Search

At a time when households are being asked to make efforts to control their environmental impact, a recent CREDOC study shows that the higher the standard of living, the greater the carbon footprint of digital equipment. Wealthier households in particular are more equipped with terminals (computers, tablets, etc.) than modest households. This research also shows that the carbon footprint peaks among 18-24 year-olds, who have more recent and diverse equipment than their elders.The latest editions of the Digital Barometer show that the French remain insufficiently informed about the most effective ways of limiting the environmental impact of their digital practices. A footprint calculation that combines two frames of referenceThis study innovates by mobilizing two types of data: data from the 2023 Digital Barometer on digital equipment and usage, and data from the NegaOctet database, which examines the carbon impact of digital equipment by age group and standard of living.By combining data from these two repositories, it is possible to better understand which categories of the population generate the highest emissions.The carbon footprint of digital equipment takes into account the individual equipment rate, the duration of ownership of the various devices and the type of equipment held. For example, the manufacture of a TV set emits on average 4.5 times more CO2 than that of a smartphone.Estimating the carbon footprint of digital technology takes into account the number of devices available per person in the household (TV, desktop or laptop computer, tablet, smartphone, games console), the length of time the devices are owned and the carbon footprint of the various devices.The overall index obtained reveals categorical differences in the carbon impact of digital equipment. The higher the household standard of living, the greater the carbon footprint of digital equipmentThis footprint is estimated at 118 kg CO2e per year for low-income earners, and 138 kg CO2e for high-income earners.These differences are mainly due to the fact that the equipment rate increases with income level, since the length of time equipment is owned is comparable from one income bracket to the next.Low incomes are characterized by a lower equipment rate per individual, whatever the terminal: TV, computer, tablet or cell phone.High-income earners, meanwhile, are more equipped with computers and tablets than the rest of the population, equipment that has a higher carbon impact.Annual carbon footprint peaks among young peopleThe calculated index is significantly higher for 18-24 year-olds than for the rest of the population.The 18-24 age group has both a higher per capita equipment rate for all the equipment considered, and shorter appliance ownership times. This specificity could be at least partly linked to the life cycle: the 18-24 age bracket corresponds for many to the access to residential autonomy, a period that often rhymes with home equipment, and would explain why young people own more recent appliances.On the other hand, there is little difference between all age groups. The 25-39 age group, for example, has a footprint very close to that of the over-60s.While equipment has, on average, a larger carbon footprint than usage, the intensity of certain uses can compete with the weight of equipment in an individual's total carbon footprint. " The more intensive use of digital technology by young people could significantly increase the digital footprint of young people", observe the CREDOC authors, who mention in particular the more intensive use of smartphones among 18-24 year-olds, video-on-demand services and video viewing.Actions to reduce the impact of digital use are better respected by older peopleIn their forward-looking study on the environmental assessment of digital technology, ADEME and Arcep put forward three recommendations in 2023 to reduce the impact of household uses: extend their lifespan, limit the number of devices and make the purchase of reconditioned equipment more widespread.Extending their lifespan: 66% of French people try to increase the lifespan of their equipment, by taking care of it, having it repaired, etc. This is the second most common action of the eleven proposed. This is the second most common gesture among the eleven proposed. However, this practice is not in the majority among 18-24 year-olds (44%) and is less widespread than average among 25-39 year-olds (58%). Older people are more likely to adopt this gesture (72% over the age of 40).Limiting the number of items of equipment is observed by 49% of French people. Once again, this practice increases with age: only a third of 18-24 year-olds do so, versus 61% of those aged 70 and over. "It seems that this propensity is not just declarative: younger people have a greater variety of equipment at their disposal. However, this data needs to be qualified: older people benefit less from the pooling of equipment, which does not go in the direction of limiting their number. For example, the over-70s own, on average, just over one television per person, compared with 0.6 for the under-25s.Reconditioning: only 28% of Internet users say they buy reconditioned digital terminals as much as possible. The younger the Internet users, the more they say they adopt this practice, from 35% of 12 to 17 year-olds to 19% of those aged 70 and over. " A lesser adherence to these modes of consumption within the older generations, but also the lower prices of these reconditioned terminals could partly explain these differences," comments CREDOC."The French are gradually becoming aware of the environmental impact of digital technology," concludes CREDOC.However, only 52% of French people consider themselves sufficiently informed, while 45% deplore a lack of information. A large majority, however, show a real desire to reduce the impact of their practices, in particular by acting on the durability of their equipment (80%) and, to a lesser extent, by moderating their digital uses (69%).

ForewordAccording to the Baromètre du numérique 2024, published on March 17, 2025, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has risen sharply in one year among the French population: 33% of French people have already used them in 2024, compared with 20% in 2023. This strong progression is accompanied by a high level of mistrust of these artificial intelligence tools for the majority of the population, although this mistrust is declining as personal use of these tools increases. Moreover, AI use is influenced by gender and age.Growing use of AIUses of artificial intelligence in the context of private life dominate (26%, +10 points in one year), slightly outstripping those linked to professional life (22%, also +10 points over the same period). Gender and age are factors that influence the use of AI.Men use artificial intelligence tools more than women, both in their private and professional lives.By 2024, 25% of men will be using them professionally, compared with 20% of women, and 30% of men will be using them in their private lives, compared with 22% of women.This gender gap remains similar to that observed in 2023. To shed some light on these findings, the authors of the survey mention two recent studies (see below) which indicate that, even when working in the same jobs, men are more likely to turn to artificial intelligence and ChatGPT than women. " According to these studies, women's lack of self-confidence could be partly responsible for this situation: women who don't use artificial intelligence more often than men indicate their need for training to use this new technology." 69% of 18-24 year-olds have already used AIAs in 2023, 18-24 year-olds are the age group that most frequently uses artificial intelligence tools in their professional lives or as part of their studies. Thus, 69% of them have already used AI in this context, compared with 41% of 25-39 year-olds. What's more, 58% of 18-24 year-olds use AI in their private lives, compared to 41% of 25-39 year-olds.These generational gaps were already present in 2023, in similar proportions. The majority of French people do not trust artificial intelligence56% of French people have no confidence in artificial intelligence, with 21% expressing strong distrust. It should be noted that distrust of artificial intelligence decreases with personal use. Respondents who have already integrated artificial intelligence into their professional lives, studies or daily lives are more confident overall (74%) than those who have not yet used it (26%). "Without being able to determine with any certainty the direction of the correlation: have those most open to AI been more inclined to adopt it? Or is it the use of AI that reinforces confidence in this technology? " comment the survey's authors. More users, men tend to trust artificial intelligence more than women: 45% of men declare themselves confident, compared to 38% of women, a gap of 7 points. Moreover, distrust of artificial intelligence increases with age. Older people are more skeptical than younger ones: 70% of those aged 70 and over express distrust, compared with only 38% of 18-24 year-olds. AI is mostly perceived as a threat in the employment and artistic creation sectorsOpinions on the impact of AI on the environment and sustainable development remain divided, with no clear consensus (48% see it as a threat, 48% as an opportunity). Finally, in the field of education and training in 2024, AI is slightly more often perceived as an opportunity (50%), although a significant number of respondents (47%) still see it as a threat. In all the fields assessed, men are more likely than women to perceive artificial intelligence as an opportunity rather than a threat. This difference is particularly noticeable in the environment sector, where 53% of men see AI as an opportunity, compared to 43% of women. Similarly, men are more likely than women to see AI as an opportunity in education and training (55% of men versus 46% of women).Younger generations are clearly more optimistic than their elders about the impact of artificial intelligence. Young people are consistently among the respondents who most frequently perceive AI as an opportunity, across all fields.

