Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The Future of Work Is Here: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Labour

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Julian Posada

Computers and Society · Submitted 11 Jul 2020

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim The commentary concludes by arguing that the central question regarding the future of work should not be whether intelligent machines will replace humans, but who will own these systems and have a say in their development and operation.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2007.05843 (version 2)
Pith IDDLQCAK66, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJulian Posada. "The Future of Work Is Here: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Labour." arXiv:2007.05843 (2020). https://pith.science/paper/DLQCAK66
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,322 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.09 · human participants 0.24 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.04 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

This commentary traces contemporary discourses on the relationship between artificial intelligence and labour and explains why these principles must be comprehensive in their approach to labour and AI. First, the commentary asserts that ethical frameworks in AI alone are not enough to guarantee workers' rights since they lack enforcement mechanisms and the representation of different stakeholders. Secondly, it argues that current discussions on AI and labour focus on the deployment of these technologies in the workplace but ignore the essential role of human labour in their development, particularly in the different cases of outsourced labour around the world. Finally, it recommends using existing human rights frameworks for working conditions to provide more comprehensive ethical principles and regulations. The commentary concludes by arguing that the central question regarding the future of work should not be whether intelligent machines will replace humans, but who will own these systems and have a say in their development and operation.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 This commentary traces contemporary discourses on the relationship between artificial intelligence and labour and explains why these principles must be comprehensive in their approach to labour and AI. contribution 0.88 0.71 0.08 asserted 0.95
s1 First, the commentary asserts that ethical frameworks in AI alone are not enough to guarantee workers' rights since they lack enforcement mechanisms and the representation of different stakeholders. gap 0.50 0.35 0.07 asserted 1.00
s2 Secondly, it argues that current discussions on AI and labour focus on the deployment of these technologies in the workplace but ignore the essential role of human labour in their development, particularly in the different cases of outsourced labour around the world. gap 0.91 0.13 0.04 asserted 1.00
s3 Finally, it recommends using existing human rights frameworks for working conditions to provide more comprehensive ethical principles and regulations. future work 0.93 0.38 0.09 asserted 0.66
s4 The commentary concludes by arguing that the central question regarding the future of work should not be whether intelligent machines will replace humans, but who will own these systems and have a say in their development and operation. interpretation 0.63 0.56 0.87 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 1.00 · evidence from argument 0.97.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

This commentary traces contemporary discourses on the relationship between artificial intelligence and labour and explains why these principles must be comprehensive in their approach to labour and AI. First, the commentary asserts that ethical frameworks in AI alone are not enough to guarantee workers' rights since they lack enforcement mechanisms and the representation of different stakeholders. Secondly, it argues that current discussions on AI and labour focus on the deployment of these technologies in the workplace but ignore the essential role of human labour in their development, particularly in the different cases of outsourced labour around the world. Finally, it recommends using existing human rights frameworks for working conditions to provide more comprehensive ethical principles and regulations. The commentary concludes by arguing that the central question regarding the future of work should not be whether intelligent machines will replace humans, but who will own these systems and have a say in their development and operation.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.