反向半人马是AI悖论的答案。
Reverse centaurs are the answer to the AI paradox (2025)

原始链接: https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/11/vulgar-thatcherism/#there-is-an-alternative

在科利·多克托罗(Cory Doctorow)最新的《轨迹》(*Locus*)专栏中,他探讨了人工智能悖论:为什么一些用户觉得人工智能赋予了他们力量,而另一些用户却将其视为“地狱般的折磨”。他将这种差异归因于“半人马”(centaurs)与“反向半人马”(reverse centaurs)的概念。 “半人马”将人工智能作为提高自身生产力的工具,并保持对何时及如何使用它的掌控权。相反,“反向半人马”则是被管理层强迫充当人工智能“问责替罪羊”的员工。这些员工背负着难以完成的工作量,被迫通过使用人工智能来勉强应付,并需为系统产生的不可避免的错误负责——实际上变成了无情机器的附庸。 多克托罗认为,当前的人工智能热潮是由“取代劳动力”这一愿景驱动的投机泡沫。虽然泡沫最终破裂会造成严重的社会和经济破坏,但他相信它会留下“生产性残留物”——即那些作为真正的工具而非企业陷阱而存在的开源独立模型。最终,他呼吁开展更犀利的人工智能批判,以揭露这些剥削行为,并防止目前正嵌入我们社会基础设施中的“数字石棉”造成长期危害。

```Hacker News新帖 | 往期 | 评论 | 提问 | 展示 | 招聘 | 投稿登录“逆人马”是 AI 悖论的答案 (pluralistic.net)19 点 由 jason_s 1 小时前发布 | 隐藏 | 往期 | 收藏 | 3 条评论 帮助 delichon 27 分钟前 | 下一条 [–] > “逆人马”是指将人类作为其助手的机器。 就像政治、军事或宗教机器所做的那样。我们生来就是为了适应这个。我们就像康拉德·洛伦茨(Konrad Lorenz)笔下的鹅,渴望被引领。这是阻力最小的路径。回复 hattmall 23 分钟前 | 上一条 | 下一条 [–] 绝妙的比喻,观点也很棒。我希望能看到泡沫“缓慢破裂”,但还要拭目以待!非常好,能读到一篇非 AI 生成的文章真是太轻松了。回复 jason_s 33 分钟前 | 上一条 [–] 糟糕,我本来想链接到 https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-11...,那个版本的字体读起来更舒服。回复 指南 | 常见问题 | 列表 | API | 安全 | 法律 | 申请 YC | 联系 搜索: ```
相关文章

原文




A business-suited figure seen from behind, climbing a tall, existential white stone staircase that rises to infinity. His head has been replaced with a horse's head. The background has been replaced with a shadowy panel of knobs and buttons.

My latest Locus column is "Reverse Centaurs," and it sets out to unravel a paradox: how is it that some AI's users describe their experience as a hellish ordeal, while others delight in the ways that AI is changing their lives for the better?

https://locusmag.com/2025/09/commentary-cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs/

The answer is contained in the concept of "centaurs" and "reverse centaurs," found in automation theory:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/27/rancid-vibe-coding/#class-war

A "centaur" is a human being who is assisted by a machine (a human head on a strong and tireless body). A reverse centaur is a machine that uses a human being as its assistant (a frail and vulnerable person being puppeteered by an uncaring, relentless machine).

Let me give you an example: remember at the start of the summer, when Hearst published a summer reading guide that was full of nonexistent books that had been "hallucinated" by a chatbot?

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-5405022/fake-summer-reading-list-ai

404 Media's Jason Koebler got in touch with the guy whose byline appeared on the list, and he was hugely embarrassed and contrite:

https://www.404media.co/chicago-sun-times-prints-ai-generated-summer-reading-list-with-books-that-dont-exist/

But in a followup story, Koebler noticed something that the first round of dunks and memes about this poor guy had missed: this same writer had his name on many of these "best of the summer" lists in this supplement. He was practically the sole author of an entire 64-page insert:

https://www.404media.co/viral-ai-generated-summer-guide-printed-by-chicago-sun-times-was-made-by-magazine-giant-hearst/

And that's where it gets interesting. Koebler got his start in journalism as an intern at the Washington Monthly, where he worked on lists like these:

https://www.404media.co/podcast-ai-slop-summer/

When Koebler was doing this work, he'd be part of a team of three interns, overseen by an experienced journalist, backstopped by an extensive fact-checking department. Those little lists take a surprising amount of work, if you really care about their quality.

