The DOI matches its Crossref record; 161 of the 172 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 137 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences
Open accessAbstract
This review seeks to present a comprehensive picture of recent discussions in the social sciences of the anticipated impact of AI on the world of work. Issues covered include: technological unemployment, algorithmic management, platform work and the politics of AI work. The review identifies the major disciplinary and methodological perspectives on AI’s impact on work, and the obstacles they face in making predictions. Two parameters influencing the development and deployment of AI in the economy are highlighted: the capitalist imperative and nationalistic pressures.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This critical review synthesises recent social-science research on AI's impact on work across four areas: technological unemployment, algorithmic management, platform work, and the politics of AI work. It argues that AI's effects are not technologically determined but shaped by two background imperatives—a capitalist profit imperative and nationalistic/geopolitical pressures.
Key findings
- Predictions of technological unemployment vary enormously by method: Frey and Osborne estimate 47% of US jobs at risk within two decades, Bowles 54% in the EU and USA, while Arntz et al. (using an alternative task-linking method) find around 9% across the OECD (12% in Austria, 6% in South Korea), and Nedelkoska and Quintini estimate 14% of jobs highly automatable and 32% at 50–70% risk.
- Optimistic accounts report productivity and job gains: Accenture estimates AI could raise labour productivity by up to 40% by 2035; PwC estimates global GDP up 14% by 2030 (up to $15.7 trillion); the World Economic Forum predicts a net increase of 58 million jobs (133 million new roles, 75 million displaced); McKinsey values AI in banking at $1 trillion annually (15.4% of sales).
- The review identifies methodological weaknesses in forecasting: models rely on existing job/task descriptions, treat "skill" and "routine work" as unproblematic, and cannot anticipate new tasks and jobs; Clifton et al. are cited that technology's employment impact "is not deterministic."
- Marxist and historical critiques argue capitalist property relations and profit criteria, weakened labour power, cheap labour, shareholder-value priorities, and sectoral overcapacity all disincentivise job-replacing automation, so absence of mass unemployment coincides instead with precariousness and exploitation.
Methods
- Design: a critical, non-disciplinary literature review, one output of an Australian Research Council–funded project (DP190103116) on the centrality of work; "critical" is defined via the "Macbeth question" about the social-political context of knowledge claims.
- Scope: work is restricted to formal economic activity (production of goods and services for profit or wage); AI is defined as computational methods using data to replicate activities in labour processes.
- Analysis: thematic synthesis across four areas—technological unemployment (Sect. 3), algorithmic management (Sect. 4), platform work (Sect. 5), and the politics of AI work (Sect. 6)—organised around the capitalist and nationalistic imperatives.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: the lack of a specific disciplinary perspective and the broad thematic scope carry drawbacks, including the risk of missing important details and important references in each disciplinary field; they also note their restricted definition of work excludes social reproduction activities.
