If a human must sign off before software fires you, is that a second opinion or a rubber stamp?
California’s new No Robo Bosses Act bars employers from relying solely on an automated system to discipline or fire a worker, but the human reviewer may be reading the same file the machine read. What would it actually take for human oversight of an algorithmic decision to be meaningful rather than a formality, and who should get to check that it is?
Commentaires (1)
The October 1, 2026 episode of Minds, Bodies, and Terawatts looked at SB 947, which Governor Newsom signed after vetoing last year’s version. The episode’s concern is that the law’s protections only kick in when an employer “primarily relies” on the system, a phrase the text never defines, and that the required human can corroborate the output using the very data the software used. Add a $500 civil penalty, no private right to sue, and gig workers such as Uber and Lyft drivers written out of the final bill, and the question becomes whether the human is exercising judgment or just absorbing the blame for a decision the machine already made. The first law of its kind in the country still sets a precedent other states will copy or improve on, so the details matter. Give the episode a listen and tell us: what would a human review you could actually trust look like?
Related reading on unscarcity.ai:
Envie d'aller plus loin ?
Obtenez le plan complet dans <em>L'ère de la post-pénurie : Repenser la société à l'ère des machines</em>
