Today, we're asking a critical question: When artificial intelligence evaluates its own creators, who holds it accountable? In this episode, we dive into Meta's recent decision to automate 90% of its internal risk assessments, a move that raises alarming concerns about transparency and accountability, as AI systems take on roles traditionally filled by humans. With insights from whistleblower Frances Haugen, we explore the broader implications of AI-driven automation and the potential loss of human oversight. Discover why this shift is not just a matter of efficiency, but a fundamental change in corporate power dynamics. Subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation on this pivotal topic. 

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Today, we're asking a critical question: When artificial intelligence evaluates its own creators, who holds it accountable?

Yesterday, Meta announced it's automating 90 percent of its internal risk assessments—evaluations designed to identify privacy breaches, misinformation, and online safety issues. Until now, thousands of human employees handled these assessments, providing careful oversight, catching potential crises, and preventing harm. Meta insists that human reviewers will remain involved—but only for what it terms "high-risk" cases. Internal documents suggest even that concession is temporary, pointing toward an almost entirely automated future for risk oversight.

At first glance, this shift might seem like just another inevitable step forward in a tech-driven world—another way to increase efficiency, cut costs, streamline operations. And Meta isn't alone. Microsoft recently laid off thousands of employees as it refocuses its structures around AI-driven workflows. Industry-wide, the message is clear: Artificial intelligence is at the heart of corporate strategy, efficiency, and growth.

But beneath this seemingly simple narrative lurks something profound—and deeply troubling:

Meta's decision effectively hands over the authority to evaluate its own products' risks directly to algorithms—algorithms designed, developed, and deployed within Meta itself. Critics argue this creates an inherent conflict of interest: AI systems now "grading their own homework," as whistleblower Frances Haugen has put it, leading to obvious concerns around transparency, accountability, and basic trust.

Past human reviewers possessed something AI typically lacks: context, nuance, and moral intuition. As Haugen noted, artificial intelligence struggles profoundly with sarcasm, subtle cultural references, or identifying novel harms—exactly the kinds of challenges that complicate decisions around privacy and content moderation. Meta says it will keep humans involved for now, but there's no public clarity on what qualifies as "high risk," and internal memos reveal even these limited human roles could soon vanish.

Let's consider the broader implications of Meta's move: AI-driven automation isn't just a cost-cutting tactic. It fundamentally shifts power and responsibility away from human judgment and toward corporate-controlled algorithms. This lets companies quicken product cycles, maximize profit margins, and reduce human dissent. But at what cost?

Already, we've seen mass layoffs at content moderation firms globally, from Ireland to Barcelona to Kenya, where thousands of workers faced unemployment and uncertainty. Mental health issues were rife among moderation teams handling distressing content—but rather than improving workplace conditions, companies like Meta are simply replacing human moderators with AI.

We’re now at a pivotal juncture. If companies increasingly centralize decisions in AI—programmed for efficiency and speed but blind to complex ethical considerations—what happens to accountability? Who bears responsibility when these systems inevitably misfire, overlook harmful consequences, or prioritize profit at the expense of human well-being?

Over the coming months and years, regulators, policymakers, and communities at large will have to ask tough questions about transparency in AI decision-making, labor rights, and corporate accountability. Decisions like Meta's don't just eliminate jobs—they potentially erase critical, human perspectives from processes essential for safeguarding society.

At its heart, this shift isn't about humans versus machines—it's about who controls the machines, and who ultimately gets left behind.

This is AI Daily. I'm Harry Kermode.

AI Grading Its Own Homework: The Ethical Dilemma of Meta's Automation Push

AI Daily with Harry Kermode