- Evident from the text: no systematic search or inclusion protocol is described, and the review relies on secondary literature and cited estimates rather than primary data collection; the authors themselves note that case-study methods inform only a particular job at a particular time and place, and that generalising across national contexts is difficult.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
88 Not checked yet · 53 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A study by Acemoglu, Autor, Hazell, and Restrepo (2020) concludes no significant effect yet in the last decade at the occupation or industry level in the US.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Acemoglu et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited paper is by Acemoglu and Restrepo, not the four authors named in the citing sentence. Its “Implications of technology for work and labour” section discusses employment declines associated with industrial robots, but our copy does not report a last-decade test finding no significant US occupation- or industry-level effect. Searches for that finding and its specified levels of analysis found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Increasing amounts of empirical evidence confirm this risk (Obermeyer et al. 2019;Datta et al. 2015;Lambrecht and Tucker 2019).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Obermeyer et al. 2019 source
The introduction (p. 2) says empirical work is increasingly supporting concerns that algorithms reproduce disparities, and gives examples across several settings. The paper also reports racial bias in a widely used health-management algorithm (p. 2), directly contributing to that evidence. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked yetcites Datta et al. 2015
- Supportedcites Lambrecht and Tucker 2019 source
The field-test results (section 4.1, page not available) show that women, especially younger women, saw fewer STEM career ads than men. The Introduction says algorithmic decisions can disadvantage one group even without human bias. This supplies empirical evidence for the claimed risk of discriminatory outcomes, though the paper describes its finding as apparent discrimination rather than discriminatory intent. (LLM, conf=0.87)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two parameters influencing the development and deployment of AI in the economy are highlighted: the capitalist imperative and nationalistic pressures.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“AI processes are deployed in a context characterised by two fairly uncontroversial features: a capitalistic imperative and nationalistic pressures.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
In the paper
“The geopolitical factor is directly tied to the economic one.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hwang 2018
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet it is not sufficient to refer to advances in theoretical knowledge and technical improvements alone to explain the actual paths it travels and the forms it takes.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In more recent years, the battle for geopolitical hegemony has meant that other major powers, notably China, have also invested significantly in AI research (Barton et al. 2017;Allen 2019;Savage 2020;Roberts et al. 2021).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barton et al. 2017
- Not checked yetcites Allen 2019
- Not checked yetcites Savage 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A major driver of AI innovation and development since the 1980s in the US has been the military (Berman 1992;Morgan et al. 2020 on US investment in AI for intel-ligence and surveilance systems).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berman 1992 source
- Not checked yetcites Morgan et al. 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whatever the reasons, a key condition of its success therefore is that it can replicate the outcomes achieved by human workers.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Predictions about technological unemployment rely on assumptions about the ways in which human workers achieve the outcomes expected in their jobs.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In much of the literature in the social sciences, notably in labour economics, management and the sociology of work, these terms are taken for granted.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Autor et al. 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 61
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or crowdwork and app-work become widespread employment models (so far they are not)”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“AI works by processing large amounts of data to identify patterns (Van Rijmenam 2019).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Rijmenam 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“AI development is stoked by an alliance of corporate and military interests: economic competition is one aspect of the battle for geopolitical hegemony, and military supremacy serves to ensure economic prosperity in competition with other nations (Hwang 2018 for the geopolitics of controlling semiconductors manufacturing and AI patents).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hwang 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is well established that previous waves of automation propelled by advances in information and communication technology were biased in favor of workers with higher skills, replacing lower skill workers and assisting workers with pre-existing complex skill sets (Acemoglu and Autor 2011, Göranzon and Josefson 2012, Buera et al. 2015, Mellacher and Scheuer 2020).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Acemoglu and Autor 2011 source
- Not checked yetcites Göranzon and Josefson 2012
- Not checked yetcites Buera et al. 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI is introduced in workplaces for increased efficiency in some technical aspect of the work process, or it is introduced explicitly with the aim of replacing human workers and thereby reduce labour costs.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI has benefited from investment by companies that hope to find in it a new avenue for cutting costs, notably labour (Bessen et al. 2018) and transaction costs (Gurkaynak 2019; Lobel 2018), increasing outputs through rationalization of the production process (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2019), raising productivity (Brynjolfsson et al. 2019), managing the workforce in more efficient ways (Eubanks 2022),”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bessen et al. 2018
- Not checked yetcites Gurkaynak 2019
