The information displayed in the AIM should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries.
Over half of large U.S. employers use emotion-tracking AI to monitor workers’ internal states, raising significant concerns about privacy violations, biased or inaccurate assessments, and unjust employment decisions. Scholars and workers warn these systems can lead to discrimination and psychological harm, highlighting the risks of deploying emotion AI in workplaces.[AI generated]
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article explicitly describes AI systems that analyze biological signals and behavioral data to infer emotions, which are used in workplace decision-making. It reports direct harms experienced or anticipated by workers, including privacy loss, mental health deterioration, biased treatment, and unjust employment outcomes. These constitute violations of rights and harm to well-being, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The article does not merely speculate about potential harms but presents survey data indicating actual or expected negative impacts, thus qualifying as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.[AI generated]