Also that, but if the next lot has it then.. is that gonna help us

I just really dislike the UK approach. It’s very much based on populist standpoints instead of actually doing something useful

😛😛😛 looks like they’re consulting with the Tony Blair institute on this one ☠️

This is going to create yet more oligarchies of unelected tech company bosses who administer access to society without any scrutiny.

If you don’t conform to society’s idea of the “right” citizen this can be dangerous - and it can exclude older adults who are not tech literate from services (like QR codes during the pandemic did).

If predictions for what these digital ID technologies will be used for are met, they are likely to then be used to access the platforms citizens utilise for work &/or social networking, tying their jobs and political views to their government issued identity.

Digital ID is likely to exclude marginalised demographics such as SWs & trans people from society unless they create one, like removal from social media has: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

It’s almost as if the media had learnt nothing about how Brexit and Trump came to be. It’s almost as if they didn’t care.

@weareccsn.bsky.social

Bc of this, considering the experiences, hopes & fears of all workers – incl creative workers – remains paramount towards the development and future governance of responsible and trusted AI, but also the development of tools and services that add to rather than detract from the human experience

If the fast-paced, de-regulated growth of the internet and social media platforms leading to almost ungovernable spaces is anything to go by, a laissez-fair approach to GenAI that does not properly count the human costs and benefits will likely lead to further harm and inequalities.

The rush towards GenAI gold seems to be solely an industry affair, showing that tech companies do not seem to know who they are creating these products for beyond themselves and their earnings.

While people with a limited understanding of AI shared more dystopian views than others, it is striking that even our 400 participants’ most positive expectations did not reflect the kinds of utopian GenAI scenarios espoused by #BigTech companies pushing for industry growth.

Based on existing tech inequalities, participants shared fears of censorship, targeted advertising, unfair decision-making, copyright infringement and the non-consensual sharing of private data, as well as AI’s potential threats to democracy with deepfakes & misinformation;

When recruiting, we found that posting survey links on X & including keywords like “AI” resulted in spam, multiple & (ironically) AI-generated responses, which meant we had to select less contributions than those submitted. This shows AI can be a threat to the production of knowledge & research;

Our creators saw #GenAI more as an opportunity to lighten their workload than as a creative aid, reflecting existing precarity and overwhelm with workload that are typical of the creator economy;

A key fear our participants reported was the previously under-researched idea of “loss”: a loss of enjoyment arising from learning a new skill or craft, which was central to creative workers’ motivation to work in their field and which they feared to lose if AI could perform tasks for them;

Some of our key points ⤵️ #Contentcreators and creative workers are too often overlooked in future imaginaries and/or industry predictions about #AI. No one tends to ask them what they need from the industry, or to focus on how they’ll be affected;