- Not checked yetcites Acemoglu and Restrepo 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Digital innovation, like all modern technology, certainly has its own momentum, yet it is not sufficient to refer to advances in theoretical knowledge and technical improvements alone to explain the actual paths it travels and the forms it takes.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that AI did not emerge and is not being deployed in an economic or a political void.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 2020 McKinsey reports evaluates the annual value increase of AI in the banking industry at $1 trillion, or 15.4% of sales.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The history of automation to date demonstrates that new technologies so far have consistently created new jobs, both directly and indirectly (David 1990).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites David 1990
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The creation of new tasks is a key component of the labour economists' arguments against universal technological unemployment.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Comparable innovation effects are expected in other industries where the innovation process is inseparable from the research process (Cockburn et al. 2019).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cockburn et al. 2019
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The two business scholars famously predict that 47% of all jobs within the U.S. are at risk of technological replacement within two decades.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.1 Pessimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frey and Osborne 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In an important review of the literature, which combines a historical approach with a task-focused one, Ernst et al. (2019) conclude that AI in fact is likely to play out in ways different from previous waves, by increasing productivity and potentially creating more inclusive growth, provided correct educational measures are taken in countries that are part of globalised labour chains.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ernst et al. 2019 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A 2018 study by the World Economic Forum (2018) predicts that automation will result in a net increase of 58 million jobs, with a total 133 million new roles created and 75 million current workers displaced.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites World Economic Forum 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI is viewed by many business experts as a technology that can spur innovation and provide competitive advantage (Davenport 2018; Polak et al. 2020 for the finance sector).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davenport 2018
- Not checked yetcites Polak et al. 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using this approach, Frey and Osborne's earth-shaking predictions on the impact of AI was refuted by Arntz et al. (2016).”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios · plain
“With this new method, they found evidence for much lower outcomes, around 9% across the OECD (a high of 12% in Austria) and as low as 6% in South Korea.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arntz et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Beside displacement, another trend widely anticipated is the polarisation of labour markets (Brito 2020;Korinek and Stiglitz 2019), similar to what occurred in the previous wave of automation”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.1 Pessimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brito 2020
- Not checked yetcites Korinek and Stiglitz 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Using a similar approach, Bowles arrived at an even higher figure, claiming that 54% of jobs in the EU and USA were under threat in the same time span (Bowles 2014).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.1 Pessimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bowles 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A key Manpower survey in 2017 (ManpowerGroup 2017) provided interesting figures, with managers in some countries expecting to substitute workers for machines, whilst others expected AI to increase hiring.Overall, the survey demonstrated optimism (also ServiceNow 2017).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ManpowerGroup 2017
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gillham et al. (2018) in a PWC report estimate that global GDP would increase by 14% by 2030, an equivalent of up to $15.7 trillion.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gillham et al. 2018
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In another noteworthy approach, Princeton computer expert Edward Felten and his colleagues developed a model for how computerisation and specific AI functions can affect the activities making up particular occupations.They also land on more measured conclusions (Felten et al. 2018(Felten et al. , 2019(Felten et al. , 2021)).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Felten et al. 2018
- Not checked yetcites Felten et al. 2019
- Not checked yetcites Felten et al. 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, human skills can be complemented rather than copied by automated processes, with machines taking charge of the routine aspects of the job (Autor 2014;Brooks et al. 2020;Alarie et al. 2018;Ekbia and Nardi 2017).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.1 What types of jobs are affected?
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many economists and technology experts contend that AI will substitute for human work at such a scale that socialeconomic organisations will be shaken to the ground as a result.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.1 Pessimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Danaher 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Purdy and Daugherty in a 2016 Accenture report (Accenture 2016) estimate that AI has the potential to increase labor productivity across the board by up to 40% in 2035.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Accenture 2016
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Many economists, historians, business scholars and executives reject such pessimistic visions of massive technological unemployment (Moghaddam et al. 2020).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moghaddam et al. 2020
