Building Pro-Worker Artificial Intelligence

Tech companies are cutting jobs and betting on AI. The payoff is far from guaranteed

AI experts say we’re living in an experiment that may fundamentally change the model of work

AI can cost more than human workers now

When AI labs raise prices, big spending on AI could shift from a flex to a liability.

Nathan Witkin on Twitter / X

Does anyone disagree that pretty much every piece of empirical evidence we have about actually existing AI points toward a labor-augmenting technology with a more-or-less ordinary risk profile (no worse than cars, guns, nuclear power, social media, etc.)?On the labor front, the…— Nathan Witkin (@NateWitkin) October 5, 2026

What do professional software developers need to know to succeed in an age of Artificial Intelligence?

Generative AI is showing early evidence of productivity gains for software developers, but concerns persist regarding workforce disruption and deskilling. We describe our research with 21 developers at the cutting edge of using AI, summarizing 12 of their work goals we uncovered, together with 75 associated tasks and the skills & knowledge for each, illustrating how developers use AI at work. From all of these, we distilled our findings in the form of 5 insights. We found that the skills & knowledge to be a successful AI-enhanced developer are organized into four domains (using Generative AI effectively, core software engineering, adjacent engineering, and adjacent non-engineering) deployed at critical junctures throughout a 6-step task workflow. In order to "future proof" developers for this age of AI, on-the-job learning initiatives and computer science degree programs will need to target both "soft" skills and the technical skills & knowledge in all four domains to reskill, upskill and safeguard against deskilling.

Building pro-worker AI | Brookings

Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Simon Johnson ask: What is pro-worker AI, and how can we build it?

AI Adoption and Inequality

There are competing narratives about artificial intelligence’s impact on inequality. Some argue AI will exacerbate economic disparities, while others suggest it could reduce inequality by primarily disrupting high-income jobs. Using household microdata and a calibrated task-based model, we show these narratives reflect different channels through which AI affects the economy. Unlike previous waves of automation that increased both wage and wealth inequality, AI could reduce wage inequality through the displacement of high-income workers. However, two factors may counter this effect: these workers’ tasks appear highly complementary with AI, potentially increasing their productivity, and they are better positioned to benefit from higher capital returns. When firms can choose how much AI to adopt, the wealth inequality effect is particularly pronounced, as the potential cost savings from automating high-wage tasks drive significantly higher adoption rates. Models that ignore this adoption decision risk understating the trade-off policymakers face between inequality and efficiency.

Companies That Tried to Save Money With AI Are Now Spending a Fortune Hiring People to Fix Its Mistakes

Companies that rushed to replace human labor with AI are now shelling out to have IRL workers to fix the technology's screwups.

The real AI economy is being built by ordinary people

Far from Silicon Valley pitch decks, workers across Asia and Africa are bypassing tech industry hype to quietly rewire their daily jobs — one prompt, workflow, and local problem at a time.

The Tragedy of the Cognitive Commons: How AI Could Disrupt the Regeneration of Professional Expertise

Artificial intelligence is reshaping cognitive work, but Human Resource Development scholarship has treated this transformation as an organizational training challenge, leaving the collective regeneration of professional expertise unexamined. This conceptual paper introduces the Cognitive Commons framework, integrating commons theory, HRD scholarship, and distributed cognition to explain how rational AI adoption decisions can deplete the shared expertise pool professions require for renewal. The framework distinguishes Internalized Mastery (deep domain knowledge from sustained practice) from Distributed Mastery (orchestrating human-AI systems), and develops the Validation Tether: effective AI oversight depends on the expertise AI adoption may undermine. Early labor market and clinical evidence suggests possible disruption to expertise-regeneration pathways in highly AI-exposed sectors, though adoption is recent and the strongest signals come from leading sectors rather than all professions. Five factors determine occupational vulnerability, and governance arrangements may form across organizational, professional-association, and policy levels. The paper reframes expertise development as collective stewardship rather than organizational optimization, with implications for HRD theory and workforce policy.

AI in scientific publishing: Slower, worse, and more expensive

There’s a saying in the management world, popularized by NASA administrator Daniel Goldin in the 1990s, that the goal of technological improvements is to make products faster, better, and cheaper. Although this strategy had some success in the aerospace industry, the zealots of artificial intelligence (AI) have been making the same argument regarding how it will transform work, claiming that so little human effort will be required that humanity will enter an era of radical abundance, free from disease, drudgery, and danger, among other benefits, leaving society with more time for creative pursuits. But history tells a different story. When machines began to increase productivity during the second industrial revolution, American engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management encouraged corporations to use surveillance to get employees to work harder and longer, an approach that exhausted and discouraged workers and led to the transfer of knowledge and any decision-making from workers to management, while enriching the profits for only those at the top. Yet, it remains foundational to the American economic enterprise. Indeed, scientific publishing is starting to experience some Taylorism with the insertion of AI. Rigorous human checking of AI-generated research papers is creating bottlenecks as publishers strive to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The challenge is requiring even more human effort, making the whole endeavor slower and more expensive.

