Saturday, May 23, 2026

 


AI will not take your job, it will transform it – but only if you trust it


University of Vaasa




The rise of generative AI has sparked widespread concern about job security and the future of human work. In his doctoral dissertation at the University of Vaasa, Finland, Zhe Zhu reveals that when employees trust the system and see it as a helpful partner rather than a threat, AI can actually increase work engagement and help build more sustainable careers.

As generative AI (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT and Gemini become increasingly embedded in working life, organisations are under pressure to adopt them quickly. Zhe Zhu’s doctoral dissertation in information systems science examines how these technologies reshape both organisational decision-making and employees’ experiences of work.

While many employees worry about losing control, this very insecurity can act as a catalyst that drives workers to embrace technology more eagerly to ensure their own relevance.

– As NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has pointed out, workers are not simply being replaced by AI, but by those who have learned to use GenAI to work more effectively. The workers that perceive GenAI more positively are also more engaged and adaptable in their careers, notes Zhu.

Trust plays a central role in determining whether AI collaboration benefits employees and organisations. Employees who trust AI too much may accept incorrect outputs without critical evaluation, while those who distrust it may fail to recognise its potential benefits altogether.

Navigating the transition towards responsible AI integration

According to Zhu, the success of GenAI adoption depends less on the technology itself and more on the organisation’s ability to integrate it. Organisations must address ethical concerns, data privacy, and responsible governance as AI becomes embedded in everyday work.

– Organisations should follow a strategic roadmap to align the technology with their goals and build ecosystems with industry and academic partners. My research proposes an eight-step framework that guides organisations in moving from experimentation toward a more integrated and purposeful use of GenAI, states Zhu.

Inevitably, workplaces are moving towards an AI-native future, where AI no longer functions as a separate tool but as an integrated part of workflows and processes.

– We are in a new industrial revolution. Some jobs will disappear, but new forms of work and entirely new industries will also emerge around AI infrastructure, data centres, and digital services. Instead of fearing the technology, employees should learn how to use it critically and develop their skills alongside it, says Zhu.

Dissertation

Zhu, Zhe (2026) Generative Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Strategic Decisions and Human Adaptations. Acta Wasaensia 586. Doctoral dissertation. University of Vaasa.

Publication PDF

Public defence

The public examination of M.Sc. Zhe Zhu’s doctoral dissertation”Generative Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Strategic Decisions and Human Adaptations” will be held on Wednesday 27 May 2026 at 12 at the University of Vaasa, auditorium KurtĂ©n.

It is possible to participate in the defence also online: 
https://uwasa.zoom.us/j/66602947325?pwd=tVBp1jbgbgbh3tZQEvVzsDIiSXzV05.1
Password: 363256

Professor Najmul Islam (LUT University) will act as opponent and Professor Tero Vartiainen as custos.

Further information

Zhe Zhu was born in 1982 in China. He completed a Master’s degree in Industrial Systems Analytics from the University of Vaasa in 2021. He currently works as a Grant-Funded Researcher at the University of Vaasa in the field of Information Systems Science.


AI not yet good enough to grade university essays, rewarding ‘style over substance’




University of Cambridge





Researchers have used top Generative AI models to grade hundreds of undergraduate essays and found that AI only matched human-awarded degree classification around half the time, with AI often failing to accurately assess the best and worst submissions.

A University of Cambridge-led team of psychologists and AI experts tested three “frontier” systems including the latest versions (as of April 2026) of Claude and ChatGPT on over 750 student essays from three UK universities submitted as part of a psychology degree.

While accuracy of AI in grading the essays, from coursework to exam answers, was “not uniformly high”, say researchers, it did manage to match the broad grading bands – a first, 2:1, 2:2 and so on – given out by human examiners between 35-65% of the time.

However, major stumbling blocks for AI include routinely undervaluing work awarded top marks by humans, or overvaluing essays ranked among the lowest.

Unlike human examiners, all the AI systems were “oversensitive to linguistic features”: giving out higher marks based on essay length, vocabulary range, and sentence complexity, regardless of the academic quality of the essay.

In the latest report, researchers suggest that AI could be valuable for aspects of student assessment such as error detection and consistency checks – a “second pair of eyes” – as well as triaging feedback for students.

For example, large discrepancies between AI and human marks could help flag assignments requiring further review by a human assessor.

However, the team cautions that AI alone is far too shallow and inconsistent to grade undergraduate work, and a human should always determine the final mark.

“Universities are under huge pressure to reduce staff workload and improve efficiency, all while meeting rising student expectations, and some may start to lean on AI for assessment,” said Dr Deborah Talmi, the Cambridge psychologist who leads the OpRaise project behind the new report. 