ForewordDriven by the "Public Action 2022" plan, which aimed to dematerialize all administrative procedures by 2022, the dematerialization (or digitization) of administrative procedures has gradually established itself as a new public service standard.Online administrative procedures have become common practice for a large majority of the French population. In fact, in 2024, according to the Digital Barometer73% of French people have carried out an administrative procedure on the Internet in the last twelve months.However, this widespread use is accompanied by numerous difficulties. Indeed, almost one in two French people (44%) encounter difficulties in carrying out administrative procedures online. Interestingly, the main difficulties cited by the French are not linked to a lack of digital skills, but rather to problems in administrative relations.These results (detailed below) suggest that we need to think in terms of the right mix of digital mediation and administrative mediation to support the public in dealing with administrative procedures online. Indeed, the complementary nature of the work carried out by these professionals appears to be a key factor in preventing the burden and responsibility for the smooth running of administrative procedures being shifted onto individuals. Trends in the use of online administrative proceduresIn 20 years, the use of the Internet for administrative formalities has risen by 51%, from 22% to 73% for the French population as a whole. Significant differences by age group and level of qualification The 25-39 and 40-59 age groups are the most likely to carry out administrative procedures online, with 82% and 84% of users respectively in 2024, proportions stable compared to 2022.Conversely, the 12-17 age group and the 70+ age group are less frequent users than the intermediate age groups, although there has been an overall increase.More than age, level of education is a discriminating factor when it comes to using the Internet for administrative procedures: The extent to which people carry out administrative procedures online varies greatly according to their level of education. Higher education graduates use the Internet almost twice as much as non-graduates (84% vs. 45% respectively).In terms of trends, it's worth noting that the rate of people who have carried out administrative procedures online has plateaued among graduates, and is rising among those with few or no qualifications. Nearly 1 in 2 French people have difficulty completing administrative procedures online44% of French people are concerned by the difficulties that can be encountered in carrying out administrative procedures on the Internet. Young adults (aged 18-24) are by far the most likely to experience difficulties (69%), followed by those on low incomes (52%) and those with no qualifications (50%). It's worth noting that these last two categories of the population are also the ones most concerned by the process of accessing rights. When we look in detail at these difficulties, we can see that among the reasons given, lack of digital skills is only the 4th reason expressed by the French (11%): In reality, the three main reasons for the difficulties encountered in completing administrative procedures online seem to have more to do with the disintermediation of the citizen-administration relationship produced by dematerialization.First of all, this direct contact with the administration, making the user responsible for the administrative procedure, produces a fear of making a mistake that affects 18% of the population.Secondly, the support for this digitized administrative relationship also seems to be a major source of difficulty, with 16% of the population believing that the website for the process is not well designed.Finally, this digitalized relationship with the administration confronts users with administrative language that is incomprehensible for 13% of the population. Other difficulties encountered by the population are very much in the minority, such as difficulty in writing (4%), reading (2%) or disability (2%).While the development of digital skills appears necessary, if only to access online procedures, the results suggest that it is rather the lack of administrative skills within the population that seems to play a major role in the difficulties encountered in carrying out online administrative procedures.Level of difficulty in completing administrative procedures online correlates with standard of livingAmong low-income earners, more than one in two (52%) experience at least one problem of this kind, compared with only 38% of high-income earners.What the poorest people fear most is making a mistake (22%, 4 points higher than the national average). Yet " non-contributory social benefits account for 38% of the disposable income of poor households (14% minimum social benefits, 11% housing assistance, 10% family benefits and 3% activity allowance). On average, they increase the standard of living of poor people by 347 euros per month, without however enabling them to cross the poverty line ". The importance of income from social transfers explains how, for these households, the consequences of an error could prove highly penalizing. Low-income earners, on the other hand, are more likely than average to feel that they are not competent enough to use the Internet (13%), but this reason for difficulty is only in 4th place among the proposed items. A necessary link between digital mediation and administrative mediationBy disintermediating the citizen-administration relationship, the digitization of administrative procedures requires not only physical access to the Internet and certain technical skills, but also, and above all, a mastery of language, writing and, more broadly, administrative procedures.Thus, in this context, the subject of access to rights relies on a "practical sense of administration", i.e. on a set of administrative skills that are not initially linked to digital technology (identifying the right contact, translating one's situation into administrative categories, identifying the status of documents, reporting a possible problem, etc.).What's more, the fact that almost one in two French people have difficulty completing administrative procedures online ( a higher proportion than those who are not digitally literate) suggests that the impact of dematerialization of administrative procedures should go beyond the technological question, and be linked to the digital skills of individuals. However, this does not rule out the possibility that dematerialization may confront certain groups with complex digital practices.These observations suggest that we need to think in terms of how we support the public in taking administrative steps online, with the right mix of digital mediation and administrative mediation.The complementary nature of these professionals' work is a key factor in preventing the burden and responsibility for the smooth running of administrative procedures being shifted onto individuals.To find out more: French digital society: digital mediation professionals face the challenge of digital remoteness.

For several months, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) set out to " decipher the consequences of the growing deployment of AI in our societies, from the consideration of global issues - the impact of AI on the exercise of our fundamental rights and individual freedoms, the technology's environmental footprint and the imperative of European strategic autonomy".On January 14, the EESC issued an opinion setting out its initial conclusions on the acceptability of AI.AI, a political objectFor the CESE, " AI is not neutral; it is part of a society where many inequalities persist, reflecting it and helping to shape it in return, at the risk of amplifying pre-existing inequalities. Algorithms, and therefore the results they produce, are programmed by designers of AI models and systems ". The EESC therefore sees AI " as the result of political choices, made primarily by human beings, making this technology a political object ".For the EESC, any deployment of an AI solution, system or infrastructure must be subject to an approach and a framework that takes account of the major issues that make up the general interest:" The societal utility of AI must be systematically taken into consideration. AI can only develop if it serves human beings and the general interest.The development of an AI model, system or infrastructure must be subject to prior analysis and democratic control by public authorities and social partners.Citizens' choice and critical thinking must be exercised democratically, in all circumstances, whether for the use of an AI system or the deployment of an infrastructure. This choice also calls for the ability to give up, even after adopting or using an AI.Short-, medium- and long-term evaluation must be made possible, which presupposes the ability to guarantee the transparency and explicability of the technology. Failure to achieve the major objectives defined collectively should be able to call deployment into question and enable a step backwards. "Continuity, equality and adaptabilityThree classic principles of public law have a direct impact on the deployment of AI in public services:"The principle of continuity, which requires that the public service be provided effectively and at all times, calls into question both the State's dependence on AI suppliers (in particular to avoid any form of disruption in the supply and maintenance of software) and issues of sovereignty (over the storage and processing of sensitive data).The principle of equality requires us to avoid all forms of discrimination by guaranteeing access to public services for all, and obliges the State to combat illiteracy.the principle of adaptability requires public services not only to keep pace with technical progress, but also to respond to society's expectations: this principle can be interpreted as an injunction to "update the software" of public action, and to question the validity of the planned transformations. AI-proofing public servicesThe CESE reviews a number of AI systems deployed in public services. In particular, it passes harsh judgment on the integration of AI within the French Public Finance Authority (DGFIP): an example, in its view, of " an uncoordinated deployment with unclear general interest objectives ".On the contrary, other examples show that AI can be used to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public services. The CESE mentions, by way of example, the Albert project, a tool put at the service of France Services agents, which " makes it possible to communicate the right information to citizens without asking agents to be omniscient, in a context where regulations are increasingly complex and constantly evolving".Even when rendered by an AI, an individual public decision must be explainedFollowing in the footsteps of the French Human Rights Ombudsman, the CESE points out that " even when rendered by an AI, an individual public decision must be able to be explained (...) However, language models do not currently make it possible to trace the way in which a result was produced, the reasons why a given decision was taken by the algorithm, or to detect false answers. Generative AI provides plausible and possible answers, according to mathematical probabilities, preventing neither errors nor hallucinations".Questioning goals to prioritize projectsAccording to the CESE, the integration of AI requires administrations to consider a series of questions: "Why is this modernization essential: to improve service quality? to cut costs? to reduce the number of public-sector employees? By questioning the aims of the transformation, this makes it possible to prioritize the most transformative projects, taking into account ethical criteria and the principles inherent in public service".In conclusion, the EESC calls for AI systems to be deployed, but on two conditions:"that they improve the quality of public service and the working conditions of the employees who contribute to it;that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are truly applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law (for example, to calculate the amount of a tax), when they prove unavoidable (following the example of Parcoursup) or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect people".In line with its previous opinions, the EESC recommends :"systematically offer support and a human welcome as an alternative to paperless service, as is the case with the France Service spaces;to enshrine in law the principle of a right to non-digital technology, and guarantee equal access and freedom of choice for all".

