​

 

Voluntary global acceptance of fundamental Human Rights’ limitations in the age of AI automation and deployment of trailblazing technologies

​

Historical recurrence – this term is often used while referring to particular circumstances or adverse repercussions thereof that could have been tackled if only individuals took into account the exemplum from the past. Artificial Intelligence is, certainly, a pioneering phenomenon that may converge with the future rather than former times at first sight. However, the transcendental roots of the inextricable connection between events and suppositions enlightened in our academic article lead to the fact that history repeats itself – notwithstanding the fact that AI is something our world has never seen before.

 

While we are unboxing Artificial Intelligence and its almost unlimited possibilities in our modern world with a robust inclination of relying on innovations, the bygone days and past occurrences seem to be consigned to oblivion by the masses. In our scientific article, we are raising the issues covered with a layer of dust from the past and collate them with our agenda, proving the relevance of rapid action in terms of AI implementation and regulation with an aim of protecting human rights and freedoms, inter alia in the realm of Labour Law.

​

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Labour Law, implementation, regulation of innovations, economy, unemployment, economic changes, violations of human rights and freedoms, law-making, technologies.

​

Formulation of the relevance of the scientific article. In the 19th century, when the deployment of particular machines, inter alia knitting frames and mechanized looms, was commenced, the UK faced a newly cobbled term known as a ‘Luddite’ – a person who is supposed to withstand the process of automation by breaking the newly-born inventions on factories [1]. Nowadays, the aforementioned notion crystallizes a blunt and rather tarnished brand for ‘technophobes’, or people who loathe and disavow the necessity of technologies’ implementation, being even ready to counteract at times. However, it is critical to put emphasis on the nature of the Luddite movement and the values they cultivated during the years of protests that even escalated into a violent rebellion, of artisans in particular, in the era of the Industrial Revolution [2].

​

In fact, in the 1810s the textile industry of Great Britain was undergoing a sea change – new machines put into jeopardy the wages and, hence, the welfare of an ample cluster of workers, drastically resulting in recession and unemployment. Under the yoke of adverse consequences for the workers, the riots and mass annihilation of such machines were started. However, under the veneer of those ‘sinister’ inventions’ threats, certain individuals were complicit and could have been accountable – the owners of those factories and, presumably, the government that didn’t manage to cushion the fall in the value of human possibilities which confronted with the potential of the machines. Reframing the intentions of the Luddites, one of the researchers in this field, Gavin Mueller, mentioned the ideas that led to the ‘real enemies' of the factory workers – ‘their revolt was not against machines in themselves, but against the industrial society that threatened their established ways of life, and of which machines were the chief weapon.’ ‘To say they were fighting machines,’ the author outlines, ‘makes about as much sense as saying a boxer fights against fists.’ [3] Right, society recovered after this surge of outrage as it has always been. Howbeit, the question, of whether the Luddites used to hate the technology in itself or they actually used to loathe the fact that they weren’t given an opportunity to preserve a decent level of life and continue bringing home the bacon, still lingers in the air. Thus, this story may well have just taken a different turn and can be considered taking into account our modern realities – Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as ‘AI’) which is developing by leaps and bounds and seems to be flourishing and expanding, gaining momentum without the respective and reasonable regulation we have mentioned in our scientific articles afore [4, 5].

​

That is why the pertinence of our academic work lies in enlightening the potential global peril which, as a ‘Ninth wave’, approaches human beings and targets the system of economy inextricably intertwined with the fundamental human rights and freedoms, inter alia encapsulated in the article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – protection of labour rights [6]. Feasible suggestions to tackle the looming issues and shield the people from the mainstream violations of rights are put forward and the essentiality of Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on the elaboration of the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence is outlined.

​

Presentation of the main body of the scientific article. Specific tectonic shifts in the foundations of the world order and socio-economic relations are imminent. However, in terms of the respective implications, modern economists have tacitly fallen into two camps – those who prize the significance of such changes and see long-term benefits thereof (e.g., Erik Brynjolfsson, an MIT economist who co-authored ‘The Second Machine Age’, stipulated the notion that even though the skilled artisans lost their jobs, several decades later demand for labour rose as new job categories emerged), and there are also individuals who assume a new surge of unemployment (e.g., Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, brought to the fore the concept of profound inequality as a result of automation) [7]. 

