Post #4748177 · Elektrine

2026-09-18 11:19 UTC

The application layer begins with a boundary: I reject AI as a compulsory ritual. An employee should not be forced to use AI irrespective of whether it helps the task. A patient should not lose access to a doctor because an AI system has become the only way to obtain an appointment. AI may be an option, an assistant, or even the best default in a defined setting. In essential services especially, there must still be an accessible human alternative, a path to appeal, and a person or institution that remains accountable. Nothing makes me doubt the usefulness of a tool like making it mandatory. Adoption figures produced by coercion tell us little. A technology meant to serve people must leave them meaningful agency. 19/34

Replies (1)

@masek@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 11:19

Efficiency gains immediately raise a distribution question: where do they go? A productivity gain does not arrive with a moral destination label. If an hour saved becomes better service, higher pay, more autonomy, safer work, or actual free time, AI can improve human work. If it becomes a higher quota, fewer colleagues, closer monitoring, and the same pay, efficiency becomes work intensification. Both are real possibilities. The OECD reports substantial worker-perceived benefits from AI, but also concerns about work intensity, data collection, and inequality. The ILO finds real but uneven productivity gains that have not automatically translated into higher measured output, earnings, or employment. Who captures the gain and who carries the new burden are not implementation details. Workers and the public must have a voice in that decision. 20/34

Open ##4748176