355
Audio & Video Production344
Automation & Workflow224
Software Development250
Marketing & Growth192
AI Infrastructure & MLOps173
Writing & Content Creation203
Data & Analytics140
Design & Creative169
Customer Support130
Photography & Imaging156
Sales & Outreach125
Voice & Speech135
Operations & Admin87
Education & Learning131
The former UK cabinet secretary says people who lose jobs to AI should get retraining funded by tax revenue from AI-driven gains.
In short: The UK’s former top civil servant says people who lose jobs because of AI should be compensated through government funded retraining.
Lord Gus O’Donnell, who ran Britain’s civil service from 2005 to 2011, told the Financial Times that AI could push many people out of work. He said that the people and businesses who benefit from AI should help pay to retrain those who do not.
O’Donnell argued that AI could raise productivity, meaning the public sector could deliver better services at lower cost. But he warned that the transition could leave some workers with skills that are no longer needed. He said extra tax revenue from higher company profits and higher incomes could help pay for large scale retraining, although he said the best way to design such a tax system is not yet clear.
He also said the UK should push ahead with digital ID. That is a way to prove who you are online, like showing an ID card but on your phone. O’Donnell said digital ID is important because AI works better when government information from different places can be linked to the right person.
O’Donnell added that ministers should get training on how to use AI tools. He cautioned against putting sensitive government discussions into public chatbots, but suggested tools like ChatGPT or Claude could be used for tasks like drafting speeches, as a starting point.
Many people worry about AI changing jobs faster than workers can adapt. O’Donnell’s comments highlight a basic question for voters and taxpayers, who should pay to help people switch careers when new technology makes some roles less necessary.
Source: Financial Times