​

The vital aspect to mention lies not in deterring the elaboration and deployment of AI, losing ample opportunities provided thereby, but to trace a conspicuous parallel between the way society used to respond to the issues of unwaged before and how such predicaments are coped with nowadays, especially given the respective action on behalf of the governmental authorities. Undoubtedly, it may be much easier to leave this issue to chance, bearing in mind that the wounds are going to be healed in the course of time as well as the people would adapt to contemporary realities. 

​

Yet, such practice should be considered as a direct infringement of human rights, underscoring our point by legal provisions set out in paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in its turn, reads as follows: ‘Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment’ [6].

​

Susceptibility of modern jobs to technological unemployment. In 2013, comprehensive and groundbreaking research directly linked to the subject of joblessness was conducted [8]. In particular, experts from the University of Oxford examined a certain ‘vulnerability’ of miscellaneous professions to computerization. The primary objective of the study was to analyze 702 detailed occupations in the US and detect the ones that may be at risk in terms of deployment of technologies; it is also significant to outline that the liaison between educational attainment, wages and an occupation’s probability of computerization were taken into consideration. Having implemented a novel methodology, researchers worked out that, according to their estimates, ‘around 47 percent of total US employment is in the high-risk category’. The jobs at risk are expected to be automated ‘relatively soon’, i.e., ‘over the next decade or two’. What is more, trailblazing robots are claimed to have gained dexterity and an ameliorated level of sensual development, hence, they are much more capable to perform manual tasks. 

​

The essence of professions may change drastically and roughly in comparison with the occupations that were siloed off during Industrial Revolutions. For instance, occupations inextricably intertwined with logistics and transportation, office and administrative support workers, spheres of production and repair, and the domains of financial and legal services are all claimed to be affected. Besides, the notion of jeopardizing paralegals, contract and patent lawyers was expressed far back in 2011 [9]. Middle-income jobs are envisaged to be bound to truncate as well as a certain polarization of the labour market. Educational attainment and wages assumably ‘exhibit a negative relationship with the probability of computerization’. Acquiring ‘creative and social intelligence’ – is what is supposed to be a new challenge for workers to take up. 

However, the last statement was apparently relevant during the past decade. These days, the cultivation of resourcefulness and interpersonal skills may well no longer be sufficient for retraining and receiving guarantees to secure decent employment. 

​

In the course of our academic research, we have also addressed a recent complex review that enlightens the acute issues of technological unemployment which was characterized to be ‘almost imperceptible to an inattentive observer’ [10]. Presumably, the pandemic of COVID-19 has also resulted in the acceleration of automation all around the globe. Thus, governmental organizations, companies, and individuals have to be prepared to accept the supersonic pace of digitalization and catch up with the times. However, according to the study presented by ‘Willis Towers Watson’, a leading global advisory, broking and solutions company, jointly with ‘SHRM’s Executive Network’, the figures that indicate readiness to unleash computerization in terms of possessing ‘a favorable view of organization’s progress in keeping pace with change and having the courage and agility to evolve when compared with other organizations’ were articulated by fewer than half of CPOs (49%) [11]. The reasons for such reactions varied from the lack of senior and organizational support to reluctance to alter the whole policy of the company.

​

A critical takeaway to emphasize is also connected with the fact that only 26% of focus group participants reported that they have ‘a technical acumen’ to assess pioneering technologies while 42% of survey respondents ‘had a favorable opinion of their organization’s progress in comparison with other organizations when it comes to embracing technology that builds a consumer experience for employees’ – and this gap hasn’t been bridged yet. The study highlights the essentiality of being ‘bold’ enough to accept new strategic roles for CPOs and gaining the ability to invent new ways of working in this ‘evolving work ecosystem’ which, in its turn, may provide companies with exponential business growth and prosperity [11]. 

