Artificial Intelligence (AI) in London

Oxford university  grad with 5 years experience as a software engineer, just got made redundant. Was told it’s not performance based, they’re just replacing us with AI 

Saying that AI will destroy the planet because servers consume too much water and energy is a very limited and outdated view.

It's the same logic as those who, in the 19th century, thought that cities would disappear buried in manure because the number of horses kept growing. Then came the car and changed the entire system, what's the logic?

Let's look at the simple facts:
Information is not static! 

Data is not stored in a metal box on your street. It travels through electrical waves and invisible networks. Intelligence is decentralized.

Large processing centers do not 'drink' and disappear with the water. Water is used in closed cooling circuits. It evaporates or is recycled; it does not disappear from the planet.

Efficiency evolution: Chips and connections are becoming infinitely faster and more economical every minute.  What once required an entire building to be processed now runs in your pocket, using less energy than an LED light bulb.

AI didn't come to deplete the world's resources; it came to teach us how to use them intelligently. Focusing on scarcity and fear only delays the evolution of solutions that can, among other things, help us take much better care of our planet.

As we are in a public and safety place to debate, I brought a book that's helped me a lot to open my mind and perspective about AI - Book:  The Field- Lynne McTaggart. 

Opportunities that can be had with AI can only be seen with finitely sourced datasets such as those used for identifying cancer cells. Regulation could mean that AI could improve difficulties with data needed to be processed in large quantities. It could also be great fro streamlining everyday mundanitiea IF regulated to the point where it wouldn't cost jobs

I worked hard at university to get both an undergraduate and postgraduate degree in illustration only to face the development of AI. Businesses are now tempted to use AI to generate art for free or low cost which is stealing from the hard work of actual artists. It is making it much harder for young creatives to gain employment or be paid for their hard work. AI is often producing low quality work as well as unreliable information and it is bad for the planet. I do not believe any of the possible upsides are worth the cost. Anytime I see a business using AI in its products or advertising I am disinterested as it tells me they do not value human work or time or their own customers if they believe we are willing to use their products made using time and cost cutting measures.

AI brings a number of opportunities for work and jobs in London. It can help people work more efficiently, automate repetitive tasks, improve customer service, and create new jobs in technology, data analysis, cybersecurity, and AI development. AI can also support small businesses, increase productivity, and help people access training and employment opportunities.

However, AI also poses challenges. Some workers may worry about job displacement, particularly in roles that involve routine or administrative tasks. There are concerns about bias in AI systems, privacy and data protection, and the need for workers to develop new skills to keep up with technological change. It is important that AI is used responsibly and that training and support are available to help people adapt to the changing workplace.

I understand the corporate appeal of 'Type few words, get big marketing campaign' but I've yet to be proven wrong that any of it isn't just slop. It's messy, inaccurate and lacks humanity - people can tell, every time.

I've been made redundant from one position that has embraced AI in its new automated workflows and it took 5 months to find my next position. I've decided to work freelance now, as I can guarantee work better that way.

I don't think the question is "What aspects of AI do we need to showcase to the London public" but rather "Where do the benefits outweigh the costs ENOUGH to justify it's use."

Another comment said that their jobcentre had replaced staff with AI to speed up the work, but it's completely true that AIs best interests aren't in finding work for people where AI could fit into that space instead. Similarly to the reading and evaluating of CVs, and creating targeted interview questions from that portfolio.

My biggest gripe is the environmental impact of the data centres that run the AI models. Up to 9°C temperature increase where a data centre has been commissioned. Water agencies campaigning for 2-minute showers whilst signing off on tariffs for data centres to pay lower costs. No strategy for relying on renewable energies, even at a percentage scale.

The mayor of New York has just banned the build of data centres for the next year, with higher fees for them after. There are ways forward alongside AI, we just need to consider them first. From all aspects.

I deeply hate AI. AI is replacing middle management jobs and rendering those who went to school for anything vaguely computer-y as non-needed, which is making customer service and products 10x worse than they already are. Seeing AI or even the smallest feeling that a company is using AI and not artists is a 100% sure fire way that I will not be buying. 
The job centre people are being replaced by AI to help the people from other industries that are being replaced by AI. It is utterly insane to create a secondary work crisis by relying on AI to solve the issues that it’s created. 
It is destroying the environment. The amount of AI related water and electricity usage is insane. I don’t want have to ask an AI before I’m allowed to use my own washing machine orb. It feeds incorrect and rubbish information to its consumers. 
The ONLY good use of AI (and I am saying that extremely lightly), is its development in flagging symptoms like stroke or other fast acting emergencies with a&es. That’s it. I hate AI 

It will give new opportunities to young people and help the public access public services much more efficiently. Maybe even give many more time to socialise and re-think about work time. Although with AI there seems to be an uncertainty about future work opportunities for many as their jobs will be replaced with AI.

