It might sound like a dream scenario for companies, who stand to profit from the enhanced output of an employee with a digital twin. But currently there are many questions to be answered.
Who owns an AI digital twin - the employer or the employee? Should people using them get paid more, since they're able to do more work? Who should be able to access what within somebody's digital twin? And who's responsible if a digital twin makes a mistake?
"There are real potential benefits for sure, but it depends on getting the governance right, the direction of free time right, the autonomy of these agents right, and making sure that my name, image and likeness still stays mine, even if my employer is benefiting from it," says Kaelyn Lowmaster. She's a research director in Gartner's HR practice, focused on the impact of AI on work and the workforce.
"I think we will probably see the negative side of this coin before we see the positive side."
Skellett says Bloor Research's position on ownership and pay is "very clear". Individuals should own their AI digital twin so they can benefit from any value it generates. Companies should then pay to access it.
In Bloor's case, its people are paid based on the outcomes they generate, rather than the time they spend working - so they can earn more through their digital twin allowing them to do more.
"That is why compensation now reflects outcomes, measurable commercial impact, and value creation, rather than simply salary plus bonus. AI changes time and speed, so there's little future in the hourly rate," says Skellett.$BTC $ETH
#StrategyBTCPurchase #BinanceSquare #FedRateCut25bps #Bitcoin #Kalshi’sDisputewithNevada #USInitialJoblessClaimsBelowForecast #Kalshi’sDisputewithNevada