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Another macro-economic argument highlighted by Autor (2015) is captured in the image of the O-ring.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Autor 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Via a questionnaire targeting 3000 companies, Bughin (2020) concludes that labor redistribution will occur.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bughin 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The ILO has published many reports on the future of work, which tend to be cautiously optimistic (for instance ILO 2018).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ILO 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the pharmaceutical industry, AI is already used to spur innovation in a number of ways: for instance, to cite just three platforms, by mapping rare diseases (BERG platform); predicting the pharmaceutical properties of small-molecule candidates for drug development (XtalPi's ID4 platform); or identifying new therapeutic uses for already validated products (BioXel).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a multi-country approach covering 32 nations, Nedelkoska and Quintini (2018) estimate that 14% of jobs are highly automatable (probability of automation over 70%), 32% have a risk of between 50 and 70%.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.1 Pessimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nedelkoska and Quintini 2018
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In their contribution to The Economics of Artificial Intelligence (2017) Acemoglu and Restrepo summarise in plain terms the complex logics associated with the productivity effect.First, as noted, there is a rise in the demand for labor that follows automatically from economic growth triggered by innovation.In theory the demand for labour can be witnessed even in sectors where automation occurred.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios · plain
“Second, demand for labour can increase because automation triggers increased demand for capital.Third, automation can deepen existing automation, which increases productivity without substituting labour (since it is machines that are improved).And fourthly, and most importantly, AI automation creates new tasks.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Acemoglu and Restrepo 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios · plain
In the paper
“It is a well-known fact that productivity has been stagnant in developed economies over the past seventy years, with growth per decade decreasing from 2.3% in the 1950s, to 1.8% in the 2010s (Gries and Naudé 2018).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gries and Naudé 2018
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“New technology creates entirely new jobs (Wilson et al. 2017).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilson et al. 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A major use of technology is to bypass labour forces when they are well organized and push back effectively against capital imperatives (Mueller 2021).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mueller 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the macro-level, the factors involved in economic reality across different context are so numerous and variable, one would assume significant unpredictability in how AI might complement rather than replace human work.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“On some accounts, this effect might even be felt in manufacturing industries servicing automated factories (Goos et al. 2015).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goos et al. 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Strict property rules mean that technological innovation is exclusively owned, put to use, and the outcomes of its productivity-raising potentials captured, by private owners.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nieswandt 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, in a world prone to climate crisis, the environmental impact of AI (Corbett 2018;Dhar 2020;Lucivero 2020;Strubell et al. 2020; van Wynsberghe 2021) might well constrain its deployment, at least if sustainability becomes a serious parameter in economic activity (Nishant et al. 2020 for a contrary optimistic view).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, methods that rely on case studies only inform on a particular job or occupation at a particular time and place, and there are methodological risks in generalising from particular cases.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The capitalist imperative means that the deployment of technologies in a capitalist context is guided exclusively by the search for profit.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nieswandt 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of technological unemployment is in itself nothing to celebrate though, as it coincides with higher levels of precariousness, underemployment and exploitation.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Even in the last decade, productivity growth slowed significantly (Brynjolfsson et al. 2019).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brynjolfsson et al. 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Surplus value can be extracted just as well from human workers (Dinerstein 2021).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinerstein 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Drawing on Cohen's classical reconstruction of historical materialism (2000), Barbara Nieswandt (2021) shows that private property in the means of production and the profit motive make it unlikely that AI-based automation will lead to massive job losses.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nieswandt 2021
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true not only for technical reasons, because many jobs are actually more difficult to perform than is often assumed, but also for economic ones: as De Stefano makes the case (2020), assuming that automation necessarily increases productivity might in some cases be based on an overly narrow view of the tasks automated and on erroneous measures of efficiency.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The models appear to describe mathematically consistent worlds, but it is less clear that they describe our messy one, let alone what it might be in the future.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Overcapacity in manufacturing and agriculture leads to an exodus of workers towards service and care sectors, where productivity is achieved through wage suppression and depreciation of working conditions.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Benanav 2020
- Not checked yetcites Smith 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“an important review by Clifton et al. (2020, 11) highlights that, “the impact of technology on employment is not deterministic-the deployment of these new technologies is contingent upon a multitude of factors, including public policy, firm strategy and geography, among others.””