For 18 months, some 50 participants from the worlds of labor and management, business and government, worked to develop Dial-IA, "an operational toolbox designed to foster technological social dialogue around AI".This project, coordinated by the Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES) and co-financed by ANACT (Agence nationale pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail), involved four trade unions in particular: CFDT, CFE-CGC, FO Cadres and UGICT-CGT.The project resulted in a joint manifesto and a series of fact sheets designed to help stakeholders become acculturated:AI basics;Mapping the issues;Artificial intelligence systems development situations SIA."Talking AI collectively within the company".The toolbox also suggests "levers to activate in order to implement a technological social dialogue approach", aimed primarily at employee representatives.She reviews the various reasons why employees and employers are talking and negotiating about artificial intelligence.AI is an issue of employer attractiveness: a strong majority of the more than 1,100 people surveyed by ODOXA for SAP agree that a company at the forefront of artificial intelligence appeals to young people (77%), is ahead of its competitors (72%), attracts talent (67%) and is more profitable (61%).The younger generations who are and will be entering the job market are already using AI, and increasingly so: young people aged 16 to 25 are already using AI on a massive scale. Nearly 8 out of 10 young people (79%) have used an AI tool during their studies or when choosing their career path. Of these, more than half (55%) say they use it at least once a month, and 25% every week.AI and the professional uses of executives, a milestone has been reached: According to a survey by the Association Pour l'Emploi des Cadres (APEC), 71% of executives believe that AI tools could be useful to them, and 53% say they want to start training in the use of these new tools. Companies have understood this: 1 in 4 executives is now encouraged by their company to use AI in their professional activity. The number of executives who have already tested AI at work has doubled in one year (41% vs. 19% in 2023), and 34% of executives see AI as an opportunity for their job.Investment cost is the main brake on the deployment of AI technologies: dialogue helps keep costs under control. According to a Pôle Emploi survey of 3,000 establishments with more than 10 employees, 45% of respondents (51% in Industry) felt that cost was the main brake on deploying this technology.AI technology at work can be scary, all the more reason to talk about it: 44% of employee respondents fear that their job will be replaced by an AI or robot (+9 points since 2017). According to Odoxa's findings, "French employees are aware that reducing the risks of AI on employment necessarily involves bringing decision-makers and workers up to speed in this area". Six out of ten thus consider it necessary for companies to "offer their employees training and advice, provided by specialists, on how to use artificial intelligence in their day-to-day work".AI touches on subjects that concern us all: "Protecting privacy, respecting the intellectual property of a work and its copy, questioning what is true and what is not, what is truly humanly created and what is not, defining the ethical lines in corporate and social usage"."Only one out of every two AIS projects developed in-house comes to fruition".The Dial-IA project participants identify the various reasons for these failures:a total lack of understanding of the structural characteristics of any AIS:the essential role of the human element in qualifying the data that feeds the algorithm at the heart of AIS operationsa specific iterative deployment process that distinguishes AIS from traditional IS solutions,the employer easily gives in to the siren song of "digital solutionism" rather than questioning the organization of his companythe IAT is too often imposed in a top-down, forced fashionthe question of the real needs of the company's players is rarely asked upstream of the processinsufficient/inappropriate support for employees during the deployment phasea lack of fair social dialogue on the subject: informing/consulting the CSE at the operational launch of the project does not in itself guarantee useful and constructive social dialogue on the subject.real mistrust on the part of stakeholders inside the company: from HR to professionals in professions impacted by AI"This simple observation should convince the employer of the importance of organizing a collective debate on AI within the company, since the ultimate aim is to prevent the additional costs generated by the project's failure from replacing the hoped-for productivity gains. On the basis of this shared observation, it seems appropriate to focus these spaces for collective debate within the company on the crucial question of the key role of company professionals in the success of the AIS project: both in defining the target needs to which the AIS will have to respond in complementarity with the "professions", and in clarifying the central role of the human factor throughout the project's deployment".On this occasion, fundamental questions will emerge:How will existing professions evolve?What new professions are emerging?HR support for employees undergoing career transition?Which activities to outsource and which not?

The growing deployment of artificial intelligence systems (AIS) in companies and government agencies is raising major questions about the future of work.After two years of surveys, the LaborIA action-research laboratory, set up by the French Ministry of Labor and lnria, has published groundbreaking results on human-machine interactions and the challenges of appropriating AI in the world of work.Survey resultsAfter gathering the perceptions of stakeholders (decision-makers, designers, engineers and employees) in different types of organizations (private companies, public authorities, public institutions), the survey reveals three types of results.The deployment of AIS in organizations is not the end point of innovation processes, but rather a new starting point.First result: the deployment of AIS in organizations is not the end point of innovation processes, following the phases of ideation, prototyping and experimentation.Human-machine interactions involve extended and uncertain learning periods. Workers must not only use AIS, but also engage in their maintenance, improvement and supervision.Work that is often little or poorly recognized by organizations, leading to disengagement and long-term failure of AI projects.The failures and successes of AI projects also depend on conflicting work priorities.The survey reveals an opposition between an AI management logic, promoted by designers/decision-makers, and a "logic of real work, specific to employees".Managerial logic sees AI as "a means of optimizing processes, reducing the risk of errors or even improving performance and increasing labor productivity".The logic of real work is driven more by issues of appropriation of AI in work activity, "raising questions in terms of recognition, autonomy, responsibility and meaning of work". Thus, as the authors of the study note, " during the deployment of AIS, the priorities of decision-makers often come up against the concerns of workers faced with changes in their tasks, skills and working conditions".This conflict of rationalities is a source of ambivalence and paradox: "AIS are as much perceived as useful assistants (saving time, facilitating work) as they are as a source of threats (to their jobs or work content), as a promising solution capable of performing complex tasks as they are software lacking in maturity, stability, relevance and reliability".Rationality conflict can lead to very different results, depending on the ability of organizations to establish compromises between different stakeholders."The absence or failure of such compromises gives rise to alienating human-machine configurations (overconfidence or caution with regard to AI, loss of skills and autonomy...) in which workers feel dispossessed of their work".Conversely, the presence of a successful rationality compromise "gives rise to enabling configurations in which AIS increase human skills".The deployment of AIS in organizations can have unexpected effects on work organization and management.These unexpected effects include a reconfiguration of professional roles and qualification frames of reference, a questioning of the role of the middle manager, polarization of work, and so on.What's more, if AI changes work (and its organization), work also changes AI: "different modes of work organization - highly hierarchical/centralized or, on the contrary, leaving more room for autonomy - strongly influence the reception and appropriation of an AIS". Six recommendations for technological social dialogueCreating the conditions for AI-enabled work"The effects of AIS deployment are therefore manifold, from the individual performing his or her work, to the tasks, activities and methods required to carry it out, via changes in job references, qualifications and skills, and the reorganization of management and work organization"."Never definitively established, these consequences can be ambivalent, contradictory, but also profoundly alienating or empowering, depending on the outcome given to the rationality conflicts", add the authors of the study . "A final major contribution of this study consists in identifying the conditions of possibility of the rationality compromise and the conditions of emergence of empowering configurations".Involve workers in the innovation process, from the outset, to enable the emergence of a rationality compromise.More than a simple consultation to facilitate adoption, it's a question of starting from real work (" what workers really do - rather than prescribed work - what workers do in theory") to make well-being, quality and meaning of work possible.Ensure co-design of AIS and organize ongoing dialoguePromote close interaction with all the protagonists of the AIS project - the decision-maker, the designer, the engineer and operator, the employee representative bodies - in order to co-define the socio-technical configuration:The goal of AI now and in the future;AI usage rules ;Tooling ergonomics and interface ;The distribution of roles and tasks, including maintenance, improvement and supervision, and determining the appropriate forms of recognition for these activities;Algorithm parameterization and acceptable level of error in the work."Considering the dynamic, learning and empirical properties of AIS, these interactions are not limited to an initial design phase: they must be continuous, organized and collegial with a view to developing a collective culture of the uses and impacts of AIS on work".Putting AI to work to make workers safer"Aiming for an increase in safety that reassures workers", i.e. the deployment of AIS focused on improving the quality of working life, reducing socio-professional risks and supporting professional practices(AI as a "safety catch")."This security then makes possible new forms of interaction and new uses that deliver the full value of AIS: performance, quality and productivity.Making AIS "explainable": opening the black boxStrive to make AI operations and results understandable to workers in real-life situations.Without referring here to the high-level discussions and controversies on the explicability of algorithms, "what we're talking about here is situated explicability, which puts the AIS to the test in its context of use to concretely evaluate how the worker's understanding of its results influences his or her power to act".Learning by doing: accepting a degree of unpredictability in the upheavals produced by AITake into account the potential unexpected effects of AI on workers, work and the organization."The empirical nature of AIS can give rise to new situations linked to the heterogeneity of workers' interpretations, to discrepancies between situations experienced and situations dealt with by AIS, and to learning by both AIS and workers".These situations need to be the subject of feedback to develop a shared culture of usage and appropriate organizational postures: tolerance of error, taking the initiative, technological social dialogue, quality conflict, i.e. the possibility of deliberating on the quality criteria of work with AIS. Le laborIAIn response to one of the recommendations of the Villani Report, the French Ministry of Labor and Employment and Inria have jointly founded LaborIA in 2021, "a laboratory aimed at building and consolidating a field vision to better identify artificial intelligence and its effects on work, the workforce, employment, skills and social dialogue".LaborIA's objectives are to enlighten the public debate on the impacts of the spread of AI in organizations, to produce recommendations to foster the development of responsible AI and to support the decision-making of the Ministry in charge of labor and employment .

