Skip to content

[What if] AI doesn't replace us, but commodizes us

Published: 2026-05-01

I am having random thoughts on how the advances of AI affects our society. One of the most discussed fear is echoed through discussions are knowledge workers losing their jobs.

I am picturing a more concerned another dystopian world.

My assumptions are:

  1. There will be a period where AI + robotics is not sufficiently good to replace everything people do. And human+AI still can accomplish more than just AI or just human.

  2. There might be artificial barriers, like policies, that enforces a human in the loop. This would be done either because of legacy or by design, to make human irreplacable. Say, requiring a human to show up physically (to stand in a line, to vote, to sign off something). OR requiring a human to be held responsible of a decision (i.e. the meme of "your job is fine if you can go to jail for it"), regardless if that decision was made with aid of AI.

  3. Price of tokens will increase proportional to the values they are producing.

If the above assumptions pans out, then one key question is: in the optimal setup of human+AI, does "who is this human" matter at all? In other words, is human the "commodity" in the value-producing act of "working"?.

If we do become commodity, the the balance of power between workforce and capital will get out of control real quick. Like a sandwich shop in a prime NYC location that makes 100k a month, if it's high revenue is because of the location, then the landlord can charge a very high rent, say to 70k, or whatever the next guy is willing to pay to take the shop over.

I'd rather be in a world that nobody have jobs and nobody need to work, than one that we all get minimum-wage jobs, because anyone can do your job. Or one that AI providers can charge me half of my salary, and I am required to pay for my own AI use.