THE tiresome exploitation of the pandemic has raised new concerns around the accelerated adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) at the workplace.
A May 2021 survey reveals that United States companies are planning significant investments to deploy AI systems in their organisations, an initiative propelled by the pandemic.
Undeniably, the use of AI-enabled technologies has evidenced its altruism to advance humanity. But a word of caution. Any technology may become the antidote or poison — AI is no different. AI augments or replaces human decision-making by automating tasks that required human cognition and agency.
The AI's ability in predictive decision-making is facilitated by advanced computing power, enlarged storage capacity through cloud computing, and the collection and processing of large data sets — "big data" — to train the algorithm, or from which the algorithm remarkably learns.
Nations promoting AI innovation to take advantage of AI-driven technologies, particularly automation and augmentation of work processes, aspire to transform themselves towards economic competitiveness, and drive their workforce to possess the skills shaped and assisted by these technologies.
I am convinced that automation and augmentation of work processes will allow workers to do their jobs better. However, there exists a class of workers who may be displaced; unable to reskill themselves owing to the cost, lack of aptitude or opportunity, and most gravely, the employers' dereliction in strategising the reskilling of their workers.
There are profound implications on the employment relationship. Denise Rousseau's 1995 book speaks of a relational contract — a contract between an employer and employee that possess a strong mutuality element, imbued with socio-emotional and monetary values, resulting in a higher sense of purpose, mutual trust and confidence.
Does the acceleration of automation and adoption of AI systems at the workplace weaken the relational contract between employers and employees in terms of job engagement and trust?
Is the removal of workers' autonomy acceptable? Or are we simply to measure its utility through benefits reaped by employers?
Aside from automating and augmenting work processes, AI-systems are deployed in people management functions, such as AI-recruitment. Proponents who claim it is free from bias and more accurate in determining a person's suitability are ignoring the flaws. In 2018, Amazon's version showed discrimination against female applicants.
What if AI is to be used to make decisions on performance, promotions and even terminations?
In March, the aim of AI-enabled cameras installed in Amazon's vehicles to improve the drivers' safety and its delivery network was questioned.
What if the footage was used as a constant monitoring tool as well as a performance metric?
Working conditions in Amazon have been considered oppressive for many years, and the constant recording of drivers adds to this oppression, especially when the drivers' failure to accept the camera installation will result in their termination.
Dismissing the ethical, moral and legal questions, and their resulting ramifications is short-sighted. We need to engage with these questions. As we pause at the threshold of opportunity, or lapses, there is progress.
Amazon adopted a new test in its AI-recruitment for ensuring fairness. It was developed by Sandra Wachter and her colleagues at the Oxford Internet Institute. Elsewhere, workers' organisations are taking initiatives to manage AI adoption at the workplace.
The UK Trade Union Congress (TUC) published a report in March highlighting the implications of AI adoption on employment rights namely, the erosion of equality and discrimination; privacy and data protection; and, the impact of technology on workers' wellbeing.
The TUC's manifesto — Dignity at Work and the AI Revolution — serves as a template for a framework. It aims to ensure that adoption of technology at work benefits all parties, helping employers navigate the AI opportunity and promise without disregarding workers' interests.
It presents fundamental values to be respected, such as equality, work-home boundaries, transparency and explainability.
It proposes the recognition of the new "right to human review" when decisions are made by predictive AI systems ensuring, in machine learning parlance, the human-in-the-loop. Adopting the values of the manifesto as organisational and national policies driving the AI-enabled workplace, strengthens the relational contract, and assists the transition — striking a balance between dignity and development.
Volatile times do not occasion us being inattentive to values of empathy and humanity. Let us not suffer the folly of being impervious to countervailing evidence that dignity of work is worth preserving.
The writer is senior lecturer at the Department of Law, HELP University