AI is coming for insurance professionals – and women

New research reveals that millions of workers face both high AI exposure and low ability to adapt - and the insurance industry sits squarely in the crosshairs

What Does 'Human-Centred AI' Mean?

While it seems sensible that human-centred artificial intelligence (AI) means centring "human behaviour and experience," it cannot be any other way. AI, I argue, is usefully seen as a relationship between technology and humans where it appears that artifacts can perform, to a greater or lesser extent, human cognitive labour. This is evinced using examples that juxtapose technology with cognition, inter alia: abacus versus mental arithmetic; alarm clock versus knocker-upper; camera versus vision; and sweatshop versus tailor. Using novel definitions and analyses, sociotechnical relationships can be analysed into varying types of: displacement (harmful), enhancement (beneficial), and/or replacement (neutral) of human cognitive labour. Ultimately, all AI implicates human cognition; no matter what. Obfuscation of cognition in the AI context -- from clocks to artificial neural networks -- results in distortion, in slowing critical engagement, perverting cognitive science, and indeed in limiting our ability to truly centre humans and humanity in the engineering of AI systems. To even begin to de-fetishise AI, we must look the human-in-the-loop in the eyes.

What Does 'Human-Centred AI' Mean?

While it seems sensible that human-centred artificial intelligence (AI) means centring "human behaviour and experience," it cannot be any other way. AI, I argue, is usefully seen as a relationship between technology and humans where it appears that artifacts can perform, to a greater or lesser extent, human cognitive labour. This is evinced using examples that juxtapose technology with cognition, inter alia: abacus versus mental arithmetic; alarm clock versus knocker-upper; camera versus vision; and sweatshop versus tailor. Using novel definitions and analyses, sociotechnical relationships can be analysed into varying types of: displacement (harmful), enhancement (beneficial), and/or replacement (neutral) of human cognitive labour. Ultimately, all AI implicates human cognition; no matter what. Obfuscation of cognition in the AI context -- from clocks to artificial neural networks -- results in distortion, in slowing critical engagement, perverting cognitive science, and indeed in limiting our ability to truly centre humans and humanity in the engineering of AI systems. To even begin to de-fetishise AI, we must look the human-in-the-loop in the eyes.

Does AI Assistance Enhance or Erode Expertise? Evidence from a Three-Month Field Experiment in Patent Drafting

Whether AI assistance builds or erodes professional expertise is unsettled. In a pre-registered three-month randomized controlled trial, we gave 133 practicing patent lawyers at eleven U.S. intellectual property law firms access to a custom AI drafting assistant and measured both their performance while using AI and their professional judgment afterward without it. All work was scored by blinded expert patent attorneys. Paralleling findings from other white-collar domains, AI access raised the quality of work delivered on benchmark patent drafting tasks at 10 days (0.34 SD, p = 0.03) and 90 days (0.38 SD, p = 0.01), with larger gains among junior lawyers. After three months, all subjects redlined an existing patent application without AI, a core task of patent practice requiring expert judgment. Treated lawyers outperformed controls by 0.32 SD (p = 0.04), but this advantage was concentrated entirely among senior lawyers (0.45 SD, p = 0.02). Junior lawyers showed no average gain; their scores instead bifurcated, with sharply fewer mediocre scores offset by more poor and more good ones. The largest gains from AI thus accrued to the lawyers who retained the least. Foundational expertise may be a prerequisite for extracting durable skill from AI-assisted practice.

Mapping Citizen Science through the Lens of Human-Centered AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can augment and sometimes even replace human cognition. Inspired by efforts to value human agency alongside productivity, we discuss and categorize the potential of solving Citizen Science (CS) tasks with Hybrid Intelligence (HI), a synergetic mixture of human and artificial intelligence. Due to the unique participant-centered set of values and the abundance of tasks drawing upon both human common sense and complex 21st century skills, we believe that the field of CS offers an invaluable testbed for the development of human-centered AI including HI, while also benefiting CS. In order to investigate this potential, we first relate CS to adjacent computational disciplines. Then, we demonstrate that CS projects can be grouped according to their potential for HI-enhancement by examining two key dimensions: the level of digitization and the amount of knowledge or experience required for participation. Finally, we propose a framework for types of human-AI interaction in CS based on established criteria of HI. This “HI lens” provides the CS community with an overview of ways to utilize the combination of AI and human intelligence in their projects. For AI researchers, this work highlights the opportunity CS presents to engage with real-world data sets and explore new AI methods and applications.

Technological Disruption in the US Labor Market • The Aspen Institute Economic Strategy Group

DAVID DEMING, CHRISTOPHER ONG, LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS This paper explores past episodes of technological disruption in the US labor market, with the goal of learning lessons about the likely future impact of artificial intelligence (AI). The authors measure changes in the structure of the US labor market going back over a century in two ways.&nbsp...