Forget the AI job apocalypse. AI’s real threat is worker control and surveillance
The real danger that artificial intelligence poses to work is not just job loss – it is the growing divide between people who use AI to extend their skills and those whose working lives are increasingly shaped by opaque, AI-powered systems of surveillance and control,The debate about artificial intelligence and how it will affect workers is stuck in the wrong place,On one side are warnings that machines are coming for millions of jobs,On the other are claims that AI will turbocharge productivity,Both stories miss what is already happening in workplaces across the world, from Britain to Kenya to the United States.
For some, AI can help remove the drudgery from daily work.These are often people in better-paid, higher-autonomy roles: analysts, consultants, lawyers, academics, managers.In these jobs, provided AI is being rolled out to augment workers rather than replace them, it can feel like a copilot.It can support human judgment, speed up routine tasks and create space for more creative thinking.For many others, though, AI is not an assistant.
It is a boss.It appears in scheduling and monitoring tools, route optimisation software and automated performance dashboards – all systems that decide who gets what shift, how long a task should take and whether someone is performing at their maximum capacity.In these workplaces, AI is not something you use.It is something that watches and rules you.That is the new divide we should all be paying attention to.
A third of UK employers are already using “bossware” technology to monitor workers’ online activity.This already prevalent worker surveillance is a glimpse of what is yet to come.This is why the question of whether AI is “good” or “bad” is pointlessly crude.The truth is more nuanced.Employers are using AI to empower some workers while subjecting others to more intensive, inhumane forms of oversight.
It is creating new opportunities at the top of the labour market while tightening control lower down.And further down the line, the same methods of algorithmic management and surveillance that are being honed in warehouses, delivery vans and gig work platforms are likely to spread to corporate headquarters, hospitals and schools.We’re already seeing this at companies including Amazon, as its software engineers say they’re being surveilled and pressured to use AI to achieve more productivity, even when it counterintuitively slows them down.And Meta plans to track and capture its employees’ keystrokes, mouse movements and clicks to train its AI models.Some of the same workers benefiting from the rise of AI now are poised to eventually lose that advantage.
My own research over the past decade on worker-AI coexistence, which was cited in the 2024 White House economic report, suggests that the most pressing issue about AI’s impact on work is not immediate mass unemployment.It is the widening gap in skills, autonomy and wellbeing between those who get to work with AI and those who are finding themselves managed by it.Many jobs will remain in the future, but they will be more pressured, more fragmented and less human.That matters because work is not just about income.It is also about dignity, trust and control.
During the pandemic, many people became acutely aware of how deeply work affects mental wellbeing,AI-managed workplaces are only intensifying the pressures of work,When every click, step, call or pause a worker makes can be measured and graded by a system that they cannot fully see or challenge, the effect is stress,For people in warehousing, retail, hospitality, logistics, customer service or the gig economy, it can mean being pushed harder by systems that are presented as neutral, objective or efficient, even when they are anything but,This is not just a technical problem.
It is a social, political and moral one.Take Britain, which likes to present itself as being ambitious about AI.There are now major plans to expand AI skills across the workforce.All of that sounds positive.But beneath the rhetoric lies a more uncomfortable reality: many organisations are still poorly prepared to introduce AI fairly.
A recent global survey of business leaders found that although most say AI skills are now a source of competitive advantage, relatively few dedicated a meaningful budget amount to develop their employees’ AI skills,Even fewer have strong governance in place,Many managers still have little real responsibility for helping their teams adapt,That is how inequality hardens,If better-paid workers are trained to use AI while lower-paid workers are simply exposed to it through surveillance and automated management, then this will not be a story of shared progress.
It will be a story of deepening imbalance.Workers across the economy need access to meaningful training, not just in using digital tools but in building the wider skills that matter even more in an AI age: judgment, communication and critical thinking.We also need basic democratic principles in the workplace.Systems that affect pay and performance should be transparent and contestable.Most of all, workers need a voice in how these technologies are introduced.
AI should not be something used on people behind closed doors and then justified in the language of efficiency.It should be shaped by the people whose lives it will affect – and research has found that involving workers in the process improves their job quality and allows employers to integrate AI more effectively.The choice about how AI will reshape work is not being made in Silicon Valley boardrooms or summit speeches.It is being made right now, workplace by workplace, across Britain and around the world.And unless we pay attention, the new AI divide will become one more inequality that arrives quietly, embeds itself deeply and is only recognised once it is already everywhere.