ForewordThe third phase of the national strategy for artificial intelligence (AI), released a few days before the Summit, includes a major section devoted to the implementation of AI for public policy."AI will become a priority focus translated into ministerial roadmaps to be presented no later than June 2025. (...) The Ministry of Public Action, Civil Service and Simplification will coordinate interministerial actions to deploy AI in the public sector. (...) AI will be one of the priorities of the State Reform Fund"." A plan to deploy generative AI tools will enable every agent to benefit from AI assistants capable of saving them time and efficiency in their daily administrative tasks. (...) This trusted AI will always have a public agent in the loop (...) The tight steering of these deployments will enable their performance to be assessed in terms of time savings, costs and efficiency. On the basis of this evaluation and feedback, proven use cases will be deployed on a larger scale.In 2022, the Conseil d'État had laid the foundations for an AI administrative doctrine, organized around seven principles of trusted public AI.A few months later, ChatGPT burst onto the scene. The rise of generative AI is reshuffling the deck.As artificial intelligence systems (AIS) make their appearance in many areas of public action, it's time for feedback.The Conseil économique, social et environnemental (CESE), the Défenseure des droits, the Cour des comptes, the Commission de l'IA and the Direction générale de l'administration et de la fonction publique (DGAFP) all delivered their initial analyses in 2024 and early 2025: they all advocate strengthening interministerial management and clarifying a doctrine for the use of AI in public services.By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for agents, the AI Commission thus sketches out, in hollow, a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed "from below" : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give public agents the ability to transform their own work, rather than undergoing transformation from above".The Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, is examining the growing use of algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI) systems in French public services, particularly in central government. Despite the "efficiency gains in decision-making ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights", and calls for human intervention to guarantee respect for users' rights.In June 2024, the DGAFP published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service. It highlights use cases and issues guiding principles.While the Cour des Comptes recommends prioritizing "the missions and processes for which AI is likely to deliver significant gains in efficiency and productivity", it also outlines the main lines of a "robust public AI", based on sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructures, and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them.The CESE calls on administrations to question the purposes of AI systems. To this end, it formulates two conditions for their deployment: "that they improve the quality of public service and the working conditions of the agents who contribute to it", and "that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are genuinely applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law, or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect individuals". Seven principles for "trusted public artificial intelligence" (Conseil d'État, 2022)"In August 2022, the Conseil d'État published a 360-page study on the contribution of AI to public action. The Conseil d'Etat therefore recommended that public authorities immediately define a doctrine for the use of AI: an administrative doctrine, which would make it possible to "control risks of all kinds (individual and collective)" and "guarantee the public utility of AI systems in all circumstances".The high court proposed to base the use of AI in the public sphere on seven principles:Human primacy. "Public AIS are conceived as tools at the service of human beings, which presupposes that they serve a general interest purpose and that the interference in fundamental rights and freedoms that results from their implementation is not disproportionate to the benefits expected from them".Performance. "Deterioration in the quality of a service due to automation is one of the most destructive factors for confidence in digital tools, particularly when, in the case of public services, users have no option but to turn to a competitor. Public authorities must therefore identify system performance indicators (accuracy, technical robustness, response time, etc.), and define the acceptable level of performance, taking into account the consequences of the error, while ensuring that the quality of the service provided is not adversely affected.Equity and non-discrimination. "AIS designers must choose, from among the various conceptions of fairness, the one that will guide the operation of the systems, and formalize this choice, while respecting the principle of equality. They must also take care to prevent unintentional discrimination, a particularly important issue for AIS decision support systems based on machine learning".Transparency. "This principle includes, at the very least, the right of access to the system's documentation, a requirement of loyalty consisting in informing people of the use of an AIS with regard to them, the auditability of the system by the competent authorities, and the guarantee of explicability. The technical complexity of certain AIS, in particular those based on deep learning, and the difficulty or inability to formalize the reasoning that led to the result produced, run the risk of accentuating the feeling of mistrust if the people on whom this result has an impact cannot obtain, in simple language, an explanation of the main reasons behind the decision or recommendation formulated by the system".Safety (cybersecurity). " Any AIS must integrate the issue of safety, i.e. preventing computer attacks and resolving their consequences."Environmental sustainability. "The environmental impact of AIS must be taken into account in the strategy of public AI in general, around a principle of global neutrality of AI, as in the design of each system, by comparing the extra performance enabled by higher computing power with its ecological footprint."Strategic autonomy. "Since AIS increasingly contribute to the essential functions of public power, they must be designed in such a way as to guarantee the nation's autonomy. While digital autarky would be an illusory and counter-productive objective, France must equip itself with the necessary resources, in terms of skills, infrastructure and data research structures, to reduce and choose its dependencies".However, administrations have not waited for such a doctrine to be put into practice, here and there, with varying degrees of maturity. "Above all, we note a very great heterogeneity in the maturity of administrations, the degree of progress of reflections and projects, and the scale of investments devoted to them", writes the Council. Pleading for a "proactive and lucid " strategy for the deployment of public AI, the high court invited the State to strike a balance between the development of AI for internal use and AI that directly benefits citizens, between uses dedicated to "service" and uses dedicated to "control". Giving public employees the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above (AI Commission, 2024).The AI Commission, created in 2023, devotes a chapter of the report it submitted to the Prime Minister in March 2024, to the implementation of AI in public services. In it, she draws up a harsh assessment of the digitization of public services. " Too often, digital transformation has stopped at the dematerialization of procedures, without transforming in depth the flow of information, or the processing of requests. Promises to personalize (and therefore humanize) public services, to speed up processing and to simplify the work of agents have not been kept.For the Commission, AI is first and foremost " an opportunity to relaunch the digital transformation of public services"."Through its ease of use, generative AI offers the opportunity to unleash agents' creativity by enabling them to experiment with technology at their own level, without always needing a specific system". The Commission therefore recommends " encouraging public servants to seize these tools, all the more so when they are free for occasional use (...) The public service would benefit from equipping public servants with configurable AI so that they can deploy them themselves, whether these are off-the-shelf solutions or specific to the public service If public servants appropriate AI, uses will abound and will make it possible to identify more quickly where AI has value".By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for civil servants, the AI Commission thus sketches out a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed from below : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give civil servants the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above".Two pitfalls: the "big AI project" and the "all ChatGPT" approachShe warns, in passing, against two pitfalls to be avoided: " On the one hand, the 'big AI project', designed to do everything, replace everything, developed far from agents, users and the reality of public service. On the other hand, the "all ChatGPT", in which a commercial and foreign universal conversational robot would become the only use of AI in public service".Citizens themselves could be called upon to contribute to AI-enabled public services, " whether to define how they operate or to participate in their construction. Their involvement is crucial if AI-enabled transformation of public services is to avoid reinforcing bureaucratic, inexplicable and distant centralization". The Commission mentions the " alignment assemblies " convened in Taiwan to define rules for AI deployment and behavior in the public service.To give wide access to generative AI services and avoid double investment, the Commission recommends that the capacity for technical steering and execution in public services be strengthened. "At inter-ministerial level, a real technology directorate should be able to provide not only doctrine, but also quality infrastructures (hosting, computing power, software factory, digital identity etc. ), expertise and transformation budgets. At a time when the State is seeking to reinternalize skills and circulate them between ministries, it needs to strengthen its ability to produce quality digital products".Off-the-shelf AI solutions?The Commission, incidentally, sets the terms for a debate on the use of off-the-shelf AI solutions."From 2024, public services will have to decide whether to use off-the-shelf AI solutions, enter into partnerships with companies, or redevelop their own tools. (...) Off-the-shelf solutions will have the advantage of performance and simplicity, as they are immediately available, and can even be integrated directly into agents' tools (office suite, search engine). Some ministries, for example, have banned the use of IT development tools such as Github's Copilot or GPT-4."However, the Commission reminds us that off-the-shelf solutions have their limits: "either because they don't fit in with existing tools, or because they aren't adapted to certain sensitive uses. It would be tricky to ask ChatGPT to summarize a memo to a minister, for example. But it would be absurd for every ministry and local authority to redevelop or buy an AI capable of summarizing a memo without leaking the data. Human intervention as a guarantee of user rights (Défenseure des droits, 2024)In a report published on November 13, 2024, the Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, examines the growing use of algorithms or AI systems in French public services, particularly in central government."Despite gains in decision-making efficiency ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights".In this report, the Human Rights Defender examines the effectiveness of two guarantees that are particularly important in ensuring respect for these rights: human intervention in decision-making and control of systems, and the requirement for transparency towards users.Although user complaints are still few and far between, the Défenseure des droits has identified a"systematic" problem of trust between users and the administration. In this respect, she points out that the transparency of public action must be seen as a "prerequisite for combating possible errors, abuses and discrimination (...) However, information obligations are sometimes little or poorly respected due to the opacity of procedures carried out by or with the help of algorithms".When an administrative decision is said to be " partially automated ", a public official must take a positive, concrete and significant action based on or alongside the result generated by the algorithm, in the decision-making process. The Défenseure des droits notes, particularly on the basis of the complaints it receives, that this intervention is sometimes non-existent and sometimes inconsistent or biased, when the people involved in individual decision-making tend to endorse the results produced by the system without questioning them.In view of these limitations, and their impact on the rights of public service users, the Human Rights Defender recommends the introduction of mandatory criteria and operating procedures to define more precisely the nature of the human intervention required.Read more :The Défenseure des droits calls for vigilance regarding the use of algorithms in public services Civil service: Using AI to support rather than replace human work (DGAFP, 2024)In June 2024, the Direction Générale de l'Administration et de la Fonction Publique (DGAFP) published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service."Although the least skilled occupations are currently the most exposed to automation, generative AI can improve the performance of less skilled workers, while advances in generative AI can increase the exposure of highly skilled occupations."The DGFAP has identified 26 cases of use of AI for HRM in the state civil service:five use cases deemed particularly "desirable": analysis of internal survey results; contextual training recommendations; personalized learning; drafting job descriptions; identification of emerging skills).four others considered "no-no's": early detection of mental health problems; analysis of relationships between colleagues; automated video interviews with candidates; recognition and reward systems.DGFAP concludes with three guiding principles:" Human control: consultation and autonomy (setting the framework for use in collaboration with employee representatives; declaration of AI use by agents; freedom of agents to use AI tools or their results) ;Protection of the agent and the administration Data protection: legal and transparent use of (private and sensitive) data; robustness and security of AI;Ethics : transparency, justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, non-discrimination." Productivity, trust, frugality: pillars of a robust public AI (Cour des Comptes, 2024)Since 2015, Bercy has deployed, on an experimental basis, no fewer than 35 artificial intelligence programs (taxation, customs controls, anti-money laundering, public statistics, consumer law...). On October 22, 2024, the Cour des Comptes published its observations on the implementation of AI at the Ministry of the Economy and Finance.The Cour des Comptes assessment is broadly in line with the employment doctrine advocated by the Conseil d'Etat. " The consideration of trust issues and environmental challenges when implementing AI systems is in the initiation phase within MEFSIN. The next step is to manage these challenges. The compatibility of these different factors - trust, environment and frugality - is a rare opportunity for the adoption of robust public AI.For the Cour des Comptes, AI systems at Bercy improve productivity in the majority of cases, but do not necessarily free up jobs. It regrets that AI is " very poorly addressed in the context of ministerial social dialogue, and project management reserves too limited a place for the quantitative and qualitative implications of AI systems for the work of the agents concerned".The Ministry of the Economy and Finance "must anticipate with greater precision the consequences of the use of AI in terms of human resources, in order to control its effects on the nature of the work entrusted to agents, retain the necessary skills and distribute the productivity gains enabled by these technologies in a relevant way."The Ministry of the Economy and Finance must also "guarantee the frugal use of AI. The concept of frugal AI argues that, over and above the ecological benefits, sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructure promotes spending efficiency, the robustness of AI systems and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them. This approach assumes that the choice to use an AI system takes into account the costs associated with the system's entire lifecycle".In particular, the Cour des Comptes recommends :identify the ministerial body responsible for the strategic management of artificial intelligence and digital data;identify the missions and processes for which AI is likely to bring significant gains in efficiency and productivity;promote the measurement of the environmental impact of AI systems throughout their lifecycle, with a view to reducing it, among the departments of the economic and financial ministries;promote a frugal approach to the implementation of AI systems among the departments of the economic and financial ministries.Prioritize productivity issues?In another report published in January 2025, the Cour des Comptes focuses above all on productivity gains. "The situation of public finances and the necessary trade-offs between digital projects argue in favor of public administrations prioritizing artificial intelligence projects that bring tangible gains in productivity. (.. ). The various types of AI that exist are capable of delivering productivity gains, and the example of the French Ministries of Finance offers encouraging prospects in this area. As part of this dynamic, the interministerial body must ensure that AI-based digital projects enable productivity issues to be prioritized". Questioning goals to prioritize projects (CESE, 2025)On January 14, 2025, the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) published its initial conclusions on the acceptability of AI in a 224-page opinion.In a chapter more specifically devoted to AI deployment in public services, the EESC reviews a number of AI systems deployed in public services.According to the CESE, integrating AI requires administrations to consider a series of questions: "Why is this modernization essential: to improve service quality? to cut costs? to reduce the number of public-sector employees? By questioning the aims of the transformation, this makes it possible to prioritize the most transformative projects, taking into account ethical criteria and the principles inherent in public service".In conclusion, the EESC calls for AI systems to be deployed, but on two conditions:"that they improve the quality of the public service and the working conditions of the employees who contribute to it";"that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are truly applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law (for example, to calculate the amount of a tax), when they prove to be unavoidable (following the example of Parcoursup) or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect people".In line with its previous opinions, the EESC recommends :"systematically offer support and a human touch as an alternative to paperless services, as is the case with the France Service centers. enshrine in law the principle of a right to non-digital services, and guarantee equal access and freedom of choice for everyone.Read more : CESE: Questioning purposes to prioritize AI projects in public services

