Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You mustlogin to add citations.
| |
Rapid advances in AI-based automation have led to a number of existential and economic concerns. In particular, as automating technologies develop enhanced competency they seem to threaten the values associated with meaningful work. In this article, we focus on one such value: the value of achievement. We argue that achievement is a key part of what makes work meaningful and that advances in AI and automation give rise to a number achievement gaps in the workplace. This could limit people’s ability (...) to participate in meaningful forms of work. Achievement gaps are interesting, in part, because they are the inverse of the (negative) responsibility gaps already widely discussed in the literature on AI ethics. Having described and explained the problem of achievement gaps, the article concludes by identifying four possible policy responses to the problem. (shrink) | |
As automating technologies are increasingly integrated into workplaces, one concern is that many of the human workers who remain will be relegated to more dull and less positively impactful work. This paper considers two rival theories of meaningful work that might be used to evaluate particular implementations of automation. The first is achievementism, which says that work that culminates in achievements to workers’ credit is especially meaningful; the other is the practice view, which says that work that takes the form (...) of an open-ended practice is especially meaningful. Of the two, the practice view is the better tool for assessing the future of meaningful work, because achievementism is explanatorily inadequate in two ways. Moreover, the practice view can explain why the most meaningful forms of work cannot be automated. A procedure can only be automated as long as the steps are defined, whereas, in such work, which steps to take is indefinitely open to redefinition. This reveals the real threat to meaningful work to be a political-economic one. The relevant ethical questions there have to do with how much creative control workers retain in crafting their own jobs, when those jobs involve meaningful work in collaboration with machines; and how to liberate workers from jobs that do not involve meaningful work, which should be left to machines anyway. (shrink) | |
In this paper, we discuss the relation between recent philosophical discussions about meaning in life (from authors like Susan Wolf, Thaddeus Metz, and others) and the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI). Our goal is twofold, namely, to argue that considering the axiological category of meaningfulness can enrich AI ethics, on the one hand, and to portray and evaluate the small, but growing literature that already exists on the relation between meaning in life and AI ethics, on the other hand. We (...) start out our review by clarifying the basic assumptions of the meaning in life discourse and how it understands the term ‘meaningfulness’. After that, we offer five general arguments for relating philosophical questions about meaning in life to questions about the role of AI in human life. For example, we formulate a worry about a possible meaningfulness gap related to AI on analogy with the idea of responsibility gaps created by AI, a prominent topic within the AI ethics literature. We then consider three specific types of contributions that have been made in the AI ethics literature so far: contributions related to self-development, the future of work, and relationships. As we discuss those three topics, we highlight what has already been done, but we also point out gaps in the existing literature. We end with an outlook regarding where we think the discussion of this topic should go next. (shrink) | |
This paper discusses the robotization of the workplace, and particularly the question of whether robots can be good colleagues. This might appear to be a strange question at first glance, but it is worth asking for two reasons. Firstly, some people already treat robots they work alongside as if the robots are valuable colleagues. It is worth reflecting on whether such people are making a mistake. Secondly, having good colleagues is widely regarded as a key aspect of what can make (...) work meaningful. In discussing whether robots can be good colleagues, the paper compares that question to the more widely discussed questions of whether robots can be our friends or romantic partners. The paper argues that the ideal of being a good colleague has many different parts, and that on a behavioral level, robots can live up to many of the criteria typically associated with being a good colleague. Moreover, the paper also argues that in comparison with the more demanding ideals of being a good friend or a good romantic partner, it is comparatively easier for a robot to live up to the ideal of being a good colleague. The reason for this is that the “inner lives” of our friends and lovers are more important to us than the inner lives of our colleagues. (shrink) | |