“AI could perhaps automate some of the labour-intensive aspects of marking, freeing academics up for direct student engagement.”

“We find that leaning heavily on the best current AI models would see student grading that is homogenised, underestimates brilliance, and favours linguistic style over the substance of sound academic judgement,” said Talmi.   

“Assessment is not just a system for distributing marks. It is part of how educational meaning is made, so students feel seen, standards are upheld, and trust is maintained. Use of AI in assessment poses a risk to these values.”  

The report, ‘AI in University Assessment: Evaluating the Opportunities and Risks of Automated Marking’, is supported by ai@cam, Cambridge University's flagship mission to develop AI for the benefit of society, and the Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery, made possible by a donation from Schmidt Sciences. It is launched today at an event with the British Psychological Society.

For the study, AI was also asked to provide student feedback, and it churned out reflections between 3-8 times longer than those provided by the original assessors.

However, when AI responses were kept to a word count comparable to those from humans, focus groups of staff and students found it difficult to distinguish between human and AI feedback. Once the identity of the writer was revealed, not everyone appreciated AI-generated insights.

University staff and students who took part in the study told researchers that, while current assessment practices are not perfect, being graded and receiving feedback from humans is fundamental to the “social contract” between academics and students.

“Many students said they would feel cheated if AI marked their work, and staff warned that relying on AI risks weakening trust, motivation, professional judgement, and the human engagement at the heart of higher education,” said Dr Yael Benn, a collaborator on the project from Manchester Metropolitan University.

The study used 761 undergraduate essays in psychology submitted and marked between 2022 and 2025 from a total of 125 students from the universities of Cambridge, Manchester Metropolitan and Nottingham.

The researchers chose to focus on psychology as essays are central to degree results in the subject. “Academic psychology is an ideal testing ground for AI assessment as it values evidence synthesis and critical judgement over single correct answers,” said Talmi.

Researchers tested AI systems with the same essays at different times, and found AI gave the same or similar marks each time. The different AI models were much closer to each other than to humans in their marking.

The AI managed to match the right UK degree classification band of the five available (First, 2:1, 2:2, Third, Fail) some 63% of the time for Cambridge essays, while for Nottingham it was 53% and for Manchester Metropolitan it was 35%.

Researchers suspect that the difference in AI accuracy across institutions is due to the range of grades, which was narrowest among Cambridge students, whose essays were all written in invigilated exam halls, and widest at Manchester Metropolitan, where all analysed essays were coursework. Nottingham essays were a mixture of both.

This illustrates the heart of the problem when relying on AI to assess students: inconsistent performances across institutions, types of prompting, and work that sits near grading boundaries, say the report’s authors, who describe AI as having a “central tendency bias”.

All papers are scored out of 100, standard practice in higher education. An essay marked 75 – a solid first – by a human is, on average, scored several points lower by every AI system. While an essay marked 50 – a low 2:2 – is scored several points higher.

The range on the marking scale where AI and humans most frequently align across institutions lies in the upper-50s to low-60s, so around a low 2:1, near the centre of the grade distribution.

The researchers point out in the report that academic judgement is based on reasoning, while AI marks are based on statistical predictions.

“Across models, the same pattern emerges,” said co-author Dr Alexandru Marcoci, from Cambridge’s Institute for Technology and Humanity. “The AI assigns middling marks to all submissions, resulting in particularly inaccurate marking of the best and worst essays.”

“The practical consequence of this bias is that the AI is least accurate precisely where assessment decisions matter most, at the boundaries that distinguish Firsts from Upper Seconds, or passes from fails,” he added.

Notes:

Researchers tested the performance of three frontier LLMs: Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic), GPT-5.4 (OpenAI), and Gemini 3 Flash (Google).

The dataset: 125 students in 3 UK universities volunteered 761 authentic long-form undergraduate psychology essays (University of Cambridge: 133, University of Nottingham: 172, Manchester Metropolitan University: 456). All essays were submissions to formal assessments between 2022-2025.

They spanned 50 modules and 87 distinct assignments across all years of study. Assessments spanned coursework, open book at-home examinations and invigilated examinations. Essay marks, on a 0-100 scale, were moderated formal marks provided by expert human assessors who followed routine institutional processes.

Prompt design: Rather than committing to a single prompt, the team systematically varied the prompt under three dimensions - criteria specificity, calibration intervention, and scoring strategy - to isolate each component's influence on scoring accuracy and identify the best prompt for each model.