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clifton et al. 2020
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the external observer, these methods seem to deliver substantial lessons for understanding past trends, but are far less convincing when it comes to future ones.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The frequency with which the mathematical models are revised, with new parameters and axiomatic hypotheses being introduced in each new paper, gives the non-spe-cialist the sense that there is a gap between the assurance with which conclusions are stated in plain English and the ability of the models to capture reality, notably given the number of idealizing assumptions underpinning the analyses.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Labour's current deficiency in power compared to capital's means that automation is “bounded”.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fleming 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI needs data regarding workers' skill, time use, and behavior, which in turn makes worker monitoring a necessity.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These new occupations come with low wages, precarious working conditions and tenure and uncertain hours.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the other tools capitalists possess to ensure the exploitation of workers, the search for profit is better served by increasing output than job churn, which means that there is no incentive to shed jobs.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When human labour is relatively cheap, there is no incentive for capital to invest and deploy expensive technologies.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This triggers employment in new service sectors, even a return to older forms of dependent labour.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the O-ring model, failure of any one step in the chain of production leads the entire production process to fail.Conversely, improvements in the reliability of any given link increase the value of improvements in all of the others.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2.2 Optimistic scenarios
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kremer 1993
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By definition, the lay reader is tempted to say, if needs, tasks and jobs will be new, it seems difficult to guess what they might be, let alone capture them in models premised on existing job profiles, and on the descriptions of the tasks entailed in currently existing occupations (see the 2018 ILO literature review for precisely this point; also Arntz et al. 2019).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ILO 2018
- Not checked yetcites Arntz et al. 2019
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These Marx-inspired analyses of technological unemployment are supported by the analyses of historians who directly contradict optimistic readings like Mokyr's, and emphasise the slowing down of innovation under financial capitalism, where profit maximisation occurs through speculation rather than changes in industrial paradigms (Gordon 2014(Gordon , 2015)).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > a. Methodological doubts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gordon 2014
- Not checked yetcites Gordon 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Surveillance and control: algorithmic management raises obvious issues of privacy (Bhave et al. 2020;Ebert et al. 2021;Fukumura et al. 2021;Tsamados et al. 2022), not just at the workplace, but also at home, notably following the pandemic-induced shift to home-based working (Collins 2020).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bhave et al. 2020
- Not checked yetcites Ebert et al. 2021 source
- Not checked yetcites Collins 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI also gathers and processes data in ways that are often hidden from workers, leading to decisions made in ways which humans cannot, or at least cannot quickly or efficiently, process.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The power of AI for gathering and processing vast amounts of data can be harnessed in traditional work settings where employees are hired under work arrangements and labour contracts predating AI automation.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But what can in some conditions amount to an increase in autonomy can also mean a lack of training, notably around OHS issues.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the computational power of AI allows it to function not just as a new industrial tool within pre-existing work processes.It also becomes the centerpiece of a new business model that radically alters modes of working, as well as the conditions of employment and the interactions of workers with management and customers.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other battles are about the right to privacy of workers (De Stefano 2020 for Europe) and the development of regulatory frameworks to give an ethical frame to AI development (Salento 2018).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Stefano 2020
- Not checked yetcites Salento 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Vallas and Schor reference a large number of studies on working conditions for appworkers (see the more recent Moore and Woodstock 2021), and conclude that power asymmetry rather than horizontal democracy has so far been the experience of workers.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Workers are managed and directed through reasons they are not provided with, preventing collaborative or even consultative leadership styles, substituting a directive or even coercive one in its place (Dunphy and Stace 1993).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dunphy and Stace 1993 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Vallas and Schor reject an assumed view of platform workers that is overly homogeneous.Many platform workers in fact use the work to complement income, precarisation through platform is far from a universal trend.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vallas and Schor 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Surveillance can lead to increased pressure on workers to perform, taking away moments of respite, as is well documented in warehouse (Hanley and Hubbard 2020) and platform work (Newlands 2021a, b).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hanley and Hubbard 2020
- Not checked yetcites Newlands 2021a, b
