Digital Twins technology is becoming an increasingly prominent reality driven by many tech companies.
“Digital Me” technology was pioneered by Richard Skelett with the development of “Digital Richard”. What makes this AI twin different from the real Richard is that it is limited to a screen, otherwise the digital Richard knows everything the skeleton knows.
Having been trained on Scalet’s specific data, meetings and working style, the digital twin serves as a valuable professional partner.
It also helps Scalette manage personal life, such as handling personal “off-limits” administrative tasks and family events.
The main rationale of companies behind creating digital twins is based on increased productivity along with transforming the average employee into a “superworker”.
For example, leaders like Josh Bersin, founder and CEO of The Josh Bersin Company, report that increased productivity from AI twins has allowed 30 percent annual growth with higher staff bonuses and minimal hiring.
“People don’t have the energy to make another conference call to talk about this and that. But you can wake up the digital twin in the middle of the night and talk to it for an hour — it doesn’t matter. It’s incredibly valuable,” Bersin said.
Additionally, Digital Me technology that is trained on an individual’s meetings, documents, and unique problem-solving methods allows employees to increase their output, creating the confidence that hourly rates are becoming irrelevant. Employees also used these twins for coverage during phased retirement and maternity leave.
Who owns these AI replicas: the employer or the employee?
In addition to rewriting the rules of productivity, these AI replicants have sparked an ethical debate regarding ownership and identity theft.
There is fundamental disagreement among industry leaders over who owns the digital twin. Richard Skelett argues that individuals should own their own twins in order to protect their identity, likeness, and value with companies that “hire access”.
Bersin, on the other hand, argued that digital twins are assets to the business because they are trained on company data and IP. The clone value may also decline once the employee leaves the company.
“There are certainly real potential benefits, but it depends on getting the governance right, getting the direction of free time right, getting the autonomy of these agents right, and making sure that my name, image and likeness still remains mine, even if my employer is profiting from it,” said Kellin Lowmaster, a research director in Gartner’s HR practice who focuses on the impact of AI on work and the workforce.
“The moment an AI tool is trained on a person’s emails, meetings and work product, you are dealing with issues that sit at the heart of the employment relationship: consent, control of personal data, performance, substitution of labour,” argued Anjali Malik, an associate at Bellevue Law who specializes in employment law and commercial disputes.
Blurring the line between productivity and identity
The emergence of AI replicants is also responsible for blurring the line between productivity and identity theft.
What remains of a person, when a digital twin can easily mimic his or her reactions, creativity, problem-solving abilities, and judgment.
This points to an ethical dilemma, which reduces human beings to mere data points and deprives them of their distinct identity made up of unique and practical experiences.
Governance and legal challenges
The digital twins landscape is also fraught with legal and governance challenges. It is not clear who is liable if the digital twin makes a significant business mistake or legal error.
Legal experts also highlight concerns regarding control of personal data and “substitution of labour”. Furthermore, current employment laws are not equipped for AI twins. According to experts, in the future employment tribunals will set legal standards for handling unfair dismissal cases related to AI functions.