​

However, the question arises: ‘In times of crucial changes driven by the economy and hence, transferred to other spheres, inter alia the legal ream, are we audacious enough to rise to freshly minted challenges?’ There exists an opinion that despite the temporary society’s resentment during previous Industrial Revolutions, in the long run, technological change has been powering economic progress and increasing job quantity and quality [10, 12]. Such ‘societal adjustments’ to processes of technology’s progress and deployment ‘did pay off handsomely’ [12]. Nevertheless, this aspect may be taken into account bearing in mind the presence of sameness between the previous industrialization and the present one. Withal, in that way, human work would be complemented by machines rather than become extinct or superfluous. 

​

Contrastingly to the opinion that automation might be a synonym for the transformation of occupations, the march of events may acquire a different character. That may well happen due to a specific and well-defined rationale – innovations powered by Artificial Intelligence gain sanity and supersede humans with relative ease [10], let alone a presumable probability of widespread discontent on behalf of the employees on par with the violation of fundamental human rights. Thus, we may crystallize the notion that the new wave of alarmism among human beings would have to rear its head sooner or later.

​

Therefore, is the uprisal of latter-day Luddites possible? Unconditionally, it has always been a great challenge to predict the future, nevertheless, a few cases of such movements have already been spotted and we are going to give a better insight thereinto in particular. 

​

According to certain scholars, worldwide labour displacement can be provoked by two powerful countries whose investments in technological innovations considerably prevail – the US and China. So-called ‘technological oligopoly’ is considered to be somehow a double-edged sword, assuming that while on the one hand, they maximize the profit of their own, on the other hand – dire consequences akin to technological unemployment may pose a threat not only to their citizens but worldwide [10]. A substantial reduction in global future labour demand has already been estimated by the figure of 85 million jobs by the year 2025 [13]. And, even though there exists a contrary view, expressing that AI will create jobs and the number of ‘extinct occupations’ or lost workplaces might be supplanted or balanced by statistics of job generation [14], we still cannot deny the fact that cutting-edge technologies of modern times are gaining a different nature and, thus, capabilities. Moreover, above 40% of workers with a low level of education are alleged to undergo displacement by 2030, while the respective figure of susceptible employees with a high-level education equals 10% [13]. Thus, the disposition of professions of the future may not lead to the ‘humanization of work’ in spheres, where the first category of workers abovementioned are competent and may receive pertinent retraining. 

​

Taking into consideration one of the spheres, where specific processes of employee productivity’s evaluation boil down to algorithmic assessments, it is pivotal to enlighten the issue of one of the American marketable delivery services – ‘Amazon Flex’ – which hires contract drivers and gained more popularity during the pandemic of COVID-19, providing job seekers with a tempting proposition to join their team [14, 15]. Potential employees have to conform to 5 requirements set out on the official website of the service: living in a city where ‘Flex’ operates, the person must be at least 21 years old to become a delivery partner, have a valid U.S. driver’s license and at least a mid-sized vehicle to carry the packages, a smartphone is also a necessity in order to download a special app, inter alia needed for monitoring the rating of the driver [15]. Under one of Amazon’s mottos of ‘efficiency, reliability, and innovation’, the company also claims to provide certain protection pertaining to auto insurance or car maintenance discounts as a part of the reward program the contract driver becomes part of since attaining eligibility after the first delivery.