Generative AI creating image and video content for me was pandora's box and has ruined any trust left in digital content online. It adds far less value than the disruption it brings and puts talented artists out of a job in an industry already facing severe difficulties but is still supposed to do the same job as decades ago.

Where I see AI provide value is in the tasks that can be considered "no-value added". I use it to create formulas in an excel spreadsheet, I use it to correct my emails and to ensure the clarity of the emails. I also believe it will make programming a whole lot more accessible and rapidly expand the possibilities of the digital world as we can focus on the outcome desired without having to focus as much on getting our devices to understand. However please not I am not saying we don't need programmers programmers are still immensely needed as the logic of building tech can never be replaced.

'AI' in the current moment is a bubble of increasingly risky investments, driven by absurd corporate promises and geopolitical fear mongering, which is completely detached from concrete technological use, let alone social usefulness. It is unsustainable in the extreme - the economic model of it, and crucially its infrastructure, which is guzzling energy and demolishing environments. Rather than embracing the buzzword, London would do well to lead global movements currently urging caution, even outright refusal. It should impose a moratorium on data centre development and adopt a strict compute/energy rationing system, Singapore style. It should closely scrutinise all deployments of 'AI' in public space and public life, starting with policing, placing strict requirements for data protection and ethics, but more broadly a democratic oversight of 'usefulness' - 'AI' initiatives should demonstrate their social good in open debate. Any public endorsement of 'AI' systems should prioritise open source, collectively owned technology and infrastructure rather than the current feudal approach pushed by Silicon Valley tech giants. 

Everyone has already said what needs to be said but I do want to add if you willingly use chatgpt or whatever I do think less of you as a person 

Everyone knows AI is unreliable and yet we're bowing down to US corporations for some reason to get everyone to use it. We are devaluing ourselves while kneecapping future generations from ever getting started. (See the insane decline in grad job numbers over the last few years). And while we're here, stop Palantir!!

I work in digital content so use AI tools sometimes that are built into Adobe products, but I dont use generative AI because I can create something better myself and that's what I am paid to do! I value my independence and creativity. I don't trust AIs summaries or insights because it makes mistakes which i would then have to check. Also, I am perfectly capable of doing those tasks myself. I can see that AI has potential uses. But I am concerned AIs benefits will be mostly financial for a wealthy few and not truly benefit most Londoners. It is important that jobs, especially ones that involve interacting with the public, are not cut because of the promise of productivity.

AI has the potential to improve efficiency, create new opportunities, and support people with disabilities and caring responsibilities. It can help people access information more easily, develop new skills, and reduce time spent on routine tasks.

However, there are also concerns about job losses, digital exclusion, privacy, and bias in decision-making systems. Not everyone has equal access to technology or the skills needed to use it. AI should not replace human contact, particularly in health, social care, education, and support services where empathy and understanding are essential.

It is important that AI is developed and used fairly, transparently, and in a way that benefits all Londoners, including carers, disabled people, and those who may be vulnerable or less confident with technology.

I think how generative AI is currently being used and developed is incredibly detrimental to all of us and needs more regulations and guardrails before it is implemented more into every little crevice of our lives. I don't think AI should be replacing our brains and critical thinking skills (ie. for work/studying), should replace human connection (ie. those who treat chatbots as their friend/romantic interest, or as a therapist), or should replace human creativity (ie. AI generated 'art' or writing).

AI has clear benefits. It can help break through mental blocks, stress-test ideas, and automate routine tasks, allowing us to move work forward or go deeper without getting stuck. By reducing time spent on repetitive work, it can free up space for more thoughtful and creative thinking.

The challenge is the risk of complacency. There’s a tendency to assume that because AI can automate certain tasks, it can replace human judgement (or even humans) altogether. There’s also a risk in taking AI outputs at face value, without questioning whether they are accurate, appropriate, or aligned with what we actually need.

The fact that AI has no guaranteed way to not make up information, is itself a non starter. Why would we put trust into a chatbot that won't tell us when it's being incorrect (as has been well documented, especially in legal contexts), and puts entry levels positions completely out of reach for young workers? It has no readable benefit for the economy or for workers