In the relentless march toward a frictionless future, technology often promises to simplify our lives — only to trip us up with unexpected complications. Take Waymo, Alphabet's autonomous taxi service, which has revolutionized urban mobility by deploying fully driverless vehicles in cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Francisco.
These robotaxis handle everything from picking up passengers to navigating traffic autonomously. But here's the hilarious hitch: Some riders forget (or neglect) to close the doors properly, leaving the vehicle stranded and unable to proceed. Waymo's cars, despite their sophisticated AI and sensors, lack the mechanical arms to shut doors themselves — adding such features would be costly and risky, potentially leading to lawsuits over pinched fingers or other mishaps. So, what's the high-tech solution? Hiring freelance humans to do it for them.
Waymo partners with the app Honk, essentially Uber for roadside assistance, to dispatch tow truck drivers and gig workers who earn $20 to $24 per door-closing job. This "easy money" gig has flooded online forums and job boards, with workers like Los Angeles-based tow operator Don Adkins responding to synthetic voice pleas from stranded Jaguars late at night.
One operator completes up to three such jobs weekly, sometimes freeing vehicles by removing seat belts caught in doors. Fact: Waymo's fleet has grown to handle millions of rides, but this human intervention highlights a classic "complexity trap" — where cutting-edge tech inadvertently spawns low-tech workarounds, inflating operational costs and creating bizarre new job markets.
This isn't isolated to self-driving cars. Electronic health records (EHRs), hailed as a boon for medical efficiency when mandated under the U.S. Affordable Care Act in 2010, have instead bogged down physicians with administrative drudgery. Studies show doctors now spend 30-50% of their time on EHR tasks like clicking through forms and checkboxes — often more than on patient care itself.
Older physicians, accustomed to swift handwriting, find typing slower and error-prone, leading to increased mistakes and burnout. The ironic fix? A surge in "medical scribes," non-clinical assistants who handle documentation in real-time. While scribes existed pre-digitization, EHR adoption exploded demand: The U.S. now employs over 100,000 scribes, many pre-med students or medical assistants earning $15-25 hourly.
Virtual scribes, often remote and AI-assisted, have cut physicians' EHR time by 16% on average, from 35 to 29.5 minutes per appointment, reducing "pajama time" (after-hours work) significantly. Far from eliminating jobs, tech here multiplied them — proving the old adage that automation doesn't kill employment; it just reshuffles it into unexpected niches.
Warehouse robotics offer another prime example of tech's trolling tendencies. Amazon, the king of e-commerce, has deployed over 1 million robots since acquiring Kiva Systems in 2012, transforming fulfillment centers into high-tech hives. Bots like Proteus (autonomous mobile robots) and Sparrow (robotic arms) handle repetitive tasks: moving shelves to workers, sorting packages, and even picking items with tactile sensors.
Yet, this automation hasn't slashed the workforce — in fact, Amazon's employee count ballooned from 100,000 in 2012 to over 1.5 million today, partly due to new roles like robotics maintenance technicians, floor monitors, and reliability engineers. The catch?
Robots introduce complexities: They require constant oversight for glitches, like jammed arms or navigation errors in dynamic environments. Human workers often intervene to "fix" bot mistakes, echoing the sentiment that sometimes it's easier to do it yourself. Amazon's DeepFleet AI coordinates the swarm, but it still relies on humans for edge cases, creating a hybrid system that's efficient but far from hands-off.
Finally, consider AI content moderation on social platforms — a field where algorithms were supposed to purge harmful content at scale, but often amplify the need for human intervention. TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook process billions of posts daily, using AI to flag hate speech, misinformation, and graphic material.
However, AI struggles with nuance, context, sarcasm, or evolving slang, frequently banning innocent creators while missing egregious violations. TikTok's AI has reduced graphic content exposure for human moderators by 76%, but the company still employs thousands of reviewers—many outsourced to low-wage countries like the Philippines — to correct AI errors.
YouTube and Facebook similarly rely on hybrid models: AI handles initial scans, but humans make final calls on ambiguous cases, with moderators suing over PTSD from viewing traumatic content. OpenAI touts GPT-4 for moderation, claiming it reduces human involvement, yet experts warn it mimics human biases from training data, necessitating ongoing oversight. The result? Tech giants hire "armies" of moderators, turning AI's promise of efficiency into a costly, error-prone reality.
In essence, these cases illustrate technology's mischievous side: It solves one problem while birthing several others, often demanding human bandaids for its shortcomings. As businesses rush to innovate in 2026, remember the complexity trap — plan for the "last mile" quirks, or risk turning your breakthrough into a bureaucratic boondoggle. Tech doesn't just innovate; it trolls us into adapting in ways we never anticipated.
Also read:
- AI's Disruptive Impact: How Tailwind CSS Became One of the First Major Victims in the AI Era
- Google's Gemini Era for Gmail: From Email Archive to Conversational Knowledge Base
- Nvidia's Hot Water Cooling Revolution: How the Rubin Platform is Disrupting Data Center Infrastructure
Thank you!
