Due to be published on 12 November 2026, “La grande dépossession” asks a less dramatic question than whether a machine can replace human beings: what do we lose when we entrust it with the actions through which we learn, judge and progress? Engineer Fateh Amroune and anthropologist Abdu Gnaba approach this question from two disciplines and two perspectives, in a book presented by its publisher as a discussion rather than a debate with a definitive outcome.
The subject resonates in Luxembourg, where both authors are based and whose economy includes many knowledge-based activities. But describing a population as “at risk” does not mean predicting a wave of unemployment: the exposure of certain tasks to AI tools and the disappearance of jobs are two different questions.
Two perspectives, without a contrived opposition
In remarks reported by RTL on 11 November, Fateh Amroune emphasises the scale of technological change and the possibility of collective action. He sees benefits in AI, but also risks of losing diversity and humanity. Abdu Gnaba shifts the question: rather than looking only at what a machine can do, he is interested in what people stop doing when they delegate a task to it.
The difference in focus matters. The engineer helps us consider the capabilities and development conditions of the tools; the anthropologist invites us to examine the habits and learning they change. It is not simply a matter of one optimistic author facing one concerned author. According to the publisher’s description, the two men often share the same diagnosis, but do not always draw the same conclusions. Readers are thus invited to follow a discussion rather than receive a shared doctrine.
The title, “La grande dépossession”, gives this reflection a strong direction. The subtitle, translated here from French as “What HyperTech does in our place, and what we lose by no longer doing it”, spells out the proposed shift in focus: the issue would not only be the result delivered by a machine, but also the human activity that disappears from the process. The word “HyperTech” belongs to the authors’ vocabulary, as presented in the publisher’s listing.
An automated task is not a job eliminated
To understand the question of employment, it is necessary to distinguish an occupation from the full range of tasks it involves. A tool can take on certain operations without making a person’s entire job redundant. It might, for example, contribute to writing, coding or analysis, while leaving a professional to make decisions about context, verification and responsibility. The content of a job can therefore change even if its title stays the same.
This distinction is reflected in the findings of a working paper published in 2025 by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Its index examines the potential exposure of tasks to generative AI, drawing on task data, expert contributions and estimates produced by models. The ILO estimates that one in four jobs worldwide is in an occupation with some degree of exposure. It notes that job transformation is the most likely effect, since most occupations still include tasks requiring human input.
This global figure measures potential exposure, not the proportion of jobs set to disappear. Nor does it provide a rate specific to Luxembourg. In remarks published by RTL, Amroune cites developers and financial activities among the profiles concerned in Luxembourg: his question concerns professionals whose tasks may, in part, be replicated by AI tools.
The invisible work of learning
L’Harmattan’s description connects schools, businesses and the economic forms associated with AI. These settings share a question: when a task contributes to developing a skill, what remains of that learning if its execution is delegated?
The example brings out the difference between producing a result and acquiring an ability. An answer may meet an immediate need without the person having practised generating ideas, choosing words or revising. In other contexts, assistance can, conversely, free up time for more complex tasks. The question then becomes concrete: what proportion of the work do we delegate, and what proportion remains necessary for understanding, checking or learning?
Gnaba emphasises effort, mistakes, wandering and boredom—moments that the search for a quick solution tends to eliminate. For the anthropologist, these moments contribute to a person’s development. His question invites us to look at an activity beyond its final result alone. The process can also develop judgement or a skill.
Room for choice at a collective level
In the remarks reported by RTL, the authors do not limit themselves to setting adoption against rejection of AI. Amroune calls for citizens, parents, entrepreneurs and political leaders to take action. Gnaba argues that choices remain in how to support the transformation and govern it through ethical principles. The disagreement is less about whether the tools exist than about the limits to uphold and the uses to organise.
This reflection connects with careers linked to Luxembourg. According to the publisher’s listing, Fateh Amroune led the launch of the Luxembourg AI Factory and teaches at HEC Liège Luxembourg. Abdu Gnaba is described as the founder of SocioLab and a lecturer at ESSEC. The book’s proposition lies in bringing their disciplines together: confronting the construction of tools with the uses and human relationships they transform.
“La grande dépossession” is announced by Éditions L’Harmattan in the “Questions contemporaines” collection, at an announced paperback price of 12 euros, and runs to 244 pages. Its announced publication date is 12 November 2026. This article draws on the publisher’s listing and the authors’ remarks published by RTL.
References
- RTL, interview with Fateh Amroune and Abdu Gnaba
- International Labour Organization, “Generative AI and Jobs: A Refined Global Index of Occupational Exposure”
- Éditions L’Harmattan, “La grande dépossession”
Reading alongside screens. Illustrative photo.
