AI-based automation of jobs could increase inequality in UK, report says
The automation of millions of jobs will increase inequality in the UK unless the government intervenes to support small businesses and workers through the transition, according to a major report into the future of work.
Ministers need to act in the interest of those who will be made unemployed or whose jobs dramatically change, said the report by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) thinktank, in order to prevent skills shortages hitting employers and workers from suffering a decline in job satisfaction and wellbeing.
Artificial intelligence software is expected to become a widespread tool in factories, offices and in the public sector, demanding new skills, the IFOW said. However, a survey of 5,000 UK employees found 'a pervasive sense of anxiety, fear and uncertainty' about the introduction of AI technology, and what it could do to their work.
Christopher Pissarides, a Nobel prize winner in economics and the report's main author, said ministers needed to consider 'how AI can bring productivity and prosperity, without putting people under more intense stress and pressure? How can it help us identify and deliver new opportunities, without exacerbating growing divides cross the country?'
He said the three-year report, which also surveyed 1,000 businesses, discovered that while some major employers had developed tools to mitigate the effects of automation and AI to support staff, many smaller employers struggled to comprehend how they would transform the workplace and what skills and training staff would be needed in order to adapt over the next decade.
The report makes a series of recommendations, including establishing science centres – like London's Crick Institute – in regional cities to prevent the capital and the arc between Oxford and Cambridge from dominating innovations in fast-growing bio-technologies and securing a disproportionate number of high paying jobs.
Pissarides, professor at the London School of Economics, said devolving decision making to the regions would also be an important element of the reforms needed, while unions should also be given new powers of 'digital access, collective rights to information and new e-learning roles, backed by the Treasury'.
He said this would be in 'recognition of the key role of unions to deliver meaningful partnership working'.
James Hayton, professor of innovation at Warwick Business School, and a member of the report team, said the impact on jobs, skills, and job quality should not be blamed on AI, but how firms used it.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
'It is how firms and managers choose to implement it that is so crucial in bringing benefit to their workforce and overall productivity,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
27-05-2025
- New European
Critical Mass: Is science failing, or are we failing science?
That work, by Russell Funk of the University of Minnesota and his coworkers, prompted a wave of hand-wringing. What's gone wrong with science? And can we justify expanding science budgets if there are diminishing returns? But Funk's claims also proved controversial, not least because it is very hard to know how to measure the disruptive impact of research. Some might be tempted to say: hello, what about AI? There can hardly have been a more disruptive technology, for better or worse, in the past few decades, as witnessed by the Nobel prizes in both physics and chemistry awarded last year to work in that field. Is science getting harder? Did the 20th century strip the tree of knowledge of all its low-hanging fruit – quantum and nuclear physics, say, or the structure of DNA – to leave the answers to remaining scientific questions harder to reach? That seemed to be the implication of a paper published two years ago that claimed to show that the rate of truly 'disruptive' discoveries – ones that transform a field and open up new possibilities for technologies and economic growth – declined from the mid-1940s to 2010. Despite increases in science funding and the number of researchers, we seem now to be in an age of incremental advances. But as a recent news analysis in Nature (which also published Funk's paper) shows, the impression that groundbreaking research is becoming more rare is widely shared in the research community. And if that's right, the discovery drought could slow down economic growth. So we had better understand if the trend is real, and if so, what's behind it. Funk and colleagues used a rather technical method to gauge a paper's (or a patent's) disruptiveness, which was connected to the citations of earlier work that it includes. The idea is that, if the paper transforms its field, it renders those citations obsolete by establishing a new ground zero, so that they won't feature much in subsequent publications. But is that a good metric for disruptiveness? Critics pointed out that citation practices changed a lot over the course of the last century: older papers had fewer. What's more, the 2021 paper that used AI to predict the structures of protein molecules, which won the 2024 chemistry Nobel, would on this measure be rated low in disruptiveness – which surely can't be right, can it? The arguments are all rather complicated, because so is the question: there's no way we can measure something like this with the certainty of measuring an object's temperature or mass. Surprisingly, however, the debate hasn't given much consideration to what history tells us. For one thing, over the long term science hardly looks like a steady accumulation of earth-shattering discoveries. Even though the so-called scientific revolution in the 17th century reset the way a lot of science was done, chemistry (to name one discipline) experienced a century of tentative steps until Antoine Lavoisier replaced the theory of phlogiston with his oxygen theory in the 1780s and 90s. And the economic growth produced by the chemical dye industry of the late 19th century didn't really come from a transformative discovery in understanding, but arose from a complex interplay between chemical research and market demand stimulated by industrialisation. There have been plenty of occasions when scientists have decided that all the big discoveries have been made. Famously, Lord Kelvin was said to have proclaimed as much for physics, just years before Max Planck initiated quantum theory and Einstein unveiled the theory of relativity. The Kelvin story is apocryphal, but others expressed similar sentiments that the future of physics was just about incremental improvements in accuracy. Besides, not all transformative science affects economic growth: that can hardly be said for the proof of the Big Bang (circa 1965), the discovery of dark energy (1998) and the discovery of the Higgs boson (2012). Despite all this, however, the question is important. It's conceivable that science is simply facing harder challenges now, but it's possible, too, that there are worsening problems in how it is conducted. Young researchers have less incentive to take risks, and they are also encouraged to carve it into publishable slices of diminishing size and impact. And it has long been noted that review panels for funding agencies are conservative, favouring the safe but mediocre. Academic scientists complain of being too burdened by admin and grant-chasing to actually do research. Perhaps the problem is not that all the easy science has been done, but that it's getting harder to do it at all.
New European
23-05-2025
- New European
Give Trump the Nobel Prize, Tory peer pleads
The 43-year-old, handed a seat in the Lords by Boris Johnson in 2020 after chairing the Business and Entrepreneurs' Forum, a £3,000-a-year club for Tory-supporting business leaders, has only spoken in the House 38 times in five years, the most recent being last summer. And he has only just submitted his seventh ever written question to ministers. You can be forgiven for not having heard of Conservative peer Aamer Sarfraz – the former Tory donor and treasurer turned lawmaker-for-life is not one of the most engaged members of the red benches. But what a question! Earlier this month he wrote to ministers to ask whether the government 'would support the nomination of President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his role in averting war between India and Pakistan'. Alas for Sarfraz, the government declined to back his bid, although not on the entirely reasonable basis that the cooling of hostilities had absolutely nothing to do with the US president, who had shown his customary grasp of geopolitics by claiming the tensions between the two countries went back 'a thousand years'. Rather, Foreign Office minister Jenny Chapman wrote back that 'the award of the Nobel Peace Prize is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office'. A shame, then. But at least Sarfraz can console himself he's unlikely to have any troubles with immigration officials next time he's heading Stateside!
Economist
21-05-2025
- Economist
Trump's attack on science is growing fiercer and more indiscriminate
SCIENTISTS IN AMERICA are used to being the best. The country is home to the world's foremost universities, hosts the lion's share of scientific Nobel laureates and has long been among the top producers of influential research papers. Generous funding helps keep the system running. Counting both taxpayer and industrial dollars, America spends more on research than any other country. The federal government doles out around $120bn a year, $50bn or so of which goes towards tens of thousands of grants and contracts for higher-education institutions, with the rest going to public research bodies.
