The check that broke the illusion
In 2023, a research team at EPFL in Lausanne ran a quiet experiment on crowd workers it had hired through Amazon Mechanical Turk to summarise text. Using keystroke logging and a classifier trained to spot machine-written prose, the team, led by Veselovsky, estimated that between 33 and 46 percent of the workers had used a large language model to produce their 'human' answers.
The finding was not a scandal about lazy workers. It was a warning about provenance. The marketplace sold human judgment by the task, and a third to a half of that judgment was already a machine wearing someone else's login. Anyone buying labelled data, moderation calls, or survey responses at commodity price was buying a mixture they could not see.
What Amazon actually did
On 30 July 2026, AWS stops accepting new customers for Mechanical Turk. Existing customers can keep using it, but the service now sits in maintenance: AWS says it will invest in security and availability yet will not add new features. In cloud terms, that is the road to retirement, not a pause.
Mechanical Turk launched in 2005 and was named after an 18th-century chess machine that hid a person inside a fake automaton. The name was the joke and the model: software that looked automatic but ran on people. Two decades on, the people were quietly running on software, and the economics that made the platform useful stopped adding up.
Why this lands on your desk
The story is not one service closing. It is every step in your stack that assumes a human checked something. Moderation queues, data labelling for a model you fine-tune, benchmark scoring, 'human review' compliance gates, survey panels behind a market-research dashboard: many of these route through cheap human-task marketplaces, and the 2023 result says the human layer was porous years ago.
For a European operator this is not only an efficiency question. The AI Act expects data governance and traceability for higher-risk systems, and 'a person reviewed the training set' is exactly the kind of claim an auditor will ask you to prove. If you cannot show who produced a label, you cannot show the label is clean.
The decision, not the nostalgia
The instruction is concrete and dated. Before 30 July, list every workflow that reaches a crowd-work marketplace, mark which ones feed a model, a compliance record, or a customer-facing decision, and decide for each whether to move it, verify it, or replace it. Treat 'we outsource that to humans' as a claim to test, not a control that works.
The base rate is the lesson. When you buy verification by the piece, the cheapest supplier will meet the letter of the task with whatever tool is fastest, and today that tool is a language model. Pay for proof of provenance, not just for an answer, and the shutdown of one marketplace stops being your problem.
Read next: Four US Clouds Now Report to a UK Regulator | On 24 July, deepseek-chat Stops Answering