​

While Jeff Bezos, founder of the ‘Amazon’ company itself, expressed the prediction that ‘jobs will get more engaging’ in terms of deployment of AI and also added that ‘you have to remember, a lot of the jobs today are quite routine’, perhaps, former ‘Flex’ workers may agree with his statement, however, adding particular negative connotations to the fact how involving and invigorating some standards set by the algorithms are [14, 16].  In one of Bloomberg’s articles called ‘Fired by Bot at Amazon: “It’s You Against the Machine”’, the author interviewed 15 ‘Flex’ drivers, including four individuals who had the misfortune to claim that the workers were constantly monitored by the application and often penalized for circumstances they could not have affected, for instance, adverse weather conditions or locked gates at apartment complexes which were considered to be a common complaint among ‘Flex’ drivers. And, even after having called the support center and being instructed to return to the delivery station, reassuring the driver that the problem would be tackled, the rating of the employee could be as ruined as it was before proving the service that it was not a human factor which caused a delay or a temporary termination in delivery (although such companies as ‘Uber’ or ‘Lyft’ are stated to be less likely to penalize their employees for ‘circumstances beyond their control’).  What is more, former ‘Amazon’ managers reaffirm the aforementioned statement, arguing that ‘the largely automated system is insufficiently attuned to the real-world challenges drivers face every day’. Since such imbroglios, the rating category of the ‘Flex’ driver may downgrade from ‘Fantastic’ or ‘Great’ to ‘Fair’ or ‘At Risk’ – that thereby leads to the loss of access to the account and corresponding e-mail notification of the following nature: ‘You’re no longer eligible to participate in the Amazon Flex program and won’t be able to sign in to the Amazon Flex app’ [14]. Nevertheless, according to a few cases outlined in Bloomberg’s article, the employees didn’t obtain the justice they expected, notwithstanding the fact that one of the workers delivered about 8,000 packages with a ‘Great’ rating and another worker was even asked whether he would like to train other drivers. The last employee, besides, gave the following comment concerning the algorithms of the service: ‘It seems they don’t have any common sense about how the real world works’ [14]. 

​

Such a response may also be supported by the notions expressed by a few former ‘Amazon’ managers who are claimed in the journalistic article to have asserted that ‘“Amazon” knew delegating work to machines would lead to mistakes and damaging headlines, but decided it was cheaper to trust the algorithms than pay people to investigate mistaken firings so long as the drivers could be replaced easily’ [14]. Hence, it may seem that the process of the workers’ recruitment was somehow ‘put on stream’ and entirely entrusted with the elaborated algorithms. 

​

What is more, the reflection of the analogical policy in ‘Amazon’ has started becoming less vague and more conspicuous in terms of the reduction of workplaces. According to another Bloomberg’s article ‘Amazon CEO Says Job Cuts Will Continue Into 2023’, the company is considered to eliminate jobs ‘following years of rapid growth’ [17]. ‘The New York Times’ outlined that this planned layoff of ‘approximately 10,000 people in corporate and technology jobs’, might be the largest staff reduction in the history of the company [18]. It is also significant to emphasize the actuality that business models are undergoing considerable alterations all around the world and the role of the precariousness of the economy may be a secure indication of such changes. And the aforementioned tendency may be traced in lines of action of well-known and influential companies, inter alia ‘Twitter’, ‘Meta’ (the parent company of ‘Facebook’ and ‘Instagram’), ‘Lyft’, ‘Stripe’, and ‘Snap’ [18]. In particular, the reduction in ‘Meta’ workforce was estimated to fire more than 11,000 employees (about 13% of workers), underpinning the policy by the idea of focusing ‘on a smaller number of “high priority” areas’, taking into account ‘artificial intelligence, advertising and the metaverse’ as of the crucial realms to concentrate on [19]. ‘Twitter’, in its turn, dismissed about 3,700 employees haphazardly, it was also claimed that ‘at one late-night meeting about the Twitter Blue subscription product, at least one worker was locked out of the company’s systems during the call” [20]. Co-founder of ‘Twitter’, Jack Dorsey issued an apology by tweeting ‘Folks at Twitter past and present are strong and resilient. They will always find a way no matter how difficult the moment. I realize many are angry with me. I own the responsibility for why everyone is in this situation: I grew the company size too quickly. I apologize for that’ [20, 21]. 

​

And, while some companies show a particular similarity in explanation for the reduction of their specialists, pointing out that the previous expansion of the organization, largely owing to its success during the recent pandemic [18, 19], is no longer self-justifying and paying off, it still remains disputable whether the deployment of novel technologies does reinforce companies’ confidence in gaining more independence and autonomy in operating thereof by virtue of AI without developers of its own algorithms. In other words, AI may be an inconspicuous or disguised catalytic agent among reasons for analogous layoffs. 

