow dismisses OpenAI, currently valued at $852 billion, as “a grossly overhyped and terrible firm,” highlighting the disconnect between market enthusiasm and tangible value. He traces the AI sector’s colossal valuation to the promise of replacing human labor, noting that Morgan Stanley predicts AI will add almost a trillion dollars annually to the S&P 500. Because tech bosses’ net worth is tied to stock price rather than profits, they have a personal incentive to keep investors excited, even if AI remains a money pit today. This reflects the doctrine of “inevitabilism”—the belief that revolutionary tech offers no choice but to hop on board. As Doctorow points out, Eric Schmidt’s advice to students—“[If] someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on”—epitomizes this mindset. Yet the technology’s trajectory is shaped by human choices, not destiny, and resistance (like the booing Schmidt received) is a rational response to imposed ultimatums.
The Political Economy of AI: Capital, Labor, and Outrage
Linking AI criticism to older labor struggles, Doctorow observes that anti‑AI sentiment often mirrors the Luddites’ opposition not to machines per se but to the capitalist relations that govern them. He invokes a 19th‑century socialist framework: bosses will deploy every trick to avoid paying higher wages unless workers unionize to fight back. The same dynamic drives “enshittification”: firms pursue growth at any cost, degrading user experience to squeeze profit. Moreover, Doctorow suggests the industry sometimes “juices outrage about things like AI‑generated art as a form of hype.” If fear and anger are high, the promise of replacing human labor appears more credible to investors, inflating the bubble further. Individuals using chatbots become unwitting salespeople for the narrative that machines will soon supplant them, while journalists covering absurdities like the AI‑generated “actor” Tilly Norwood amplify the hype cycle.
Evidence of AI’s Failure and Market Risks
Empirical indicators corroborate the skepticism. Two studies found that 90 % of consumers are less likely to use a product if it is advertised as AI‑enabled, and 95 % of generative AI pilot schemes are failing. Many companies have consequently been forced to hastily rehire employees they had previously replaced with inadequate chatbots. For Generation Z, an NBC poll shows AI’s favorability rating at a stark minus 44. Doctorow summarizes the situation succinctly: “The tech platforms are desperate to convince Wall Street that you love AI, which is very different from convincing you that you love AI.” The article warns that seven big tech firms alone account for one‑third of the US stock market’s value, so a burst of the AI bubble would likely trigger an economic shock comparable to the 2008 financial crisis or the 2020 pandemic‑induced downturn.
Potential Fallout and the Need for Critical Intervention
In closing, the piece frames AI not as an inevitable technological force but as a product of reckless, self‑serving deployment by the “worst people, for the worst reasons.” The core problem lies in the investment capital that fuels the hype; striking at that source, Doctorow argues, is essential for any effective AI critique. If the bubble deflates, the fallout could reverberate through the broader economy, affecting jobs, retirement savings, and public trust in innovation. The article concludes with a call to redirect anger from the machines themselves toward the profit‑driven incentives that shape their use, urging readers to consider The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI (Verso, £16.99) as a roadmap for thinking critically about AI before it’s too late. The Guardian’s bookshop link is provided for those wishing to support the outlet while obtaining a copy.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jun/22/the-reverse-centaurs-guide-to-life-after-ai-by-cory-doctorow-review-the-real-price-of-artificial-intelligence