Channel 4’s recent Dispatches documentary, titled *Will AI Take My Job?*, made headlines for featuring what the broadcaster claimed was the first-ever AI television presenter in the UK. This AI presenter, designed with deepfake technology, appeared as a polished, British-accented woman dressed in a smart suit, delivering the show with a calm and professional demeanor. While the technology behind the artificial presenter was impressive and highly convincing, the experiment itself sparked mixed reactions, raising questions not only about the role of AI in media production but also about the broader implications of AI on the workforce.
From the outset, the twist that the presenter wasn’t human had already been revealed to viewers, which somewhat deflated the novelty of the stunt. The AI presenter’s role was largely limited; she didn’t conduct interviews or engage with the documentary’s subjects, functioning more as a voiceover than an active journalist. This limitation underscored the current boundaries of AI in roles traditionally requiring human interaction, empathy, and investigative skills. The presenter herself acknowledged these confines, noting that she wasn’t able to perform the nuanced tasks typical of a human presenter, such as drawing insightful conclusions or interacting on location. This admission highlighted the gap between the capabilities of AI-generated personas and the multifaceted nature of journalistic work.
The documentary’s main focus was an exploration into how AI is beginning to challenge the roles of professionals across different fields. It featured four workers—a doctor, a lawyer, a photographer, and a composer—each pitted against an AI counterpart tasked with performing elements of their jobs. However, the tasks assigned to both humans and AI were fairly narrow and simplified, reflecting only specific aspects of their professions rather than the full complexity involved. This was a crucial point because it demonstrated that while AI can replicate certain functions, it is far from replacing the nuanced, holistic expertise that human professionals bring to their work.
Among the four, only the photographer “lost” her challenge to the AI. However, it’s important to note that her AI rival was not a standalone machine but rather a piece of software operated and guided by two individuals making ongoing creative decisions. This human involvement behind the AI blurred the lines between what AI can do independently and what requires human input, casting some doubt on the notion that AI can fully replace creative professionals anytime soon.
The doctor’s experience was another telling example. While ChatGPT, the AI used in the challenge, was able to arrive at some diagnoses similar to those of the human doctor, it fell short in crucial ways. It couldn’t physically examine a patient or assess pain levels, which are essential steps in determining appropriate medical interventions. This example clearly illustrated that AI, at its current stage, remains a tool that can aid professionals but cannot substitute the hands-on, empathetic judgment that human experts provide.
Similarly, the use of an AI presenter in television may serve in limited contexts such as straightforward educational or instructional content, but it is unlikely to replace journalists who must find and persuade human subjects to share their stories, build trust, and craft compelling narratives. Channel 4 acknowledged this, stating that it did not intend to make AI presenters a regular feature of its programming.
Despite its limitations, the documentary did capture the present-day reality of AI’s growing influence and the discomfort it can provoke among professionals. The four individuals confronted by AI versions of themselves experienced a kind of existential unease—one that many workers might share when faced with the prospect of machines encroaching on their livelihoods. This emotional and psychological dimension is a significant aspect of the AI debate, as it touches on identity, purpose, and economic security.
However, one of the documentary’s major shortcomings was its failure to provide concrete answers to the difficult questions it raised. In the final minutes, the program briefly featured commentary from Adam Cantwell-Corn, policy lead for the Trade Unions Congress Tech Project, and economist Daniel Susskind. Both emphasized the urgent need for a robust social security system to address the unemployment and economic disruption that AI could cause. Yet, the documentary did not delve deeply into how such a system might be established or sustained, leaving viewers with more questions than answers.
The British government’s response to AI’s rise, as presented in the show, was to emphasize efforts to equip workers with AI skills. The government stated that it is working with leading tech firms to train a fifth of the UK workforce in AI technologies over the coming years. While skills training is undoubtedly important, this approach was portrayed as somewhat simplistic and