John Danaher and Sven Nyholm have argued that automation, especially of the sort powered by artificial intelligence, poses a threat to meaningful work by diminishing the chances for meaning-conferring workplace achievement, what they call “achievement gaps”. In this paper, I argue that Danaher and Nyholm’s achievement gap thesis suffers from an ambiguity. The weak version of the thesis holds that automation may result in the appearance of achievement gaps, whereas the strong version holds that automation may result on balance loss (...) in possibilities for workplace achievements, i.e., in the appearance of an overall gappier work landscape. Against the strong version of the achievement gap thesis, I characterize situations where automation may result in boons to meaning-conferring workplace achievements: the appearance of what I call achievement spread and achievement swaps. Nevertheless, Danaher and Nyholm are right to worry about some uses of automation whereby human workers become subservient to AI. But these situations are better framed, I argue, as autonomy gaps rather than achievement gaps. (shrink) | |
John Danaher and Sven Nyholm have argued that automation, especially of the sort powered by artificial intelligence, poses a threat to meaningful work by diminishing the chances for meaning-conferring workplace achievement, what they call “achievement gaps”. In this paper, I argue that Danaher and Nyholm’s achievement gap thesis suffers from an ambiguity. The weak version of the thesis holds that automation may result in the appearance of achievement gaps, whereas the strong version holds that automation may result on balance loss (...) in possibilities for workplace achievements, i.e., in the appearance of an overall gappier work landscape. Against the strong version of the achievement gap thesis, I characterize situations where automation may result in boons to meaning-conferring workplace achievements: the appearance of what I call achievement spread and achievement swaps. Nevertheless, Danaher and Nyholm are right to worry about some uses of automation whereby human workers become subservient to AI. But these situations are better framed, I argue, as autonomy gaps rather than achievement gaps. (shrink) | |
Artificial intelligence-driven technology increasingly shapes work practices and, accordingly, employees’ opportunities for meaningful work (MW). In our paper, we identify five dimensions of MW: pursuing a purpose, social relationships, exercising skills and self-development, autonomy, self-esteem and recognition. Because MW is an important good, lacking opportunities for MW is a serious disadvantage. Therefore, we need to know to what extent employers have a duty to provide this good to their employees. We hold that employers have a duty of beneficence to design (...) for opportunities for MW when implementing AI-technology in the workplace. We argue that this duty of beneficence is supported by the three major ethical theories, namely, Kantian ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. We defend this duty against two objections, including the view that it is incompatible with the shareholder theory of the firm. We then employ the five dimensions of MW as our analytical lens to investigate how AI-based technological innovation in logistic warehouses has an impact, both positively and negatively, on MW, and illustrate that design for MW is feasible. We further support this practical feasibility with the help of insights from organizational psychology. We end by discussing how AI-based technology has an impact both on meaningful work (often seen as an aspirational goal) and decent work (generally seen as a matter of justice). Accordingly, ethical reflection on meaningful and decent work should become more integrated to do justice to how AI-technology inevitably shapes both simultaneously. (shrink) | |
This article introduces seven ethical issues raised by the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) at work. Each ethical issue is presented in connection to broader and older philosophical topics as well as topics in the more specialised literature on applied ethics of technology. The seven issues are: (1) How to govern the impact of AI on job losses and other social issues raised by the reshaping of the job market? (2) AI may contribute to create new forms of oppression and (...) violation of rights of the workforce; (3) AI may negatively affect workers’ (moral) agency, autonomy or responsibility; (4) AI may create hidden labour, that is, economically valuable tasks are performed by human agents without their work being sufficiently recognised, rewarded or protected, with (technological) companies acquiring an unfair gain and an increasing socio-economic power over people; (5) To what extent can AI affect the opportunity for people to perform good or meaningful work, and how should meaningful work be defined in a pluralistic society? (6) The introduction of AI at work may have a broader impact on social values and norms; (7) Who is responsible for making AI have a positive rather than a negative impact on ethical and societal values? In addition to providing a critical introduction to the ethical debate on AI and the future of work, the article also positions on this broader ethical and philosophical map the five articles of The Journal of Ethics special issue ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work’. (shrink) | |