The freelance writer who authored this giant summer reading guide with all its lists had been tasked with doing the work of literally dozens of writers, editors and fact-checkers. We don't know whether his boss told him he had to use AI, but there's no way one writer could do all that work without AI.

In other words, that writer's job wasn't to write the article. His job was to be the "human in the loop" for an AI that wrote the articles, but on a schedule and with a workload that precluded his being able to do a good job. It's more true to say that his job was to be the AI's "accountability sink" (in the memorable phrasing of Dan Davies): he was being paid to take the blame for the AI's mistakes.

He was, in other words, a reverse centaur.

Now, I am a freelance writer as well, and not so long ago, I wanted to quote something smart I'd heard on a podcast in an article, but I couldn't remember where I heard it. So I downloaded Whisper, an open source AI transcription model from Openai, to my laptop. I threw the last 30 hours' worth of audio that I'd listened to at it, and worked away on other stuff for an hour or two. When I checked again, I had a folder full of pretty reliable transcripts. I searched the text, found the quote, and opened the audio to the supplied timecode to double-check it. I was a centaur. I got to decide how to use the AI, and I only had to use it in ways that made my work better and more satisfying.

This, I think, is the explanation for the paradox of AI: the AI users who are being immiserated and precaratized by bosses who have been convinced to fire their colleagues and pile their work on the terrorized survivors of the layoffs hate the AI, because it makes their life worse in every way.

Whereas the people who choose when and how to use AI – the centaurs – are only using AI to the extent that it is useful, and throwing it away when it's not. They may make poor choices about the AI, but those choices are theirs, they are not imposed from on high. A bicyclist who chooses to commute on two wheels can have a glorious ride, or they can ride like a maniac and end up eating dirt, but they are having a fundamentally different experience from, say, a gig delivery platform rider who has been given an impossible quota and is having their pay eroded by algorithmic wage discrimination:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/29/geometry-hates-uber/#toronto-the-gullible

I was very happy to put this analysis in the pages of Locus, the trade magazine for the science fiction field. The job of a science fiction writer is only incidentally to describe what a technology does – at its best, science fiction interrogates who the technology does it to and who the technology does it for.

This is a political act of resistance. Margaret Thatcher's motto, after all, was "There is no alternative," by which she meant, "Stop trying to think of alternatives." The bully's trick is to present your defeat as a fait accompli: "Resistance is futile."

Tech bosses practice a form of vulgar Thatcherism all the time: Mark Zuckerberg wants you to think there's no way to talk with your friends without letting him listen in; Sundar Pichai wants you to think there's no way to search the web without being spied on; Tim Cook wants you to think there's no way to have a safe and reliable computing experience without giving him a veto over which software you install; Satya Nadella wants you to think there's no way for you to edit a Word file without letting your boss compare your keystrokes-per-minute to your co-workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/24/gwb-rumsfeld-monsters/#bossware

And AI bosses want you to think that the only way to use these tools is to displace and immiserate labor, because that's the promise they raise investment capital on:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/05/ex-princes-of-labor/#hyper-criti-hype

AI is a bubble. If it wasn't a bubble – if it was just a bunch of computer scientists and product teams tinkering with possible uses for advancements in back-propagation, generative adversarial networks and machine learning – there wouldn't be any controversy here. A programmer who uses a chatbot to autogen a bunch of cross-browser CSS stylesheets that mostly work, after some tinkering, would maybe mention that fact over beers – but they wouldn't get sucked into a cult obsessed with outlandish scenarios in which the chatbot wakes up and turns us all into paperclips:

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636

AI is a bubble. Bubbles burst. We're in for a near-total collapse of the AI investment mania. Most of these companies will fail. Many planned data-centers will never be opened. Many existing data-centers will be shuttered. When that happens, what will be left?

