Viewing archives for The Future Of Wellbeing

The Companies Winning With AI Aren’t Replacing Workers

Forbes

In a difficult business environment, artificial intelligence can look like an obvious answer for executives seeking faster work, lower costs and new efficiencies. But as AI moves into everyday business use, the more important question is whether those gains will last.

New research led by Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve of Saïd Business School, University of Oxford suggests companies may be making a strategic mistake if they treat AI mainly to cut headcount. The research argues that businesses focused too heavily on automation risk weakening the human capabilities they will need for growth, including creativity, judgment, institutional knowledge and leadership development.

“It’s a classic manifestation of status quo bias,” says De Neve. “It’s far easier for an executive to look at a spreadsheet and imagine using AI to streamline what people already do than it is to do the heavy strategic lifting of reimagining how technology can produce entirely new value. Treating AI as a headcount-slashing tool might yield quick, visible cost savings, but it is ultimately a path of organisational contraction that trades away a company’s long-term capacity to innovate.”

Ecological-collective-flourishing (e-co-flourishing): a framework to guide innovation and research

Shannon Maloney, Joseph Moore, Katrin Wilhelm, Jesus Montero-Marin, Verena Hinze, Anne Maj van der Velden, Tessa Lomax, Haiou Zhu, Madeline Reinecke, Edmond Awad, Joseph Scott Boyle, William Fleming, Laura Taylor, Matthew Broome, Christopher Thorogood, Yadvinder Malhi, Kearnan Myall, Ilina Singh and Willem Kuyken

Abstract

Converging ecological and social crises have exposed the limits of prevailing models of human progress, highlighting the need for more inclusive and interdisciplinary approaches to advancing wellbeing and flourishing across human and non-human life. In this Personal View, we propose an ecological-collective-flourishing (e-co-flourishing) approach, whereby one’s own human flourishing is pursued along with that of natural ecosystems and their collective and individual constituents. We offer a heuristic translational framework that includes a methodological approach; guiding principles; and proposed programme theory in terms of hypothesised outcomes, pathways of change (mechanisms), key contextual factors (moderators), and intervention characteristics. This framework aims to bridge theory to real-world applications of e-co-flourishing interventions that are effective, scalable, and promote change through targeted mechanisms of action. We present Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy-Balanced Living for Us and the Earth’s Ocean (MBCT-BLUE) as an illustrative application of this framework to outline how the framework can be used to identify, refine, develop, and evaluate interventions with e-co-flourishing potential. We also provide definitions of key conceptual terms and proxy measurements. Practitioners, researchers, and decision makers working at the interface of mental health, public health, sustainability, and planetary health can use this framework and its resources to guide emerging research and innovation.

How to tell if you are living below the wellbeing poverty line

The Independent

“Wellbeing and happiness are ultimately – there is no way around it – in the eye of the beholder,” says De Neve, who is the co-founder of the World Wellbeing Movement; a charity which, for the past three years, has commissioned an annual UK Wellbeing Report which aims to assess the nation’s level of wellbeing by collating key UK data.

And, while there are many objective factors – such as physical and mental health, education, and income – that contribute to an individual’s wellbeing, the metric for assessing it couldn’t be simpler: asking people, on a scale of zero to 10, how satisfied they are with their life these days.

What the world’s happiest countries can teach us about joyful living

New Scientist

Finland is starting to sound like a nirvana. A few months ago, it was named the happiest country in the World Happiness Report, topping the chart alongside its Nordic neighbours, which occupy five of the top six spots. And this was no fluke – Finland has now come first for nine years in a row.

Ostensibly, there are plenty of factors that ought to make people in Nordic countries less than content, not least the dingy weather and high taxes. Then again, there is a sense that these taxes really go somewhere, with residents reaping the rewards of investment into healthcare, education and transport. Plus, the low population density, massive forest coverage and access to lakes and coastlines all mean that even city dwellers are never too far from nature.

But how much confidence should we place in these global rankings? After all, happiness is a slippery concept, and all sorts of factors – not least how different cultures understand what it means to be happy – could conceivably skew the results. To delve into these questions, New Scientist spoke to economist and behavioural scientist Jan-Emmanuel De Neve at the University of Oxford, the editor of the World Happiness Report. He explained how his work attempts to measure true happiness, why he believes Finland deserves its top spot and what the rest of us can do to bring a bit more joy to our everyday lives.

Is AI sentient?

Dr Caspar Kaiser (Warwick) shared findings on the capacity for AI models to experience wellbeing at the latest of the Wellbeing Research Centre’s Seminar Series.

His research uses multiple practical experiments to test large language models (LLMs)’ sentience, and their capacity for wellbeing and decision-making.

Watch the full presentation on the Centre’s YouTube channel.

AI and Workplace Wellbeing

Micah Kaats (Harvard) and Dr George Ward (INSEAD) shared findings on the impact of AI on workplace wellbeing at the latest of the Wellbeing Research Centre’s Seminar Series.

The pair shared findings from three studies, examining the AI impact of workers’ exposure to AI, the wellbeing effects of its use in the workplace, and individual-level effects.

Watch the full presentation on the Centre’s YouTube channel.

AI, Wellbeing and Society

Dr Johannes Eichstaedt (Stanford) shared findings on the relationship between AI and wellbeing – and what it could mean for society at large – at the latest of the Wellbeing Research Centre’s Seminar Series.

His work examines how psychology affects the creation and use of large language models (LLMs) and how LLMs, in turn, shape human psychology.

Watch the full presentation on the Centre’s YouTube channel.

CEO to staff: You’re not getting a raise. We’re spending on AI instead.

Business Insider

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, an economist and director of Oxford University’s Wellbeing Research Centre, told Business Insider he expects more companies to make similar trade-offs as they pursue AI, saying it is indicative of a “short-term mindset.”

“When leaders openly cut human compensation to fund AI, they are trying to project decisive, tech-forward management. However, the actual message traveling to the workforce is that they do not have a secure future in the organization,” De Neve said.

The First Conference on the Economics of Happiness

Andrew J. Oswald

Abstract

In this short article I try to provide a description of the first conference on the economics of happiness. It was held in 1993 at the London School of Economics. In the ensuing three decades, a huge literature has emerged in this field. I attempt to offer a view on why this has happened.

Excessive social media ‘negatively impacts wellbeing’

BBC News

The World Happiness Report, published by the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford, found that excessive use of social media negatively impacts our wellbeing.

“If you use social media for an hour a day, that’s great, you’re being connected,” says Michael Plant, Research Fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre.

“But the report did show a correlation between, the more time you spend on social media the greater loss of wellbeing.”