​

Furthermore, Sandra Sucher, a professor of management at Harvard University who has studied reduction for more than a decade and is also an internationally recognized trust researcher, rendered her opinion concerning Twitter’s cuts we have mentioned afore [20]. Despite the fact that the scale of that reduction was not unprecedented, the situation with layoffs, which were done so quickly without providing the respective justification to employees, raises questions, inter alia pertaining to legal challenges on the guarantees of labour rights the company’s office holders may face and already do. The employees and former workers of ‘Twitter’ have already taken part in a specific social media movement to commiserate with one another due to the current situation in the company [20]. And, although this activity has not acquired a character of a protest, we cannot deny the fact that if such tendencies continue to happen, widespread discontent would be ineluctable, taking various forms. 

​

What is more, we may presume that certain unemployment, in any manifestation, as a result of the new way of the Industrial Revolution is ineluctable. And the supporting mechanisms entrenched in a great variety of governmental policies have been acknowledged to be particularly irrelevant to substantially help the employees in such circumstances. If we take into account only the changes in the unemployment systems, scholars emphasize that ‘current unemployment compensation systems are designed to support cyclical unemployment’ [10]. However, ‘structural unemployment’ can be more perennial and ‘usually requires retraining for a new occupation’ while the system of taxation is claimed to charge ’labor more than capital, stimulating automation since considerably less tax is collected per amount produced by automated processes’. Hence, the specialists lead to the notion that if the tax exemptions for ‘humanized work’ were provided or the automated production was charged more, then, ostensibly, certain disproportionality and inadequacy could be diminished. 

​

Universal Constitution of Artificial Intelligence. Nowadays, taking into consideration the sadly known ubiquitous inertia on behalf of the legislators when it comes to the regulation of novel relations, AI has not been given relevant insight in terms of official regulation from the government worldwide. However, the right steps towards enlightening the necessity and vitality of possible directions of settling the issues that arise have been made not only from our side but also on the part of the respective specialists and scholars. 

​

Taking an example from the US into account, it is important to note that Mr. Coons, a Senator from Delaware, introduced a Bill to increase fairness and transparency in algorithmic eligibility determinations (herein Bill), which was read and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate of the United States in 2020. The primary objective of the document lies in the establishment of basic requirements for companies that use algorithmic processes to make determinations about ‘the opportunity to access, or the revocation of important opportunities including, but not limited to, education, employment, credit, health care insurance, and housing’ [22]. Hence, in Section 3 of the Bill (FTC STUDY AND REPORT ON WAYS COMPANIES ARE DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING ALGORITHMIC ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS), in point 9 of article (a), the fact that the algorithmic audits have to be essential is outlined, as follows: ‘The Commission shall conduct a study on the ways covered entities are developing and implementing algorithmic eligibility determinations. Such study shall include an analysis of – (9) whether covered entities perform algorithmic audits to understand whether algorithmic eligibility determinations are fair, how covered entities define fairness for this purpose, and whether any such audit techniques and outcomes of audits are available to individuals or groups challenging an algorithmic eligibility determination.” The akin notion we have specified in one of our comprehensive academic research projects concerning the establishment of the monopoly on AI, guaranteeing the citizens fundamental rights and freedoms as well as providing the government with an opportunity to ‘tame’ and exercise control over the innovations, sending them in the right direction in order to serve the humankind [4]. Such a course of action may be supported by elaborating the governmental AI and integrating it with the commercial AI. Thus, as we mentioned earlier, ‘non-governmental AI would have to be interoperable with the governmental one, which would fix some errors if needed and ensure that the license applicant (non-governmental AI) can be trusted’ [23].

​

One of the considerable aspects of the Bill is the fact that point 12 of article (a) of Section 3 also addresses ‘the issue of intellectual property concerns of covered entities, like trade secret protections, that may arise if the Federal Government requires companies to share information related to their algorithmic eligibility determination processes’. However, the mechanism of any regulatory intervention on behalf of the government may be attributable to the Universal Constitution of Artificial Intelligence which would set out the basis of the legal framework for the Constitutions of every country around the globe.