AI is a bubble, and when bubbles burst, they sometimes leave behind a productive residue. At home, I enjoy 2GB symmetrical fiber optic internet, because AT&T was able to light up some of the dark fiber that Worldcom fraudulently raised billions for. Worldcom's CEO died in prison after scamming the finances of ordinary people, and the world would be a better place if that had never happened, but there was some productive residue left behind, and many of us are reaping the benefit today:

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

Contrast that with the cryptocurrency bubble. When that bursts, we'll still have a smattering of programmers who've had a subsidized education in cryptography and secure programming in Rust, but mostly what crypto will leave behind is bad Austrian economics and worse monkey JPEGs. Like Enron, crypto will leave nothing much behind of any value.

All bubbles are bad, but some are more productive than others. When the AI bubble bursts, there will be stellar bargains on GPUs (it would be ironic if scientists snapped them up at pennies on the dollar and used them for climate modeling). We'll have a lot of technical people who are much better at applied statistics than they were a decade ago. And there will be the open source models, like Whisper, the tool I used to transcribe all those podcasts.

These open source models run on commodity hardware, and while the climate costs of creating those models is terrible, they're here now, and operating them isn't especially energy-intensive. When I used Whisper to transcribe 30 hours' worth of podcasts, my laptop's fan didn't even switch on.

What's more, open source hackers are doing amazing things with these tools – far more than the giant corporations that released them ever anticipated. These "toy" models were released as a way to entice programmers into specializing in cloud systems operated by the big tech companies, but it turns out that these standalone models can do amazing things, and aren't just a demo for a big, doomed foundation model:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/18/openwashing/#you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

It doesn't matter what happens to Openai; Whisper is here to stay. It's already being rolled into other standard tools – the latest version of ffmpeg integrates Whisper and can autogen captions:

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/28/ffmpeg_8_huffman/

The things these open source standalone models can do will only expand, and they will become a given for our computing applications. Your computer or phone will be able to transcribe audio and do cool image-editing stuff like erasing strangers from the background of a photo as a standard feature.

That's the good news. The bad news is all the damage the bubble is doing now and all the further damage that will come from its collapse. Today, we're getting the climate impact, obviously, and the immiseration of all those workers who are being reverse-centaured by an AI that can't do their job, but whose manufacturer's salesforce convinced their boss to fire them and replace them with an AI anyway.

After the bubble bursts, there will be the mass incineration of everyday people's retirement savings and the knock-on effects as the whole market craters. And long after that, there will be the terrible impact on our society's ability to do things, as defunct foundation models grind to a halt, after the people they replaced are long gone and can't step in to pick up the work they fumble. We are busily filling the walls of society with digital asbestos and we'll be digging it out for generations to come.

Every day the bubble persists, the harms of today and tomorrow increase. We need to burst that bubble as soon as possible. That's how I came to spend the summer writing a book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux with the working title The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI, whose goal is to improve the quality of AI criticism so that it inflicts maximum damage on AI swindlers and their terrible investment bubble.

It'll be out in 2026, but for now, you can have a look at my Locus column:

https://locusmag.com/2025/09/commentary-cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs/

(Image: School Photos PCC, CC BY 2.0, modified)




A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

#20yrago Themepunks (AKA Makers) serialized for next ten weeks on Salon https://web.archive.org/web/20050914060107/http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/09/12/themepunks_1/index_np.html

#10yrsago Data is a liability, not an asset https://web.archive.org/web/20150911201818/https://richie.fi/blog/data-is-a-liability.html

#10yrsago Missing from the computer science curriculum https://prog21.dadgum.com/210.html

#5yrsago Alexa for landlords https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#landlord-alexa

#5yrsago Security Engineering, 3d edition https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#security-engineering-v3

#5yrsago America's pandemic spiral https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#doom-loops

#5yrsago EFF vs filternet https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#no-filternet

#5yrsago Qanon is basically the Protocols of the Elders of Zion https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#godwins-qanon

#5yrsago Life as a precriminal https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/11/protocols-of-qanon/#chris-nocco


A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.



Today's top sources:

Currently writing:


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com