ForewordSome twenty artificial intelligence (AI) projects run by local authorities had been identified by 2022, and over fifty by 2023. By the end of 2024, they will probably number in the hundreds. 36% of local authorities surveyed say they have already implemented and tested an artificial intelligence system (AIS), and 15% plan to do so in the next twelve months (15%). This acceleration is largely due to the multiplication of projects based on generative AI, notably for the deployment of conversational robots designed for both agents and users.Some local authorities are starting to involve citizens in the development of an AI doctrine or strategy.Anxious to make AI a subject for public debate before any widespread deployment, the Interconnectés with France Urbaine and Intercommunalités de France launched a call on September 18 for the organization of territorial AI consultations.On the occasion of the "Territorial frugal AI demonstrators" calls for projects, the Ministry of Ecological Transition, for its part, has undertaken to bring about the emergence of a Community of AI Actors in the territories. The breakthrough of generative AI in local authoritiesOn November 12, 2024, the Data Publica observatory published its third barometer on the use of data by territories, with a particular focus this year on the use of AI.The Barometer records a clear acceleration in the number of AI usage projects within French local authorities: more than one in two local authorities surveyed (51%) say they have either already implemented or tested an AIS (36%), or intend to do so in the next twelve months (15%). In 2022, the figure was 21%.The highest percentages are found in the regions (75% have already launched projects for 2024) and metropolitan areas (62%). For the first time, a significant number of municipalities with populations of 3,500 to 10,000 are involved (14% have launched projects, compared with none in the 2023 survey).Of the projects already underway in 2024, 29% concern administrative management and 11% customer relations. These projects alone account for 40% of the total, and could even represent 56% of new projects by 2025.So there are probably several hundred projects underway. "These figures can be explained very directly by the multiplication of projects involving the use of generative AI. In particular, there are a great many chatbots or "conversational robots" being imagined or tested by local authorities of all sizes, both internally (to respond to agents who need information about their careers, for example) and externally (to provide information to users)." In 2024, 52% of communities that used AI used generative AI."Easy to access, at least to carry out tests and take the first steps, generative AI is very logically the system that is making the most progress in 2024 in pioneering local authorities, with 52% in use. This is even truer for uses linked to administrative management: 74% of local authorities that use or intend to use AI for internal purposes say they will be using generative AI"."Modeling tools, which make forecasts and can be used to steer certain urban functions, are probably the tools that best meet the needs of local public players. These AIS, which have existed for many years, could spread more rapidly in the years to come ".Lack of skills, the main obstacle to AI implementationThe main obstacle to the use of AI in local authorities is the lack of skills, mentioned by 63% of local authorities and 67% of regions, but only 38% of metropolises. The Barometer also highlights a lack of confidence in AIS (47%). Although this figure is lower among local authorities that have taken the first step, it remains high (38%). Even more sensitive is the issue of access to the necessary (and quality) data, which is only ranked 6th among obstacles by all local authorities, but rises to 3rd place (38% among those who have undertaken the first tests). A community of AI players in the Territories for the ecological transitionAs part of its "AI and ecological transition" roadmap, the French Ministry of Ecological Transition has been supporting frugal AI-based solutions for territories since 2022.The " Démonstrateurs d'AI frugale des territoires " (DIAT) call for projects targeted AI projects capable of making predictions and recommendations to aid decision-making. " AI solutions must be frugal in terms of data and energy, and their own environmental impact must be measured, which must be thought out upstream of project construction ".12 projects were selected for this call for projects. The Banque des Territoires, operator of the call for projects, distinguishes three approaches to frugality among the selected projects:Minimize data collection, aiming for quality rather than quantity, and ensuring that only the data needed for the purpose is updated. This was notably the case with the IA.rbre project, which uses AI to help the Lyon metropolitan area detect "plantable" areas and use vegetation to create cooling zones or combat runoff phenomena.Limiting the number of sensors: frugality can also be achieved by exploiting data that are not originally environmental data. Through the Predict AI'r project run by the Paris-Ouest La Défense public institution, the consortium will be exploiting cell phone boundary data to deduce, using AI, users' travel patterns and their impact on air quality. A strategy that could make it possible to avoid multiplying the number of air sensors, while at the same time being applicable to any territory, in France or anywhere else in the world.Frugality can also be measured by the positive externalities that AI generates in organizations. In Saclay, for example, the Urba (IA) project supported by the agglomeration community promises to help local authorities in the Paris region revise their local urban planning schemes (PLU) by integrating all normative constraints in terms of environmental protection, whether regional or national.These calls for projects have enabled the Ministry of Ecological Transition to bring together a Community of AI Actors in Territories (CAIAT) made up of representatives from territories, competitiveness clusters, research institutions, startups and companies. Public consultations and citizen conventions on AISeveral local authorities have undertaken to involve citizens in the development of a doctrine or strategy around artificial intelligence.In October 2024, the City of Paris sought the opinion of its residents on their perceptions of artificial intelligence and its application on Parisian territory. This digital consultation concluded with a day dedicated to AI on January 25, 2025.Nantes Métropole had already adopted an AI doctrine, which stipulates that AI can only be used within a predefined framework, evolving through a "compass". While testing this doctrine throughout 2024, as part of internal experimentation with use cases applied to various professions and public policy needs, the metropolis organized a series of events around this "compass" throughout 2024. This "Nantes Débat de l'IA" process will culminate in the revision, during 2025, of the metropolitan charter, which will become the "Charte métropolitaine donnée et de l'IA".Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, for its part, organized a Citizens' Convention from November 2023 to February 2024 on " What artificial intelligence to serve residents and the territory? ". "This participatory process and the Opinion issued by the Citizens' Convention have "strengthened the legitimacy and effectiveness of this approach, drawing on the work and thoughts of the residents involved". "Making AI a subject of public debate before any widespread deployment"On September 18, Les Interconnectés, France Urbaine and Intercommunalités de France launched a call for the organization of territorial AI consultations."For elected representatives, agents, users, citizens, economic players and academics, keen to understand and control the potential uses of these AI systems and their impacts, these regional consultations will enable them to debate the conditions for their deployment and to raise expectations, points of vigilance and proposals on a regional scale".In recent months, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, Rennes and Nantes Métropole have led the way in organizing consultations and debates with local staff and stakeholders on the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and how local authorities should embrace it."What opportunities do these technologies open up? Under what conditions are these solutions deployed ? How can we guarantee ? What are the commitments in terms of energy sobriety? ? What guarantees can be given regarding the organization of people's work? ? What impact will this have on public services? Discussing these questions with users, employees, economic players and local civil society will be an opportunity to integrate the uniqueness of each territory and explore how social, environmental and ethical criteria - in a sense, responsible criteria - can be collectively defined and influence the strategic orientations of public players".The results of these initiatives will feed into the production of a manifesto that will affirm the political doctrine of AI at the service of local authorities.The first territories already committed to this approach: Nantes Métropole, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, Rennes Ville et Métropole, Toulouse Métropole, Métropole de Nice Côte d'Azur, Tours Métropole Val de Loire, Ville et métropole du Grand Nancy, Angers Loire Métropole, la Communauté de Communes de Lacq-Orthez, l'agglomération du SICOVAL, Bordeaux Métropole, Quimperlé Communauté, Paris Saclay, la Métropole Rouen Normandie, Communauté d'Agglomération de Béthune-Bruay Artois Lys Roman Intercommunalités de France: don't rush the widespread use of AGI in public services"The risks and limitations associated with the use of AI, such as frequent errors and biases in the data that AI compiles, raise concerns about the reliability and fairness of automated decisions. In addition, the consequences for the professions of public agents and the need for adequate training will have to be taken into account."Intercommunalités de France calls for the widespread use of AGI in public services not to be rushed:First, we need to learn from current experiments at both national and local levels;establish an ethical, legal and transparent framework for the use of AI, as well as guarantees to preserve the human link in public service.Intercommunalités de France proposes :rigorous upstream evaluation of the tool using generative AI, the implementation of regulatory methods and the promotion of a local public debate on AI ;to develop "chosen" rather than "submissive" AI, elected representatives are calling for concerted action between the State and local authorities to define an appropriate framework for use;the question of education in digital culture and the use of these new digital tools is a cause for concern, and local staff will need to be trained to cope with this technological evolution.