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A lot of crowdwork and gigwork is highly flexible, has non-regular hours, which can have a negative impact on work-life balance and affect physical and mental health and personal relations as a result (Muntaner 2018;Allan et al. 2021).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ideal-scenario policy recommendations might have their usefulness, but the immense gap between the propositions and economic and political reality points to the need for another kind of approach, one that focuses precisely on what makes these developments of AI doubtful, at least in the short term.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Privacy infringements can occur at all stages of the data cycle: at the time of collection, in the analysis of the data, in the use of the data, and when data ought to be erased.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Management by AI is by definition about removing the human element from the decision-making process.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Service work for an Uber driver for instance is far less scripted than service work in more traditional settings.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The company appears to be absolved of its responsibilities, removing existing avenues through which workers understand and demand these responsibilities are met.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a blueprint, Susskind's proposal is detailed and seems consistent, but it is utterly unrealistic in current ideological and geopolitical conditions, particularly in the few countries spearheading AI innovation.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flexible hours might also be viewed as increased autonomy.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If, as a result of AI deployment in work, technological unemployment does occur at a significant scale, or wealth polarisation, or crowdwork and app-work become widespread employment models (so far they are not), bringing further precariousness in employment conditions, then the impact on current social organisations will be significant (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2020b).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Acemoglu and Restrepo 2020b
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Breaches of privacy touch on a fundamental human right, but they also represent a strong leverage tool for managers, with which they can exert control and undermine autonomy (Shapiro 2018).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 4 Algorithmic management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shapiro 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different types of workers operate under different conditions and have vastly different experiences.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because current social systems continue to be organised on the basis of full-time employment in jobs attracting good wages as the condition for the complete enjoyment of social and economic rights, including full health and pension coverage.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this view of platforms underestimates the capacity of platform workers to evade control, resist and organise.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is at stake is the clash between the two imperatives noted at the outset and the plausibility of a “good AI”, or “AI for good”.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The heterogeneity of the workforce exists also in the locations of the workers, who are scattered around regions, and even around the world.This creates isolation and again prevents organisation for collective action.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One aspect of crowdwork that is worth highlighting is micro-tasking crowdwork that goes to the heart of AI.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A key lesson from the sociology of work perspective is that it is impossible to make overly general statements about platform work (Schor et al. 2020).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schor et al. 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One feature of this relaxation of management control, is the heterogeneity of the workforce this produces, which acts against organisation.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One major battle concerns the legal status of gig workers, whether platforms can divest themselves of all responsibilities regarding the people they employ.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the same token, however, AI can also complement work in some professions, notably by taking away the routine aspects of the job.Workers then focus on the more creative, or rewarding parts of the work.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 5 Platform work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the rhetoric used by the main actors, it is difficult to see ethical considerations having much sway for some of the possible extensions of AI.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the nationalist imperative, one might be skeptical of the willingness of states to enforce principles of “good AI” when they are engaged in high stakes contests over geopolitical hegemony.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What these extraneous, economic and political, parameters indicate is that AI does not by itself determine 'good' nor 'bad' outcomes for the world of work.Rather, what matters is the kind of world in which AI will be developed and deployed.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 6 Conclusion: the politics of AI work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Scientific inquiries are inextricably tied to the historical context in which they occur.
“The core assumption this question captures is that scientific inquiries are inextricably tied to the historical context in which they occur.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Knowledge claims reflect social and political fault lines, whether researchers are aware of it or not.
“Whether they are aware of it or not, knowledge claims reflect social and political fault lines.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“They share this expectation with researchers in the field of AI and work, who in their optimistic scenarios expect a shift in tasks, the creation of new tasks and an emergence of new work profiles rather than the replacement of workers (Deranty and Corbin 2022).”
From Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system (2025) · cites this paper as Deranty and Corbin 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 1 Introduction
“In Sect.2, we focus on issues of technological unemployment.Section 3 is about algorithmic management.Section 4 is dedicated to platform work.”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3 Technological unemployment
“## 3 Technological unemployment”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3 Technological unemployment
“Debates about the impact of AI on employment revolve around its predicted quantitative impact, how much AI is likely to lead to machines replacing humans in work (2.2).This issue, however, depends on an understanding of the types of work activities AI is likely to perform, which in turn relies on assumptions about the skills involved in the tasks making up different types of jobs (2.1).”
§ Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences > 3.2 Substituting, complementing, or creating human work
“## 3.2 Substituting, complementing, or creating human work”
Citations
Cites
The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 · Cited by 8,727
Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 · Cited by 7,137
The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355303322552801 · Cited by 6,205
Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation
Autor, D. H. (2015) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.3 · Cited by 3,917 · cited 6×
“…are supported by the analyses of historians who directly contradict optimistic readings like Mokyr’s, and emphasise the slowing down of innovation under financial capitalism, where profit maximisation occurs through speculation rather than changes in industrial paradigms (Gordon 2014, 2015).”
InfluentialThe growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market
Autor, D. H., & Dorn, D. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.5.1553 · Cited by 3,824 · cited 1×
“…(Brito 2020; Korinek and Stiglitz 2019), similar to what occurred in the previous wave of automation (Autor et al. 2008; Goos and Manning 2007; Autor and Dorn 2013; Michaels et al. 2014; Goos et al. 2014; Graetz and Michaels 2018; Frey 2019; Autor et al. 2015; Scarpetta 2018; Bordot and…”
Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011) · Handbook of Labor Economics · doi:10.1016/s0169-7218(11)02410-5 · Cited by 3,799
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP
Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1355 · Cited by 3,684
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20160696 · Cited by 3,121 · cited 1×
“As a result, labour economists, notably Acemoglu, Autor and Restrepo, highlight AI’s relationship to “high skill automa-tion” (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2018a, b), which compounds the exposure to automation of “higher skill” jobs.”
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732 · cited 2×
“…biases and reproduce discriminatory practices at work, whether the discrimination is built into the algorithms, or management’s use of the algorithm, or as a result of customer’s rating of workers (Noble 2018; Benjamin 2019; Kellogg et al. 2020; Akter et al. 2021; Zajko 2021; Heinrichs 2022).”
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- Acemoglu D (Ed.) (2021) Redesigning AI. MIT Press
- Amorim H, Moda F (2020) Work by app: Algorithmic management and working conditions of Uber drivers in Brazil. Work Organ Labour Global 14(1):101–118
- Applebaum HA (1992) The Concept of Work: Ancient, medieval, and modern. SUNY Press
- Arntz M, Gregory T, Zierahn U (2019) Digitization and the future of work: Macroeconomic consequences. Handbook Labor Hum Resour Popul Econ 1:1–29
- Autor DH, Handel MJ (2013) Putting tasks to the test: Human capital, job tasks, and wages. J Law Econ 31(S1):S59–S96
- Bales RA, Stone K (2020) The invisible web at work: artificial intelligence and electronic surveillance in the workplace. Berkeley J Employm Labor Law 41:1
- Bastani A (2018) Fully Automated Luxury Communism. Verso
- Berger T, Chen C, Frey C B (2017) Cities, Industrialization and Job Creation: Evidence from Emerging Countries, pp 1–25. Mimeo, Oxford Martin School
- Bhave DP, Teo LH, Dalal RS (2020) Privacy at work: A review and a research agenda for a contested terrain. J Manag 46(1):127–164
- Brito DL (2020) Automation Does Not Kill Jobs. Rice University, It Increases Inequality
- Brynolfsson E, McAfee A (2011) Race against the Machine. Mass: Digital Frontier Press, Lexington
- Clifton J, Glasmeier A, Gray M (2020) When machines think for us: the consequences for work and place. Oxford University Press UK 13:3–23
- Datta A, Tschantz MC, Datta A (2015) Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proc Priv Enh Technol 2015(1):92–112
- Daugherty PR, Wilson HJ (2018) Human+ machine: Reimagining work in the age of AI. Harvard Business Press
- David PA (1990) The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. Am Econ Rev 80(2):355–361
- De Stefano V (2019) Negotiating the Algorithm: Automation, Artificial Intelligence, and Labor Protection. Comp Lab L & Pol'y J 41:15
- Eubanks B (2022) Artificial Intelligence for HR: Use AI to Support and Develop a Successful Workforce. Kogan Page, United Kingdom
- Ford M (2015) Rise of the Robots. Cornell University Press, New York
- Ford (2021) Rule of the robots: how artificial intelligence will transform everything. UK: John Murray Press
- Göranzon B, Josefson I (2012). Knowledge, skill and artificial intelligence, Springer Science & Business Media
