2026-09-18 11:21 UTC
We also need labor-law frameworks for AI adoption.
Employees should know where AI is used to evaluate, monitor, direct, or replace parts of their work. They need consultation, training, ways to contest consequential decisions, and protection against surveillance and unreasonable work intensification.
Mandatory use should face the same scrutiny as other material changes to working conditions. The efficiency fairy rarely leaves a spare afternoon under the pillow. More often, employees inherit verification work, liability pressure, and higher quotas.
Structural change at work must be negotiated with the people whose work is being changed.
26/34
Replies (1)
-
@masek@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 11:22
The law must also establish clear liability. AI must not become a machine for laundering responsibility. An organization remains accountable for choosing, configuring, and deploying a system and for acting on its output. Providers remain accountable for their own defects, misrepresentations, and legal obligations. The precise allocation depends on context, but it cannot be passed indefinitely between model, vendor, deployer, and user. When AI affects healthcare, employment, credit, justice, or public administration, people need an identifiable decision-maker, an appeal route, and a party capable of providing a remedy. 27/34