Work is getting faster.
Not everyone is being given a way to keep up.
We tend to build things with the intention of making life easier, more connected, more efficient, and for a while, that’s exactly what happens.
Over time, we start asking different questions about what those systems are doing to us.
I’ve been thinking about that in the context of the recent lawsuits against Meta and the way Lennon Torres at Mashable described growing up on social media as “digital nicotine.” These were tools meant to connect us, but they also changed how we interact, process information, and how much of ourselves we outsource to systems we don’t fully question or understand.
That same tension is starting to show up in how we talk about AI at work. The dominant narrative is speed, efficiency, and output, even as broader analysis from the World Economic Forum has started to warn that these systems may widen the gap between who benefits and who gets left behind.
Most leaders say the design of human-AI interaction matters, yet Deloitte’s latest Human Capital Trends report notes only 6% feel they are actually doing it well.
What I keep coming back to is the difference between using AI to support thinking and gradually or wholly outsourcing thinking to it. Those two can look very similar on the surface, especially in environments that reward speed, but they lead to very different outcomes over time. At a certain point, the tradeoff stops being about efficiency and starts shaping how we collaborate, make decisions, and evaluate work.
As output increases, the space for human judgment, collaboration, and pushback shrinks, and over time that has consequences not just for quality, but for the kind of thinking we bring into our work.
I find myself thinking about this through my own relationship with technology. I’ve always leaned in early, partly out of curiosity and partly because, as someone living with a disability, I’m constantly looking for ways to make systems work better in practice. That instinct to optimize and streamline has real value, and it also makes tradeoffs harder to ignore.
Speed is never neutral. Every system optimizes for something, and in doing so, deprioritizes something else. When speed and output become the primary measure, what often gets deprioritized is the human context that makes work sustainable.
That’s the part that feels most important to pay attention to, not just who gets left behind, but how gradually and quietly that process can happen when speed becomes the primary measure of value.
As we continue to integrate AI into how work gets done, the question that keeps coming up for me is not just what these systems allow us to do, but what kind of work and what kind of participation they are shaping in the process.
Where are you seeing that balance being handled well, and where is it starting to break down?
‘Artificial Intelligence Will Steal My Job!’ Fears Service Dog
In the mood for a chuckle today?
I am absolutely thrilled to share that I have been featured in the The Squeaky Wheel. Well, technically I need to thank Canine Companions® Pico for letting me have the byline. We've been matched for nearly a decade and with the rise of A.I., he had a lot to say.
‘Artificial Intelligence Will Steal My Job!’ Fears Service Dog
The Importance of Disability Representation in Fashion
Three models wearing adaptive SKIMS clothing
"Taylor Lindsay-Noel says her “jaw dropped” after seeing the clip, which has been making its rounds on social media this week. “Disabled people are here to stay, whether you want them to be here or not,” she said in a TikTok directed to [Candace] Owens. “And we deserve to be seen in all forms of media, including lingerie and shapewear.”
—Natalie Michie, FASHION Magazine
In the wake of recent comments from political commentator Candace Owens deriding SKIMS for their recent ad campaign promoting adaptive clothing, I became instantly frustrated and annoyed before quickly turning my mind to curiosity. Whenever someone attacks diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, one of my primary questions becomes, why?
Owens openly and proudly detesting these efforts as “ridiculous” is an indicator of just how far we have to go. People are fearful either of what they don’t understand, or what threatens them. To view DEI efforts as tiresome, patronizing, and being taken too far, as Owens does, is a tacit admission of privilege. The very idea that disability is something to be prioritized, placed front and center with pride and joy, to be celebrated and appreciated, must make someone as narrow-minded as Candace Owens fearful.
Ableism is not new. The disabled community confronts it in our daily lives whether it’s an inaccessible environment, questioning our capabilities in the workplace, or general derisive comments. What has increased in recent years is the brazenness by those in positions of power who publicly mock our right to exist as we are and not be ashamed for it. Candace Owens is a symptom of systemic ableism, she is not the cause.
Additionally, we have brands like Levi Strauss & Co., who late last week announced a partnership with Lalaland.ai, a digital fashion studio to bring AI-generated models to their modeling campaigns in an effort to increase diversity. While Amy Gershkoff Bolles, Ph.D. Bolles, global head of digital and emerging technology strategy at Levi Strauss & Co.noted that AI would ‘likely’ never fully replace human models, the caveat alone is concerning. AI-generated imagery aimed at the disability population certainly has the potential to increase revenue, but doing so artificially while claiming to champion DEI as a “top priority” is disingenuous. I’m reminded of the 2022 campaign by Pottery Barn last summer that proudly introduced its Accessible Home furniture line without employing any disabled models.
Despite what Candace Owens, or the marketing team at Levi Strauss & Co. has to say, disabled people aren’t going anywhere. As 20% of the global population, we deserve to see ourselves everywhere, and compensated accordingly. If that creates discomfort for you, interrogate why.
I’m thankful to the many disability advocates who continue to call out the harmful impact of ableism.
Disability Bias in AI Hiring Tools Targeted in US Guidance
As many as 83% of employers, and as many as 90% among Fortune 500 companies, are using some form of automated tools to screen or rank candidates for hiring, according to EEOC’s Charlotte Burrows.
-Bloomberg Law
With the rise of AI tools in recruiting, new guidance issued by both EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice is welcome news. Disability advocates have long known that while these tools can be useful for the employer, they can raise questions around bias that violate the ADA, including the use of personality tests with non-job specific questions, camera sensors, or timed tasks that don’t easily allow for reasonable accommodation.
This guidance also comes after U.S. Department of Commerce appointed 27 experts last April to the National AI Advisory Comittee.
The disability community already faces tremendous hurdles in hiring discrimination, in large part due to employers outdated views on what people with various disabilities bring to the table.
While AI can be a useful tool, and can certainly provide valuable insight, the hiring process needs more human connection and understanding across the board, not less, especially around disabled candidates.