The world of work over the past 3 years has been characterized by a great reset due to the COVID-19 pandemic, giving an even more central role to scholarly discussions of ethics and the future of work. Such discussions have the potential to inform whether, when, and which work is viewed and experienced as meaningful. Yet, thus far, debates concerning ethics, meaningful work, and the future of work have largely pursued separate trajectories. Not only is bridging these research spheres important (...) for the advancement of meaningful work as a field of study but doing so can potentially inform the organizations and societies of the future. In proposing this Special Issue, we were inspired to address these intersections, and we are grateful to have this platform for advancing an integrative conversation, together with the authors of the seven selected scholarly contributions. Each article in this issue takes a unique approach to addressing these topics, with some emphasizing ethics while others focus on the future aspects of meaningful work. Taken together, the papers indicate future research directions with regard to: (a) the meaning of meaningful work, (b) the future of meaningful work, and (c) how we can study the ethics of meaningful work in the future. We hope these insights will spark further relevant scholarly and practitioner conversations. (shrink) | |
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly creeping into the work sphere, thereby gradually questioning and/or disturbing the long-established moral concepts and norms communities have been using to define what makes work good. Each community, and Muslims make no exception in this regard, has to revisit their moral world to provide well-thought frameworks that can engage with the challenging ethical questions raised by the new phenomenon of AI-mediated work. For a systematic analysis of the broad topic of AI-mediated work ethics from (...) an Islamic perspective, this article focuses on presenting an accessible overview of the “moral world” of work in the Islamic tradition. Three main components of this moral world were selected due to their relevance to the AI context, namely (1) Work is inherently good for humans, (2) Practising a religiously permitted profession and (c) Maintaining good relations with involved stakeholders. Each of these three components is addressed in a distinct section, followed by a sub-section highlighting the relevance of the respective component to the particular context of AI-mediated work. The article argues that there are no unsurmountable barriers in the Islamic tradition against the adoption of AI technologies in work sphere. However, important precautions should be considered to ensure that embracing AI will not be at the cost of work-related moral values. The article also highlights how important lessons can be learnt from the positive historical experience of automata that thrived in the Islamic civilization. (shrink) | |
Are we being manipulated online? If so, is being manipulated by online technologies and algorithmic systems notably different from human forms of manipulation? And what is under threat exactly when people are manipulated online? This volume provides philosophical and conceptual depth to debates in digital ethics about online manipulation. The contributions explore the ramifications of our increasingly consequential interactions with online technologies such as online recommender systems, social media, user-friendly design, micro-targeting, default-settings, gamification, and real-time profiling. The authors in this (...) volume address four broad and interconnected themes: • What is the conceptual nature of online manipulation? And how, methodologically, should the concept be defined? • Does online manipulation threaten autonomy, freedom, and meaning in life, and if so, how? • What are the epistemic, affective, and political harms and risks associated with online manipulation? • What are legal and regulatory perspectives on online manipulation? The Philosophy of Online Manipulation brings these various considerations together to offer philosophically robust answers to critical questions concerning our online interactions with one another and with autonomous systems. It will be of interest to researchers and advanced students working in moral philosophy, digital ethics, philosophy of technology, and the ethics of manipulation. (shrink) | |
Automation does not always replace human labour altogether: there is an intermediate stage of human co-existence with machines, including robots, in a production process. Cobots are robots designed to participate at close quarters with humans in such a process. I shall discuss the possible role of cobots in facilitating the eventual total elimination of human operators from production in which co-bots are initially involved. This issue is complicated by another: cobots are often introduced to workplaces with the message (from managers) (...) that they will not replace human operators but will rather assist human operators and make their jobs more interesting and responsible. If, in the process of learning to assist human operators, robots acquire the skills of human operators, then the promise of avoiding replacement can turn out to be false, and if a human operator loses his job, he has been harmed twice over: once by unemployment and once by deception. I shall suggest that this moral risk attends some cobots more than others. (shrink) | |
