Company after company is swallowing the hype, only to be forced into embarrassing walkbacks by anti-AI backlash Earlier this month, a popular lifestyle magazine introduced a new “fashion and lifestyle editor” to its huge social media following. “Reem”, who on first glance looked like a twentysomething woman who understood both fashion and lifestyle, was proudly announced as an “AI enhanced team member”. That is, a fake person, generated by artificial intelligence. Reem would be making product recommendations to SheerLuxe’s followers – or, to put it another way, doing what SheerLuxe would otherwise pay a person to do. The reaction was entirely predictable: outrage, followed by a hastily issued apology. One suspects Reem may not become a staple of its editorial team. This is just the latest in a long line of walkbacks of “exciting AI projects” that have been met with fury by the people they’re meant to excite. The Prince Charles Cinema in Soho, London, cancelled a screening of an AI-written film in June, because its regulars vehemently objected. Lego was pressured to take down a series of AI-generated images it published on its website. Doctor Who started experimenting with generative AI, but quickly stopped after a wave of complaints. A company swallows the AI hype, thinks jumping on board will paint it as innovative, and entirely fails to understand the growing anti-AI sentiment taking hold among many of its customers. Continue reading...

Research commissioned by Google estimates 31% of jobs would be insulated from AI and 61% radically transformed by it Almost two-thirds of British jobs could be “enhanced” with AI, Google has claimed, with only a tiny proportion at risk of being “phased out” entirely. Instead of worrying about job losses caused by AI, the focus needed to be on making sure the millions of Britons who could work in smarter and faster ways with AI tech got the support to use it, the company said. Continue reading...

Tony Blair’s powerful thinktank asked ChatGPT how AI might affect public sector jobs. Critics say the results were … wonky • Don’t get TechScape delivered to your inbox? Sign up for the full article here What will AI do to employment? It is, after “will it kill us all?”, the most important question about the technology, and it’s remarkably hard to pin down – even as the frontier moves from science fiction to reality. At one end of the spectrum is the slightly Pollyannaish claim that new technology simply creates new jobs; at the other, fears of businesses replacing entire workforces with AI tools. Sometimes, the dispute is less about end state and more about speed of the transition: an upheaval completed in a few years is destructive for those caught in the middle of it, in a way that one which takes two decades may be survivable. More than 40 per cent of tasks performed by public-sector workers could be partly automated by a combination of AI-based software, for example machine-learning models and large-language models, and AI-enabled hardware, ranging from AI-enabled sensors to advanced robotics. The government will need to invest in AI technology, upgrade its data systems, train its workforce to use the new tools and cover any redundancy costs associated with early exits from the workforce. Under an ambitious rollout scheme, we estimate these costs equate to £4bn per year on average over this parliamentary term. Continue reading...

The concept of a guaranteed income is gaining traction as a solution to the impact of AI and way to encourage more rewarding and socially valuable work When Elinor O’Donovan found out she had been randomly selected to participate in a basic income pilot scheme, she couldn’t believe her luck. In return for a guaranteed salary of just over €1,400 (£1,200) a month from the Irish government, all the 27-year-old artist had to do was fill out a bi-annual questionnaire about her wellbeing and how she spends her time. “It was like winning the lottery. I was in such disbelief,” she says. The income, which she will receive until September 2025, has enabled her to give up temping and focus instead on her art. “It covers my living expenses, my rent, food and day-to-day stuff.” Continue reading...

The Fairwork trio talk about their new book on the ‘extraction machine’, exposing the repetitive labour, often in terrible conditions, that big tech is using to create artificial intelligence * Meet Mercy and Anita – the African workers driving the AI revolution, for just over a dollar an hour James Muldoon is a reader in management at the University of Essex, Mark Graham a professor at the Oxford Internet Institute and Callum Cant a senior lecturer at the University of Essex business school. They work together at Fairwork, a project that appraises the working conditions in digital workplaces, and they are co-authors of Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI. Why did you write the book? James Muldoon: The idea for the book emerged out of field work we did in Kenya and Uganda on the data annotation industry. We spoke to a number of data annotators, and the working conditions were just horrendous. And we thought this is a story that everyone needs to hear. People working for less than $2 an hour on insecure contracts, work that is predominantly outsourced to the global south because of how difficult and dangerous it can be. Continue reading...

We’re in the untenable position of regarding the AI as alien because we’re already in the position of alienating each other The idea that superintelligent robots are alien invaders coming to “steal our jobs” reveals profound shortcomings in the way we think about work, value, and intelligence itself. Labor is not a zero-sum game, and robots aren’t an “other” that competes with us. Like any technology, they’re part of us, growing out of civilization the same way hair and nails grow out of a living body. They’re part of humanity – and we’re partly machine. When we “other” a fruit-picking robot – thinking of it as a competitor in a zero-sum game – we take our eyes off the real problem: the human who used to pick the fruit is considered disposable by the farm’s owners and by society when no longer fit for that job. This implies that the human laborer was already being treated like a non-person – that is, like a machine. We’re in the untenable position of regarding the machine as alien because we are already in the untenable position of alienating each other. Continue reading...