- Halal W, Kolber J, Davies O, Global T (2017) Forecasts of AI and future jobs in 2030: Muddling through likely, with two alternative scenarios. J Futur Stud 21(2):83–96
- Kalleberg AL, Vallas SP (2018) Probing precarious work: Theory, research, and politics. Res Sociol Work 31(1):1–30
- Lewis P, Bell K (2019) Understanding the UK’s productivity problems: new technological solutions or a case for the renewal of old institutions?. Empl Relations 41(2):296–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER10-2018-0273 · DOI
- Luksha P et al (2015) Atlas of Emerging Jobs. Skolkovo, Moscow
- Manyika J, Chui M, Miremadi M, Bughin J, George K, Willmott P, Dewhurst M (2017) A future that works: AI, automation, employment, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute Research. Tech Rep 60:1–135
- Moghaddam Y, Yurko H, Demirkan H, Tymann N, Rayes A (2020) The future of work: how artificial intelligence can augment human capabilities, business expert press
- Möhlmann M, Henfridsson O (2019) What people hate about being managed by algorithms, according to a study of Uber drivers. Harvard Business Review, 30
- Muller Z (2019) Algorithmic harms to workers in the platform economy: The case of Uber. Columbia J Law Soc Prob 53:167
- Munoz JM, Naqvi A (2018) Business strategy in the artificial intelligence economy. Business Expert Press
- Neufeind M, O'Reilly J, Ranft F (2018) Work in the Digital Age: Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Rowman & Littlefield International
- Paschkewitz J, Patt D (2020) Can AI make your job more interesting? Issues Sci Technol 37(1):74–78
- Purcell C, Brook P (2020) At least I’m my own boss! Explaining consent, coercion and resistance in platform work. Employment and Society, Work
- Scarpetta S (2018) The future of work: Advancing labor market resilience. J Int Aff 72(1):51–57
- Schmidt FA (2017) Digital labour markets in the platform economy. Mapp Polit Challeng Crowd Work Gig Work 7:2016
- Solow R (1987) "We'd better watch out", New York Times Book Review, July 12, 1987
- Srnicek N (2017) Platform Capitam. Polity Press, Germany
- Srnicek N, Williams A (2016) Inventing the Future (revised and Updated Edition): Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. Verso Books, Spain
- Sundararajan A (2017) The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT press
- Susskind D (2020) A world without work: Technology, automation and how we should respond, Penguin UK
- Wilson HJ, Daugherty P, Bianzino N (2017) The jobs that artificial intelligence will create. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 58(4):14
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shah, I. A., & Mishra, S. (2024) · Journal of Occupational Health · doi:10.1093/joccuh/uiad017 · Cited by 156
“56 To safe-guard their workforce,employers can adopt various strategies recommended by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).”
BackgroundJo, H. (2023) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669231202764 · Cited by 106
“Alternatively, AI could automate routine tasks, allowing employees to focus on more complex, strategic initiatives (Deranty and Corbin, 2022).”
Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system
Fecher, B., Hebing, M., Laufer, M., Pohle, J., & Sofsky, F. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01791-1 · Cited by 78
“They share this expectation with researchers in the field of AI and work, who in their optimistic scenarios expect a shift in tasks, the creation of new tasks and an emergence of new work profiles rather than the replacement of workers (Deranty and Corbin 2022).”
Ghosh, A., Saini, A., & Barad, H. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02312-y · Cited by 100
AI-Powered E-Learning for Lifelong Learners: Impact on Performance and Knowledge Application
Ahn, H. Y. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16209066 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Deranty, J.-P., & Corbin, T.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Deranty, Jean-Philippe
- Corbin, Thomas
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2022-06-28
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 675-691
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4283645384
- Semantic Scholar
- 899e19049050282ede00825eb2f965fd4e50b097
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 172
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 30.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP190103116)
- Macquarie University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, future of work, technological unemployment, algorithmic management, platform work, politics of work, capitalism, nationalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