Remote work, understood here as a working environment different from the traditional office working space, is a phenomenon that has existed for many years. In the past, workers voluntarily opted, when they were allowed to, to work remotely rather than commuting to their traditional work environment. However, with the emergence of the global pandemic (corona virus-COVID-19), people were forced to work remotely to mitigate the spread of the virus. Consequently, researchers have identified some benefits and adverse effects of remote work, (...) especially in the age of COVID-19, ranging from flexible time and environment to technostress and isolation. In this paper, using a phenomenological approach, specifically, the sub-Saharan African experiences, I contend that remote work in the age of advanced technologies has obscured the value of relationality due to the problem of isolation in sub-Saharan African workplaces. For sub-Saharan Africans, relationality is a prerequisite moral value to becoming a person. In addition, relationality contributes to meaningfulness in the workspace. Obscuring the value of relationality in the aforementioned locale leads to meaninglessness in the workspace. Furthermore, this paper contributes to the existing literature on meaningful work by critically showing the importance of the value of relationality as a key element that adds meaning to work in sub-Saharan Africa. (shrink) No categories | |
The discourse on the future of work should learn from a turn in philosophy that occurred in the 1980s, one that recognizes the good life towards which ethics strives can only be reached on a foundation of caring relationships (Gillian, 1982; Noddings, 1984). Care ethics recognizes that human well-being is a group project, one that involves strong relationships, and concern for bodies and emotions. Too often, these features are left out of research exploring robotics in the workplace. This paper outlines (...) the main tenets of care ethics, then applies the moral framework to the context of industrial and retail settings using robots. This approach sees these contexts through a relational lens, helping to identify, evaluate, and improve relationships critical to ensuring workers’ well-being. Second, care ethics considers taking care of people’s bodies beyond mere safety, examining how working with robots can exacerbate societal or economic pressures. Lastly, care ethics takes emotions as an important source of knowledge in building and supporting care. Additionally, this paper contributes to the care ethics literature by applying the framework to the context of robotized industrial workplaces, which has yet to be done. (shrink) No categories | |
Some economists now predict that technology will eliminate many millions of jobs and lead to a future without work. Much debate focuses on the accuracy of such a prediction—whether, or at what rate, jobs will disappear. But there is a wider question raised by this prediction, namely the merits or otherwise of automating work. Beyond estimating future job losses via automation, there is the normative issue of whether the quality of life would be enhanced in a world where machines replace (...) humans in work. Economics makes particular assumptions about the value of work and the nature of well-being that can address this normative issue. But a deeper enquiry into the scope for living well in a possible automated future requires us to think beyond the limits of standard economic theory and to engage in matters of relevance to business ethicists. This paper shows how automation raises crucial concerns about work—its meaning and contribution to well-being—and how the ability to envisage a better future of work depends on bridging the gap between economics and business ethics. Overall, the paper aims to further understanding of automation as a possible mechanism to raise well-being within work and beyond it. (shrink) | |
Profit-oriented service sectors such as tourism, hospitality, and entertainment are increasingly looking at how professional service robots can be integrated into the workplace to perform socio-cognitive tasks that were previously reserved for humans. This is a work in which social and labor sciences recognize the principle role of emotions. However, the models and narratives of emotions that drive research, design, and deployment of service robots in human–robot interaction differ considerably from how emotions are framed in the sociology of labor and (...) feminist studies of service work. In this paper, we explore these tensions through the concepts of affective and emotional labor, and outline key insights these concepts offer for the design and evaluation of professional service robots. Taken together, an emphasis on interactionist approaches to emotions and on the demands of affective labor, leads us to argue that service employees are under-represented in existing studies in human–robot interaction. To address this, we outline how participatory design and value-sensitive design approaches can be applied as complimentary methodological frameworks that include service employees as vital stakeholders. (shrink) | |
Robots have a history of replacing human labor in undesirable, dirty, dull and dangerous tasks. With robots now emerging in academic and human-centered work, this paper aims to investigate psychological implications of robotizing desirable and socially rewarding work.,Testing the holistic stress model, this study examines educational professionals’ stress responses as mediators between robotization expectations and future optimism in life. The study uses survey data on 2,434 education professionals.,Respondents entertaining robotization expectations perceived their work to be less meaningful and reported more (...) burnout symptoms than those with no robotization expectations. Future optimism about life was not affected by robotization expectations alone, but meaninglessness and burnout symptoms mediated the relation between expectations of robotization and future optimism.,Robotization may be viewed as challenging the meaningfulness of educational work by compromising ethical values and interaction. To prevent excess stress among personnel, robotization should be planned together with employees in co-operation negotiations. This implicates the need for co-designing technological changes in organizations especially in the cases of social use of robots.,Work’s meaningfulness in robotization is a novel research topic and a step toward socially sustainable robotization. (shrink) | |
