Workplace automation without achievement gaps: a reply to Danaher and Nyholm

Daniel W Tigard

doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00064-1

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, John Danaher and Sven Nyholm raise well-founded concerns that the advances in AI-based automation will threaten the values of meaningful work. In particular, they present a strong case for thinking that automation will undermine our achievements, thereby rendering our work less meaningful. It is also claimed that the threat to achievements in the workplace will open up ‘achievement gaps’—the flipside of the ‘responsibility gaps’ now commonly discussed in technology ethics. This claim, however, is far less worrisome than the general concerns for widespread automation, namely because it rests on several conceptual ambiguities. With this paper, I argue that although the threat to achievements in the workplace is problematic and calls for policy responses of the sort Danaher and Nyholm outline, when framed in terms of responsibility, there are no ‘achievement gaps’.

Highlights

The development of increasingly sophisticated technology in the workplace has long been a source of social and political upheaval
In a recent article in this journal, John Danaher and Sven Nyholm present a strong case for thinking that AI-based automation is posing a newfound threat to the values of meaningful work [3]
Do achievement gaps really constitute ‘responsibility gaps’? To be sure, various lines of counterargument could be raised with respect to the notions covered so far, and Danaher and Nyholm foreshadow and respond to several contrasting positions on the ideas of meaningful work, achievement, and the threat from automation

Summary

Introduction

The development of increasingly sophisticated technology in the workplace has long been a source of social and political upheaval. We see reason to question the extent to which the person’s work is truly meaningful With this in mind, Danaher and Nyholm characterize meaningful work with two conditions: value in ‘the overarching output produced by the workplace’, and value in ‘the individual worker’s job’ and sub-tasks Automation threatens achievements in the workplace by reducing the value of the outputs This can be seen by considering cases where humans merely maintain the machines’ functioning, where humans take orders from machines, and even where humans supervise machines. 7), Danaher and Nyholm note that such positions of power are often held by an elite few, thereby depriving most workers of opportunities for achievements; and with the use of machine-learning systems, even the elite become removed from the outputs.4 They argue that ‘automation, almost by necessity, reduces the cost of the human commitment’ They note that automation might not present a marked decrease in the voluntariness of work; the threat to the first three features is enough, on their account, to show that automating technologies have ‘the potential to open up numerous achievement gaps’ (p. 8)

Achievement and responsibility

Easing the worries over gaps

Conclusion