Nazrul Islam is a chair professor of business and co-director of the Centre of FinTech at the University of East London’s Royal Docks School of Business and Law
‘Hold the line’: Burnham tells allies in parliament he still has options to return
Andy Burnham has told Labour MPs they should hold the line and that he has options to return to parliament after several seats identified by his allies failed to materialise.Two seats that backers of the Greater Manchester mayor had described as “nailed on” as recently as Monday night are now out of contention after the MPs concerned got cold feet.Burnham spoke to a number of MPs by phone on Tuesday and assured them that he still intended to seek an imminent return to parliament.The Guardian was told by two MPs on Wednesday that Jeff Smith, who represents Manchester Withington, an affluent suburb of the city, was in talks about stepping aside for Burnham, but his friends denied it. Asked whether he was about to make way, Smith told the Press Association he was not
‘It’s more incrementalism’: Starmer’s safe king’s speech fails to quell mutiny
For Keir Starmer’s Labour critics, his second king’s speech, in which the government set out what it would do in parliament over the next 12 to 18 months, was a crystallisation of everything that was wrong with the prime minister’s strategy.Over 34 bills and three draft ones, Starmer set out a programme he said would “make this country stronger and fairer”. But the package, which included limiting trial by jury, reshaping the NHS and moving the country closer to the EU, fell short of what some in the prime minister’s party feel is needed to win back voters’ trust.“Most of this is incrementalism,” said one Labour MP. “This sums up where we have gone wrong in the first two years in government
Starmer has ‘full confidence’ in Streeting despite health secretary’s allies saying he is planning to resign – as it happened
Downing Street has now confirmed that Wes Streeting is still health secretary. The PM’s spokesperson told reporters the prime minister has “full confidence” in the health secretary.Allies of Wes Streeting have said he is preparing to stand down as health secretary amid deep frustration with Keir Starmer’s leadership, and could mount a formal challenge for the leadership as early as Thursday.Keir Starmer has put long-promised changes to education, health and the courts at the heart of his agenda for the next year, as the embattled prime minister looks to prove he can enact the scale of change being demanded by Labour MPs and voters. There were 37 bills in the speech
Labour politicians should put the country before their party | Letters
As an active and loyal Labour member, I am infuriated by what is happening within the party (Burnham allies warn against quick ‘coronation’ of Streeting if Starmer quits, 12 May). The ongoing circus about the leadership is a terrible distraction from the numerous global and national issues that the government and the prime minister should be focused on. But the most infuriating aspect of the entire shambles is the relentless speculation and briefings from so-called “allies” of Andy Burham.No Labour member has an innate right to be selected as a parliamentary candidate. The assertion that a sitting Labour MP should give up the seat voters elected them to, necessitating a byelection so that Burnham can run, then assuming that he would automatically retain the seat, is arrogance beyond belief
Labour lost the vote of small business owners like me | Letter
Your report (Reform wins across northern England overturn decades of Labour control, 8 May) touched on Labour losing support among small business owners. I wanted to offer the perspective of a small independent business owner who has traditionally supported Labour.Labour’s poor local election results may reflect a growing frustration among small business owners who no longer feel recognised as “working people”. In hospitality, hair and beauty, retail and trades, there are thousands upon thousands of us keeping local economies alive while taking home increasingly modest incomes ourselves.Last year, our small independent restaurant in Margate turned over roughly £350,000
King’s speech might be the last word on Starmer as reluctant monarch does his duty | John Crace
The king looked fed up. His attempts to throw a sickie had come to nothing. Did the government really want to go ahead with the state opening? Apparently it did. Would it be OK if he phoned it in? He fancied a day working from palace. It wouldn’t be OK
Australian workers have been hard done by and tax reforms in the budget only begin to return some fairness | Greg Jericho
US Senate confirms Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve chair, replacing Jerome Powell
Sam Altman defends OpenAI in courtroom showdown with Elon Musk
Florida students boo graduation speaker who called AI ‘next Industrial Revolution’
Jim Furyk tells US players they need to make Ryder Cup more of a priority
England v New Zealand: second women’s cricket ODI abandoned – as it happened