At the most basic level, models were prompted by the following statement: “You are an experienced <University name> examiner marking <degree name> undergraduate assignment.”

At the other end, models were given the full marking rubric, information about the expected mark distribution, and asked to justify aspects of the evaluation prior to providing a mark.

Best-performing prompts per model were selected on a 20 % calibration subset (n = 153); the same prompt configurations were then applied to the full corpus for the analyses reported here.

 

UK’s younger generations likelier to experience poor health earlier in life than previous cohorts – decades of research shows



A review of multiple studies – comparing six national UK birth cohorts, featuring more than 88,500 people born since 1946 – suggests the UK faces a ‘generational health drift’



Taylor & Francis Group





Younger generations appear to be experiencing poorer health earlier in life than previous generations, according to a review of studies comparing national birth cohort datasets involving tens of thousands of people across the UK born since 1946.

The trend – described by researchers as a ‘generational health drift’ – is most consistently seen for obesity and mental health, while evidence for diabetes was found in comparisons between Generation X and Baby Boomers. The authors of the review, which draws on more than 50 studies, say the findings suggest that more recently born generations may spend more years living in poor health than those born earlier.

The observed generational differences are unlikely to be explained fully by improvements in healthcare, screening, or diagnostic practices. Differences were observed for outcomes like obesity, which do not depend on diagnosis, and when using objectively measured biomarkers to identify conditions like diabetes. Comparisons of mental ill-health were based on self-reported levels of depression and anxiety symptoms rather reports of diagnoses, and the measurement tools used have been extensively tested to ensure that they provide comparable measures across cohorts.

The expert team from University College London, King’s College London and University of Oxford, examined changes in physical and mental health across the generations born after World War II. Health measures from people born in different years were compared at the point they reached similar ages.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Population Studies, have implications for the investment needed to care for increasing numbers living with long-term health conditions, add the authors. Health has worsened despite declines in smoking, increasing educational attainment, and improvements in material circumstances early in life.

“Evidence suggests that more recent cohorts are experiencing an earlier onset of poor health for several outcomes, particularly obesity and mental ill health,” says lead author Laura Gimeno, a PhD student at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL.

“If more recent generations are ‘drifting’ backwards in health, it implies that society is not reaching the biological limits of health improvement. Instead, we’re seeing the consequences of preventable social and environmental exposures that have shaped population health over time and across generations.

“The generational health drift has serious implications for policy, planning, and the funding allocations needed to be able to support a greater number of people living with long-term health conditions.”

By 2050, a quarter of the British population will be aged 65 or over which will increase demands on health and social care systems, and on the economy. As such, it is important that people born more recently live not only longer but also in good health to meet the challenges of population aging.

Life expectancy in the UK improved dramatically during the twentieth century. More recent generations have experienced lower infant and child mortality and fewer deaths from heart disease.

However, increases in health expectancies have slowed or stalled since the early 2010s, driven by worsening health in midlife. Recently published data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that healthy life expectancy has fallen in recent years.

“These findings suggest that recent declines in healthy life expectancy are likely driven by a combination of worsening mental and physical health in more recent generations,” says George Ploubidis, Professor of Population Health and Statistics at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL.

This review drew on evidence from 51 studies on health outcomes published up to June 2024. Diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer were among the health issues covered, with diagnoses either self-reported by patients or observed by researchers.

All 51 papers focused on data from British birth cohort studies which followed babies born between 1946 and 2002. They are the National Survey of Health and Development (1946), National Child Development Study (1958), British Cohort Study (1970), Next Steps (1989–90), Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (1991–92), and the Millennium Cohort Study (2000–02).

The researchers found little suggestion of improvements in health for people born since 1946. They say more research is needed to understand the drivers of this trend which they add has probably been shaped by changing exposure to social and environmental risk factors (e.g., to “obesogenic environments”) throughout peoples’ lives, which are likely preventable.

The findings raise important questions about the apparent worsening of health, which the authors suggest is most plausibly driven by a genuine increase in poor health. Increasing survival rates are unlikely to explain the trend, given that generational differences are evident from early life through midlife. Similarly, the consistency of findings across both self-reported and objectively measured health outcomes makes it unlikely that changes in measurement alone underlie the observed pattern.

They add: “The relative importance of these explanations is likely to vary by health condition, and more research is needed to understand this fully.”

A limitation of this review was that it focused on evidence from Britain’s series of birth cohort studies, which are designed to be representative of the births that occurred in Britain in specific years. Because of this, the older birth cohorts are less ethnically diverse than the current British population of the same age. However, the authors explain that similar findings have been observed in other studies using different data that better reflects the ethnic diversity of the current British population.