ForewordThe future of work is one of the five major themes of the Summitfor Action on Artificial Intelligence, to be held in Paris on February 10 and 11, 2025.The opening of ChatGPT to the public in November 2022 has rekindled long-standing concerns and debates about the potentially massive effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on employment. In March 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated that 300 million jobs worldwide could be destroyed by the irruption of this technology. In April 2024, consulting firm McKinsey estimated that by 2030, more than 30% of the hours worked in Europe and the USA could be automated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI).Meanwhile, the Artificial Intelligence Commission, in its March 2024 report, drew a more nuanced assessment of the effects of AI on employment in companies that adopt AI, as it replaces tasks, not jobs. " However, we must prepare for the disappearance of certain professions and anticipate the transformation of all others (...) The consequences of AI on the quality of life at work will depend on our collective choices and the quality of social dialogue with regard to it" concludedthe commission's experts.One thing is certain: " AI will transform the labor market", concludes the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) in an opinion issued ahead of the Summit. In particular, the CESE points to the speed at which AI is being deployed in companies in the absence of consultation. " AI needs to be questioned, thought out and integrated as early as possible, as it can be a lever for improving working conditions (management, work investment)" concludes the CESE at the end of a controversy analysis. "A balance needs to be struck between the functions performed, the conditions under which they are carried out and the meaning given to the work. It is a major challenge that companies, administrations and professional sectors must seize upon".The LaborIA action-research laboratory, set up by the French Ministry of Labor and lnria, for its part, is publishing groundbreaking results on human-machine interactions and the challenges of appropriating AI in the world of work.TheInstitut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES) andANACT (Agence nationale pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail), for their part, worked for 18 months with some 50 participants from the worlds of labor and management, business and government, to develop an " operational toolbox designed to foster technological social dialogue around AI". The uncertain effects of AI on employment and productivity"Work on quantifying the effects of AI on growth and employment is still exploratory," observed the French Treasury Department in April 2024, in a summary note: " The effects of AI measured on business productivity are modest for the moment. This can be explained by a still limited and uneven adoption within companies, stronger for large and digital companies (...) The theoretical effects of AI on employment are uncertain."According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 60% of jobs in advanced economies could present a high degree of exposure to AI: 27% of jobs would be highly complementary to it, and therefore most likely to benefit from AI, while it could substitute for 33% of jobs. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) , in developed countries, the number of jobs with the potential to be enhanced by AI (13.4%) is much higher than those with the potential to be replaced by AI (5.1%). According to other estimates, focusing more specifically on the arrival of foundation models, while 80% of US workers could see at least 10% of their tasks replaced, only 19% could see this share rise to at least 50%, and would therefore face a significant risk of substitution. " However, these results must be interpreted with caution," stresses the Treasury Department (in the same summary note). "Indeed, the approach adopted takes into account neither the progression curve of AI, nor the evolution of its development costs for companies, whereas these two elements largely determine the long-term effects of a technology on employment".The Artificial Intelligence Commission, in March 2024, pointed to a rather positive effect of AI on employment in companies that adopt AI, "because AI replaces tasks, not jobs. In 19 out of 20 jobs, there are tasks that AI cannot perform. Jobs that can be directly replaced by AI would therefore represent only 5% of jobs in a country like France. On the other hand, the spread of AI will create jobs, not only in new professions, but also in old ones. All in all, some sectors or fields could experience net job losses, which need to be supported by the public authorities, but this does not imply that AI will have a negative effect on national employment in France."To draw up this generally reassuring assessment, the experts commissioned by the President of the Republic relied, in particular, on a survey carried out annually by Insee, which studies the effects of AI adoption by companies in France. According to this study, total employment in companies that have adopted AI is increasing more than in companies that have not, whereas these two groups were following a similar previous trend. The effect results mainly from the creation of new jobs, rather than a greater retention of existing jobs . "We also find that there are no differential effects on male versus female jobs: AI adoption has comparable effects for male and female employment. However, this effect of AI on total employment is not uniform from one trade to another. In particular, certain levels within the company or certain trades are likely to experience net job reductions. In fact, companies that adopt AI for administrative management or marketing will see their employment in "intermediate administrative and sales professions decline. " Opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence for companies and employees"The opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) for the world of work are numerous. For the moment, their scientific assessment remains limited", observe Flore Barcellini and Moustafa Zouinar (Centre de recherche sur le travail et le développement- CRTD, Cnam) and Nathalie Greenan (Centre d'études de l'emploi et du travail-CEET).The promises associated with AI are essentially based on three assumptions, observe the authors."On the work side, AI is supposed to increase human capabilities in carrying out certain tasks, help reduce errors by making tasks more reliable, or relieve humans of tasks perceived as 'non-value-added', particularly when they are repetitive or arduous."AI also opens up opportunities in terms of employment and production structure. "The development of the technology, its implementation and the product or service innovation it stimulates should generate new jobs. Some even see Industry 4.0 including AI as an opportunity to reindustrialize the European economy."Last but not least, AI would also provide a partial response to labor shortage issues in the context of an aging population. This vision is reflected in the 5.0 society project promoted by the Japanese government.These hypotheses, however, "have been the subject of few solid scientific evaluations in real-life contexts. Moreover, current AI is mainly "weak" AI, specialized in specific tasks, and not "strong" or "general" AI capable of fully replacing human intelligence in all fields".Beyond promises, major risksthe partial or total replacement of humans, implying the loss of their expertise and of what gives meaning to their work: " this manifests itself through the increasing automation of tasks, including those considered 'cognitive' and based on the experience and expertise of professionals (e.g. medical diagnostic tasks)".increasing subordination to algorithmic systems and to the constraints of work organization: "this can be seen in the development of algorithmic management or the rigidification of work organization rules linked to the introduction of AI".the mirage of collaboration between humans and AIS: " human-AIS collaboration refers to the idea that humans and AIS would not be substitutes, but could work in collaboration, enhancing each other's capabilities - AIS potentially enhancing human capabilities, and humans 'training' AIS with massive structured data, providing explanations of its actions and monitoring its proper functioning"."Critical analysis of recent empirical results obtained by research in economics and ergonomics invites us to question a form of "solutionism", which leads us to see technologies as "simple, off-the-shelf remedies" for complex problems such as health, performance or cost reduction issues" conclude the authors.ice.s.To encourage the emergence of " virtuous scenarios of AI use ", the authors point to two central elements:AIS uses must be part of sustainable forms of work " that combine organizational performance with the preservation of workers' health and the development of their skills throughout their working lives"." The introduction of AI should improve the quality of the knowledge produced and facilitate the exploration of new knowledge on the production process of companies and the work of professionals". Cautious appropriation of generative AI by businessesTo date, companies have opted for a cautious approach to generative AI, based on successive experiments.According to Bpifrance's latest business survey, based on feedback from nearly 5,000 companies, 31% of VSEs and SMEs were using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) by the end of 2024, a proportion that has doubled in one year. In particular, 8% use it regularly (3% at the end of 2023). Conversely, 69% do not use it at all, although 19% plan to do so in the near future. Roughly half of all managers are therefore reluctant to use EMI, although this proportion has fallen sharply over the past year (72% at the end of 2023). The main use of EMI identified, which has risen sharply over the past year, is the generation of written content, requested by 68% of VSE/SMEs using EMI (versus 54% at the end of 2023). The second most common use is the search, collection and analysis of data or information (57%). Around 1/3 use it for translation (36%) and the generation of various visual content (31%). VSE-SME managers who do not use AGI explain it above all by the lack of usage identification within their company (for 70% of them). A quarter cite a lack of expertise on the part of their employees or themselves, and 13% fear misuse of the tools (sharing of confidential company data, lack of verification of content produced by the applications, etc.).According to a study by the Adecco Group, published in spring 2024, based on a survey of 2,000 business leaders in nine countries including France, the majority feel overwhelmed by the AI revolution. 57% of executives doubt their own management team's ability to grasp the "risks and opportunities" associated with AI. Only 43% of this group said they had formal training programs in place to improve AI skills, while only 50% said they provided guidance to their teams on how to use it at work. Although 66% of executives recognize the impact of AI in their industry, only 11% feel they have made progress in digitizing their business in recent years (versus 9% of French executives and 14% of American executives). 