#Gate广场AI测评官 After OpenClaw Goes Viral, Revisiting the Question: Will AI Replace Humans?

Recently, OpenClaw has dominated the entire internet.
This AI tool, dubbed by netizens as the "universal digital assistant,"
sparked a buying frenzy upon its release—it runs 24/7 without interruption,
helping you send and receive emails, auto-reply to various messages,
and can even independently think and complete coherent tasks based on your needs.
It truly seems like a capable assistant,
organizing tedious affairs in perfect order.

Beneath the excitement, a deep anxiety has been quietly spreading: as AI gains the ability to think independently and efficiently complete intellectual work, could humanity be completely replaced?

In fact, this isn't an entirely new question. Looking back at every industrial revolution in human history,
whenever a new technological wave sweeps through, concerns about "machines replacing humans" arrive like clockwork. This is a timeless proposition,
carrying humanity's fear of the unknown,
and our confusion about our own value.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution Has Truly Arrived, Whether You Acknowledge It or Not

Regardless of your denial,
regardless of how you insist on handcrafted work,
or mock AI as merely "artificial stupidity," the Fourth Industrial Revolution has quietly arrived.
It came so seamlessly, so unexpectedly—when many young people still conceive of the "Industrial Revolution" through 19th-century images of workers' strikes, AI has already infiltrated every aspect of life,
quietly transforming our work and daily existence. The reason we deliberately deny this transformation and mock AI's occasional "stupid" behavior ultimately stems from dodging a deeply buried fear: AI might replace humans, or at least, replace the jobs we depend on for survival.

Each Wave of Technological Revolution, People Have Feared Being Replaced

From the roaring age of steam engines to today's wave of AI intelligence, humanity has experienced four disruptive industrial revolutions.

The First Industrial Revolution (circa 1760—1840): The "Machine-Breaking" Movement Under Steam Power
Steam engines, textile machinery, and railways completely shattered the production model of the handicraft era. This revolution brought humanity from an agricultural society into an industrial society,
cities began expanding rapidly. But panic followed. Textile workers were direct about it:
"Machines will steal our jobs." The fear ultimately spawned the famous Luddite Movement. Textile workers gathered in groups to destroy stocking frames and looms, attempting through this extreme method to
prevent machines from seizing their livelihoods.

The Second Industrial Revolution (late 19th century—early 20th century): "Tool-Human" Anxiety Beside the Assembly Line
The emergence of electricity and internal combustion engines, along with assembly lines breaking down production into simple, repetitive steps, greatly boosted production efficiency,
driving explosive development in manufacturing.

People's concerns shifted from "unemployment" to "dehumanization":
"Assembly lines will turn workers into machine parts. Engaged in repetitive, mechanical labor, humans seemed merely appendages to the assembly line,
losing autonomy, losing meaning."

The Third Industrial Revolution (circa 1970s—2000s): White-Collar Crisis Under Computer Impact
The proliferation of computers, the internet, and automated robots ushered in the information revolution era. This completely transformed office operations,
and challenged many traditional white-collar positions.

People widely worried: "Computers will replace office workers." And indeed it proved true! Positions like typists, bank tellers, and printing workers decreased sharply, forcing many to transform.

Yet this Fourth wave of technological transition is more troubling.

The core technologies focus on artificial intelligence, large language models, autonomous driving,
and AI Agents like OpenClaw. Previously, those "intellectual workers," "new white-collars" who made their living through brainpower, creative work, and high-precision jobs once comforted themselves:
"I rely on wisdom, on creativity, on the knowledge accumulated through years of study,
no matter how capable machines become,
they can't replace me; I studied and learned precisely to escape the fate of machine replacement."

Yet now, AI is ruthlessly shattering this illusion. OpenClaw can independently handle office tasks, AI can write, code, draft legal documents, provide medical assistance, and even complete tasks requiring logical thinking. This "thinking" capability has pushed people's anxiety to unprecedented heights. Could it be that what gets replaced this time isn't just a job, but "humanity" itself?

Yet Historical Experience Also Tells Us: New Technologies Also Bring New Life

Machines did replace some work done by traditional craftspeople, but factory expansion actually required more workers; assembly lines brought industrial explosions, sparking massive price drops on goods,
and accumulation of household wealth. The meaning of labor gradually shifted from "survival" to "the meaning of survival"; one could say most people only had the energy to contemplate life after the Second Industrial Revolution. Computers also didn't truly replace white-collar workers; they eliminated "repetitive office positions," while creating "creative office positions."

People Panic Because We Always Use Capital in a "Tool-Like" Way

After reviewing the first three industrial revolutions,
we'll discover a pattern that repeats:
each technological revolution
goes through three stages: "panic—adaptation—upgrade."
First stage, panic spreads:
people see the efficiency of machines/AI
and instinctively believe "it will replace me";
Second stage, gradual adaptation:
people begin learning to utilize new technology,
discovering it can liberate them from tedious labor;
Third stage, self-upgrade:
new technology creates new practical spaces,
people find new positioning,
achieving self-value enhancement.

So it's never been "machines are too powerful,"
but rather we habitually "tool-ify" ourselves. Therefore, when you ask again: "Can AI replace me?" why not ask: "Have I turned myself into a tool?"

Why Do We Always Treat Ourselves as "Tools"?

Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein proposed the concept of "part objects," which might better explain the roots of our anxiety about tool-ification. In early life, infants don't perceive their mothers as complete people, but only focus on certain parts of their mothers.

In the infant's world,
the mother is merely a "tool that provides food," this is "part object relations."

Only through growth does the infant gradually realize that the mother is a complete person with her own emotions and needs,
not merely a "functional entity." Often, when facing technology, we actually use this "infant language": we view ourselves as "code-writing tools," "data-processing tools," "task-completing tools," and view AI as "more efficient tools." Thus, when more efficient tools appear, we instinctively fear that advanced tools will always replace old tools, so shouldn't we "old tools" be eliminated?

Yet "Humans" Are Not Tools, But Creators of the World

In Marx's view, humanity's species-character lies in "free conscious activity," and human essence has never been about "completing tasks," but rather "creating new practical ways."

We can think while laboring, innovate through practice, and endow things with meaning—something no machine can replace. This is also like an infant's development into "becoming human"; when the infant realizes the mother is more than just a bottle, does he truly know "mother," does he begin to love her, does she truly become a mother! From this perspective, only when we can view ourselves completely and comprehensively can we discover what hands liberated by technology can truly create?

Yet many people are stuck here because they're habituated to being labeled, tool-ified, accustomed to programmed daily routines, having forgotten that such mechanized living was also created by ourselves!

So when discussing the crisis topic of "technology replacing humanity," why not shift perspective: every new technology's emergence isn't meant to replace humans, but to remind people: you could live with more creativity, more warmth, more meaning!