From scepticism to action: what Londoners told us about AI and jobs

As AI becomes more pervasive in Londoners’ lives, it is important to create credible ways for the public to understand, question, and shape decisions that will affect their working lives. How AI is affecting jobs and employment in London is a technical, uncertain, and fast-moving subject. And that complexity makes public engagement essential. Any decisions made about AI and jobs will shape people’s security, opportunities, and routes through work. They cannot sit solely with technologists, employers, economists, and policymakers.

The publication of the London AI and Jobs Taskforce report last week prompted me to reflect on the public engagement workshop we ran for the GLA earlier this month.

On 4^th July, we brought together 43 Londoners for a one-day workshop exploring how AI may affect work, hiring, skills, progression, and fairness in the capital.

We used a deliberative-informed structure that helped people move from immediate reactions towards more considered judgements. Participants engaged with evidence, discussed risks and opportunities, imagined what a good future could look like, developed 18 possible actions, and then collectively reviewed that full longlist.

This allowed us to explore the reasoning behind people’s views, the tensions they were trying to resolve, and the points on which they agreed or disagreed.

It was also a useful reminder that meaningful engagement is possible even when policymakers are working at pace. Although a single day cannot settle a question as complex as AI and employment it can, when every activity has a clear purpose, give people time to learn, reflect, challenge assumptions, and shape practical action.

Participants did not arrive with settled or fully informed views. Many began the day cautious, sceptical, and concerned. Their initial understanding of AI’s possible effects on the labour market was uneven, even though AI is already appearing throughout their workplaces and daily lives.

Sharing evidence brought home the potential scale of change, and also its uneven effects. Participants focused particularly on entry-level jobs, progression routes, existing inequalities, and the risk that some Londoners will have far fewer resources to adapt than others.

The process did not turn sceptics into AI enthusiasts. Instead, participants became better able to engage constructively with the choices they – we – face. Their concerns remained but became more specific. The discussion moved towards practical priorities around skills and training, better public intelligence, employer accountability, worker protection, inclusion, and early action.

That is one of the central lessons to take from the day. Good engagement does not manufacture consensus or optimism. It helps people turn uncertainty and concern into clearer principles, priorities, and tests for action.

The Taskforce’s final report echoes many of the questions and priorities participants raised. Londoners called for early action, better intelligence about how work is changing, stronger skills support, employer responsibility, protection of entry routes, and wider collaboration.

The report translates many of these concerns into proposals for an Early Action System, an AI at Work Partnership, and new pathways into work, underpinned by trust, partnership, and continuous learning. And the engagement workshop helped bring Londoners’ lived realities into the room.

As AI policy develops, public engagement should help shape the questions, challenge assumptions, and clarify what fair and credible action looks like from the start.