66% of managers (64% in France) plan to recruit externally to cope with this revolution. This trend towards outsourcing skills is also confirmed for other professions such as data processing, for which 62% of managers plan to recruit experts from outside the company rather than favour internal recruitment. Only 34% of managers intend to train their staff in the use of AI. French executives stand out, however, by favoring the reorientation of their employees towards other positions in the event of AI impacting their jobs (51% of French executives versus 46% worldwide).Employees ahead of the game when it comes to generative AIThe Terra-Nova think tank's report on generative AI draws on the positive effects of generative AI already observed in the development of professional skills, vocational training and the enrichment of certain tasks, to identify the conditions under which this technology could become a lever for inclusion and improved quality of life at work (organization and working conditions, skills enhancement, career development). The report does, however, note a certain reluctance on the part of employers to embrace this technology. " There is talk of shadow GPT in companies, a phenomenon of invisible appropriation by employees, which shows an appetite or need far removed from the wait-and-see attitude or fear that employers often attribute to their teams. Nonetheless, this take-up of the tool is not always without risk for organizations ".A survey of over 14,000 workers in 14 countries in 2023 revealed that generative AI tools were penetrating the world of work without supervision. More than a quarter (28%) of the employees surveyed were using generative AI at work, and more than half without their employer's formal approval. Pointing to a lack of training, they noted that their employers' generative AI policies were either unclear or non-existent. It is therefore important, conclude the authors of the Terra-Nova report, to make generative AI " a subject of social dialogue within companies, by gradually making it a common subject of possible agreements such as the employment of seniors or disability, or by positioning it, when the time comes, as a subject of compulsory agreements such as teleworking or professional equality between men and women. In addition to supporting the career paths of employees exposed to the deployment of AI Gen, this social dialogue will also need to address the conditions for ethical management of the potential of this technology. At both company and branch level, it is also important that the social partners work together, within the framework of the Gestion des emplois et parcours professionnels (GEPP), to study the possibility of detecting trades that could be in decline or on the contrary in tension, that they work on the evolution of skills and that they consider the interest of setting up a joint observatory of the effects of AI on trades". CESE: "Co-constructing a new social dialogue is essential".Just a few days before the Summit for Action on Artificial Intelligence, as part of its global reflection on AI, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) has published an opinion listing the conditions for AI to "bring both social and economic progress".This opinion is based on two observations:For employees, "fear of losing or changing their jobs, feeling employees are very wary of artificial intelligence (AI)".As far as employers are concerned, " the majority of companies are still in the AI learning phase, with empirical experiments and tests on certain tasks. The fact remains that AI is disrupting employment and work by inducing a complete change in organizations that can destabilize them.""Prospective studies on the effects of artificial intelligence have reached a number of limits ", observes the CESE: "there are major discrepancies in estimates of the number of jobs created or destroyed, the CSPs most affected, and expected productivity gains. It is essential to recognize that the decisions taken today in terms of employment, labor and training, as well as in terms of regulation, will determine the impact this technology will have for both employees and employers".The EESC used the controversy method to analyze the arguments for and against AI in work and employment. This method was applied to three major issuesWill AI increase inequality at work?Is AI a step forward for the organization of working conditions and occupational health?Will AI have a positive impact on employment?The CESE has identified the groups most specifically affected: administrative employees, who have a large proportion of tasks that can be automated; women, because they are numerous in exposed professions (accounting clerk, administrative agent, insurance executive); and young graduates, who generally acquire business skills by starting with repetitive tasks, which in future will be entrusted to AI.Social dialogue does little to address the arrival of AI in companiesSince 2017, just under one agreement in a thousand has made reference to AI. This situation is changing, however: between 2018 and 2023, the proportion of signed agreements that mention AI has increased 2.5-fold, particularly in the context of mandatory annual negotiations (NAO).For the CESE, the introduction of AI in companies must be carried out in a transparent way that reassures all stakeholders. Transformations in skills, jobs and work must be anticipated through constructive dialogue.The EESC's analysis of controversies highlights 9 points for attention, "themes necessary for a constructive dialogue between employees, their representatives and employers for the successful implementation of an artificial intelligence system (AIS)".the need for clarity in the company's approach at all levels: it is important to ask the right questions and to advocate transparency when introducing AI in a given department or business line, to anticipate the induced impacts, and to avoid the many biases amplified by the use of AI (gender, disability, skills...).consequences for job content: skills to be replaced, new skills to be acquired, training and support required;consequences for work organization and working hours ;monitoring the impact on physical and mental health (risk of intensification);conditions for preventing AI biases (gender, disability, age, and any type of stereotype), since AI works with data programmed by humans;the sharing of value and expected productivity gains (wages, working hours, etc.);data protection for employees and companies (avoid outsourced programming);environmental impact;access to this technology for businesses (especially SMEs). Dia-IA: an operational toolbox to foster technological social dialogue around AIFor 18 months, some 50 participants from the worlds of labor and management, business and government, worked on developing Dial-IA, "an operational toolbox designed to foster technological social dialogue around AI".This project, coordinated by the Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES) and co-financed by ANACT (Agence nationale pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail), involved four trade unions in particular: CFDT, CFE-CGC, FO Cadres and UGICT-CGT.The project resulted in a joint manifesto and a series of fact sheets designed to help stakeholders become acculturated:AI basics;Mapping the issues;AIS development situations.This toolbox reviews the various reasons why employees and employers are talking and negotiating about artificial intelligence.The toolbox also includes "levers to activate in order to implement a technological social dialogue approach", aimed primarily at employee representatives. This toolbox also offers "levers to activate in order to implement a technological social dialogue approach", aimed primarily at employee representatives.Read more : Workers and artificial intelligence: what kind of social dialogue? AI in the world of work: a survey and recommendations for "empowering AI"After two years of surveys, the LaborIA action-research laboratory, set up by the French Ministry of Labor and lnria, has published groundbreaking results on human-machine interactions and the challenges of appropriating AI in the world of work.After gathering the perceptions of stakeholders (decision-makers, designers, engineers and employees) in different types of organizations (private companies, government agencies, public institutions), the survey produces three types of results.The deployment of AIS in organizations is not the end point of innovation processes, following the phases of ideation, prototyping and experimentation. Human-machine interactions involve extended and uncertain learning periods. Workers must not only use AIS, but also engage in its maintenance, enhancement and supervision.Work that is often little or poorly recognized by organizations can lead to disengagement and the long-term failure of AI projectsThe failures and successes of AI projects also depend on conflicts of priority in the workplace. The survey reveals an opposition between a managerial logic of AI, promoted by designers/decision-makers, and a "logic of real work, specific to employees". The managerial logic sees AI as "a means of optimizing processes, reducing the risk of errors, improving performance and increasing work productivity".The deployment of AIS in organizations can have unexpected effects on work organization and management. Among these unexpected effects, a reconfiguration of professional roles and qualification frames of reference, a questioning of the role of middle managers, polarization of work, etc., are just a few examples. What's more, if AI changes work (and its organization), work also changes AI: "different modes of work organization - highly hierarchical/centralized or, on the contrary, leaving more room for autonomy - strongly influence the reception and appropriation of an AIS".At the end of this survey, LaborIA makes six recommendations.Read more: Deploying AI in the world of work: survey and recommendations for "empowering AI" The future of work on the agenda at the Artificial Intelligence Action SummitAs the "AI revolution" begins to unfold within organizations, it's important to understand its impact now, monitor its development, and encourage the sharing of knowledge and best practices.In this context, the AI Action Summit aims to facilitate international exchanges on the future of work and build on existing initiatives in order to:improve our understanding of AI systems and their uses, to better anticipate their impact on the world of work, training and education;promote AI deployments to serve productivity skills development, and well-being at work.The ambition of the members mobilized on the "Future of Work" theme, as part of the Summit, is to promote the socially responsible use of AI through sustained social dialogue. Beyond the context of the Summit to share this information, work has been launched on an initiative to build capacity to measure the impact of AI and algorithmic management in the workplace.The aim is also to encourage economic and social players to commit to sustainable and responsible AI at the Summit, by bringing together nearly 40 government representatives from five continents, international social partners, academics and researchers, experts, economic players and companies.Exchanges at the Summit should therefore provide relevant tools for players wishing to embark on the path of responsible AI in the field of work, in particular by mobilizing tools that avoid gender discrimination in access to employment, as well as the deployment of a human resources policy that promotes training and adaptation to the new needs generated by AI.