​

Acute issue of shifting responsibility for unlawful dismissals to AI. The question concerning AI obtaining legal personhood is particularly vexed, mainly due to the fact that the last has always been supposed to give in to humans, nevertheless, the sparks of sanity in AI have recently been spotted [24]. And, if we presume that in case of the widespread acceptance of AI’s consciousness the innovation would be legally recognized not only as an object, but a subject of law, some unscrupulous individuals may take advantage of it. Furthermore, the dilemma regarding the development of unbiased and impartial algorithms and the deployment thereof would still be a relevant sore point unless the governmental algorithm takes action. 

​

In a report for the Trades Union Congress by the ‘AI Law Consultancy’, a thorough study of the legal specificities of the regulation of AI, inter alia a critical role of the last in the labour market, was conducted [25]. Essentially, a great variety of notions truly resonates with the Bill we have enlightened afore. For instance, it is stipulated that ‘no international trade agreement should protect intellectual property rights from transparency in such a way as to undermine the protection of employees and workers’ rights’. Thus, the actors who deploy AI would have to comply with the standards set for the use of such innovations. What is more, the authors express the idea that employers sometimes tend to ‘displace responsibility for adverse effects on to the provider’, implying the complexity of pioneering systems, and highlight that it is pivotal for the regulation to ‘place obligations on organizations that develop systems even if they are not the ultimate “end user”’. Nevertheless, while the researchers presume that ‘employers purchase proprietary systems with little knowledge of the way they work and the impact they can have on the employment relationship’, we suppose that is vital for the legislators to outline the possible liability of all actors – the purchasers or employers, in particular, the developers and even the employees who may encroach on human rights in bad faith. In this report, gaps in effective legal protection from unfair dismissal in the UK are identified; the access to human decision-makers in an employment relationship has to be ensured or otherwise may lead to ‘marginalization’. The risks to the welfare of the workforce have also been elucidated: ‘existing legislation does not mandate collective bargaining in relation to their use. Consultation and a right to collective bargaining in relation to their introduction and use is necessary to promote trust, avoid abuses and secure its beneficial use’. Hence, the message of harnessing cutting-edge technologies in order to ameliorate instead of degrading the working lives of people is crystallized. 

​

Synthesizing the information mentioned afore, it is significant to note that although there exists an opinion negating the ‘regulatory vacuum’ AI innovations have flourished in, implying that fundamental rules of the international legislation are ‘in effect even in the absence of such a lex specialis for automation and AI’ [26], unequivocal gaps in the legislation, inter alia in the realm of the Labour law, already exist and even more and more legal lacunas would appear in the course of development of AI, where one of the most daunting challenges thereof would be mass distrust and aggravation of the problems concerning the lack of forces on behalf of the government in order to exercise control over the proprietors of the innovations and the technological progress in particular (this issue, in our opinion, has a distinctively high probability to occur as a result of prior inertia of the legislators towards the regulation of these automated and autonomous systems, specifically in the implementation of the global governmental monopoly on AI).

​

In our academic research, it is also pertinent to mention Amara’s law which has become an adage for the phenomenon of novel technologies and their implications, consolidating our notions illuminated afore and stating the following: ‘We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.’  [27] Hence, it is absolutely critical to take considerable and reasonable actions globally and urgently, starting from the elaboration of the Constitution of AI, ensuring that fundamental human rights and freedoms are behind a credible and reliable shield of Law which, in its turn, cultivates and encapsulates the environment for our society’s talents and benevolent aspirations to rally and flourish not under the legal vacuum, but in a peaceful harmony therewith. 

References:

​

1) Andrews, E. (2015), Who were the Luddites? Available at: https://bit.ly/2tTQgg9 (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

2) Klein, C. (2019), The original Luddites raged against the machine of the Industrial Revolution. Available at: https://bit.ly/2MkPktK (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

3) Mueller, G. (2021), Breaking things at work: The Luddites are right about why you hate your job. Verso Books.