Technological outsourcing is increasingly prevalent, with AI systems taking over many tasks once performed by humans. This shift has led to various discussions within AI ethics. A question that was largely ignored until recently, but is now increasingly being discussed, concerns the meaningfulness of such a lifestyle. The literature largely features skeptical views, raising several challenges. Many of these challenges can be grouped under what I identify as the “meaningfulness gap”. Although this gap is widely acknowledged, there is a notable (...) absence of systematic exploration in the literature. This paper aims to fill this void by offering a detailed, step-by-step guide for systematically exploring the different instances of the meaningfulness gap and aids in navigating their complexities. More specifically, it proposes differentiating the gaps according to their realms and objects, normative nature, scope, and severity. To make these areas manageable, the paper takes several taxonomies and distinctions on board. Finally, the guide is summarized, and some skeptical replies are anticipated and countered by clarificatory remarks. (shrink) | |
No categories | |
The last decade has seen significant improvements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, including robotics, machine vision, speech recognition and text generation. Increasing automation will undoubtedly affect the future of work, and discussions on how the development of AI in the workplace will impact labor markets often include two scenarios: (1) labor replacement and (2) labor enabling. The former involves replacing workers with machines, while the latter assumes that human-machine cooperation can significantly improve worker productivity. In this context, it is often (...) argued that (1) could lead to mass unemployment and that (2) therefore would be more desirable. We argue, however, that the labor-enabling scenario conflates two distinct possibilities. On the one hand, technology can increase productivity while also promoting “the goods of work,” such as the opportunity to pursue excellence, experience a sense of community and contribute to society (human augmentation). On the other hand, higher productivity can also be achieved in a way that reduces opportunities for the “goods of work” and/or increases “the bads of work,” such as injury, reduced physical and mental health, reduction of autonomy, privacy and human dignity (human stunting). We outline the differences of these outcomes and discuss the implications for the labor market in the context of contemporaneous discussions on the value of work and human wellbeing. (shrink) | |
Straipsnyje tyrinėjamas santykis tarp šiuolaikinio aristotelizmo žmogiškojo klestėjimo sampratos ir dviejų kritinių perspektyvų apie darbą. Prasmingo darbo perspektyva klausia, koks darbas būtų prasmingas, teigdama, kad toks darbas yra būtinas žmonių gerovei. Postdarbo perspektyva teigia, kad geras gyvenimas slypi už darbo ribų ir kad turime siekti darbą ne reformuoti, bet kiek įmanoma labiau išnaikinti. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad šiuolaikinė aristoteliška praktikų ir gero gyvenimo samprata leidžia atsižvelgti į abiejų perspektyvų įžvalgas. Praktikų samprata inkorporuoja prasmingo darbo sampratą, tačiau apima ir įvairias nedarbines veiklas, (...) o, konceptualizuojant gerą gyvenimą kaip praktikų gyvenimą, atsižvelgiama į postdarbo perspektyvos iššūkį konceptualizuoti žmogiškąjį klestėjimą neteikiant prioriteto darbui. Taip šiuolaikinio aristotelizmo gero gyvenimo samprata leidžia reikalauti ir geresnio darbo, ir mažesnio darbo kiekio. (shrink) No categories | |
Recent technological developments have given rise to debates about automation and the future of work. These debates touch on concerns about the availability, nature, and meaningfulness of jobs in the present and near future. The aim of this article is to show that Hannah Arendt’s phenomenology of labor, work, and action can improve current debates about automation and the future of work. First of all, an analysis of Arendt’s critique of modern society and the more recent notion of ‘immaterial labor’ (...) demonstrates that we (still) live in a society dominated by labor and consumption. Second, a conceptual distinction between labor, work, and action can add relevant nuances to contemporary debates about automation and the future of work. Third, Arendt’s warning for a society of laborers without labor inspires to add over-consumption to the list of problems arising from automation. Fourth, Arendt’s description of the human condition can give clarity to contemporary worries about automation’s impact on meaning. It is concluded, finally, that a revaluation of work and action can counter the threats associated with the automation of labor. (shrink) | |
Rahimzadeh et al. (2023) provide an interesting and timely discussion of the role of large language models (LLMs) in ethics education. While mentioning broader educational goals, the paper’s main f... |
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-54b44b69b7-k24bk uwo