Artificial intelligence will affect about 60% of all jobs in the US — and worsen income and wealth inequality, the International Monetary Fund warned.
Advanced economies such as the US are at the greatest risk due to the prevalence of cognitive task-oriented jobs, the IMF said, cautioning that the disruptive technology could replace more than half the jobs available in regions that also include Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany, France and Italy.
Comparatively, AI exposure was estimated to impact 40% of jobs in emerging economies and 26% of positions in low-income countries.
“Automation…had the strongest effect on middle-skilled workers, [but] AI displacement risks extend to higher-wage earners,” the new analysis said.
IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva wrote in a blog post following the release of Sunday’s report that the rapidly-advancing technology provides opportunities to “help less experienced workers enhance their productivity more quickly.”
However, as AI is brought into the workplace, “we may see polarization within income brackets, with workers who can harness AI seeing an increase in their productivity and wages — and those who cannot falling behind,” Georgieva said.
Older workers are most at risk of losing their place to AI as they “may struggle with reemployment, adapting to technology, mobility and training for new job skills.”
In contrast, “younger workers who are adaptable and familiar with new technologies may also be better able to leverage the new opportunities.”
Georgieva called the findings “a troubling trend” that she urged policymakers to “proactively address to prevent the technology from further stoking social tensions.”
The IMF report was released as the world’s business and political leaders flew Monday to the Swiss resort town of Davos for the annual World Economic Forum.
AI is expected to be the hot topic, as The Post reported, at this year’s confab, which runs through Friday with the theme of “Rebuilding Trust.”
Global executives are increasingly worried about the long term viability of their businesses, a PricewaterhouseCoopers pre-Davos survey released Monday showed, with pressures mounting from generative artificial intelligence and climate disruption.
Some 45% of more than 4,700 global CEOs surveyed do not believe their businesses will survive, barring significant changes, in the next 10 years, the “Big Four” auditor said.
“There’s the 55% who think they don’t have to change radically, and I would argue that’s a little naive because the world is changing so fast around them,” PwC Global Chairman Bob Moritz told the Reuters Global Markets Forum ahead of the meetings.
Advancements in generative AI were top of the concerns for most survey respondents, with almost 75% predicting it would significantly change their business in the next three years.
The US continues to weigh federal regulation of the burgeoning technology after a much-hyped summit in Washington, DC, last September. TheEuropean Union, meanwhile,reached a tentative dealin December thatdrew up some guardrails.
Last April, Goldman Sachs warned generative AI — which is trained on different sets of data to learn pattern recognition — could impact as many as 300 million full-time jobs globally.
A month later, AI was blamed for nearly 4,000 Americans losing their jobs, according to the analytics firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas, which cited market and economic conditions as well as mergers and acquisitions as key factors.
On the positive side, Goldman Sachs said that generative AI — which is seen in OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Copilot — could boost GDP by as much as 7% thanks to an increase in productivity.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon also touted AI’s “tremendous” impact on the world in an interview with Fox Business last week, calling the technology “crucial.”
“It’s going to change a tremendous amount of stuff in health care alone. It may come up with new compounds. It could do a better job diagnosing diseases, preventing diseases,” Dimon told Fox.
“God knows what it’s going to do for people. It may have some downsides. It’s very hard to figure out how you should regulate it, but it might eventually have to be some regulations around it,” he added.
One of the latest breakthroughs in AI has seen the medical industry rolling out “the world’s first AI doctor’s office,” which is slated to open this year in New York and other major US metros.
Called CarePod, the doctor’s office is actually a self-service cube where patients can be screened for issues relevant to diabetes, hypertension, and depression and anxiety, according to its maker, Forward.
The high-tech health stops will reportedly be installed in malls, gyms and offices for members who pay its $99-per-month fee.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.