​

4) Prianykova, P. (2022), Specific legislative amendments that have to be introduced to the Constitutional Law of every country, International Human Rights Defender on AI Polina Prianykova. Available at: https://prianykovabusiness.wixsite.com/defender/aiandconstitutionallaw (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

5) Prianykova, P. (2022), Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on AI implementation into the worldwide legislation, International Human Rights Defender on AI Polina Prianykova. Available at: https://prianykovabusiness.wixsite.com/defender/prianykovascientificdoctrineonai (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

6) United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

7) Thompson, C. (2017), When Robots Take All of Our Jobs, Remember the Luddites. Available at: https://bit.ly/3Yr0AJN (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

8) Carl Benedikt Frey, Michael A. Osborne, The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation? Available at: https://bit.ly/3BrqKlt (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

9) Markoff, J. (2011), Armies of expensive lawyers, replaced by cheaper software, The New York Times. Available at: https://nyti.ms/3Y6qCl8 (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

10) Lima, Y. et al. (2021), Understanding technological unemployment: A review of causes, consequences, and solutions. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020050 (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

11) Willis Towers Watson, The future chief people officer: Imagine. Invent. Ignite. Available at: https://bit.ly/3UNnqrQ (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

12) Autor, D.H. (2015), Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of Workplace Automation, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), pp. 3–30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3. (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

13) Techjury, 19 statistics about jobs lost to automation in 2022. Available at: https://bit.ly/3HJc9Gj (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

14) Soper, S. (2021), Fired by bot: Amazon turns to machine managers and workers are losing out, Bloomberg. Available at: https://bloom.bg/3UQjkPH (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

15) Amazon Flex. Available at: https://flex.amazon.com/why-flex (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

16) CNBC, Jeff Bezos on AI: Autonomous Weapons Are ‘genuinely scary,’ robots won't put us all out of work. Available at: https://cnb.cx/2rAE0Aw (Accessed: December 07, 2022).

​

17) Soper, S. (2022), Amazon (AMZN) CEO Andy Jassy says job cuts will continue into 2023, Bloomberg. Available at: https://bloom.bg/3uDMbfo (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

18) Weise, K. (2022), Amazon is said to plan to lay off thousands of employees, The New York Times. Available at: https://nyti.ms/3Pxh2UN (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

19) Frenkel, S., Satariano, A. and Mac, R. (2022), Meta lays off more than 11,000 employees, The New York Times. Available at: https://nyti.ms/3PhPna0 (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

20) Conger, K., Mac, R. and Isaac, M. (2022), Confusion and frustration reign as Elon Musk cuts half of Twitter's staff, The New York Times. Available at: https://nyti.ms/3hkgvsA (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

21) Dorsey, J. (2022), Jack Dorsey's Tweet, Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1588913276980633600 (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

22) Congress.gov, Senator Christopher A. Coons, S.5052 - Algorithmic Fairness Act of 2020. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5052/text (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

23) Prianykova, P. (2022), Specific legislative amendments that have to be introduced to the constitutional law of every country, International Human Rights Defender on AI Polina Prianykova. Available at: https://prianykovabusiness.wixsite.com/defender/world-health-and-ai (Accessed: December 11, 2022). 

​

24) Tiku, N. (2022), The Google Engineer who thinks the company's AI has come to life, The Washington Post. Available at: https://wapo.st/3W9UM58 (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

25) Robin Allen QC and Dee Masters, Technology Managing People – the legal implications.Available at: https://www.tuc.org.uk (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

26) Desierto, D. (2020), Human rights in the era of automation and Artificial Intelligence. Available at: https://bit.ly/3VRrc4M (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

27) PCMAG, Definition of Amara's law. Available at: https://bit.ly/3VMwr5z (Accessed: December 11, 2022).

​

 

Officially Published in December 13-16, 2022, Boston, USA (Table of Contents, № 38)

https://isg-konf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Current-challenges-trends-and-transformations.pdf

​

© Copyright by Polina Prianykova_all rights reserved