# Good Intentions, Bad Inventions: How Employees Judge Pervasive Technologies in the Workplace

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.06381 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.06381/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [A Systematic Literature Review of Human-Centered, Ethical, and Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05284/) (2023)
- [Can Workers Meaningfully Consent to Workplace Wellbeing Technologies?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07242/) (2023)
- [FairComp: Workshop on Fairness and Robustness in Machine Learning for Ubiquitous Computing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12877/) (2023)
- [AI-Driven Feedback Systems, Digital Labour, and Silent Quitting: Transforming African Workplaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16192/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Pervasive technologies combined with powerful AI have been recently introduced to enhance work productivity. Yet, some of these technologies are judged to be invasive. To identify which ones, we should understand how employees tend to judge these technologies. We considered 16 technologies that track productivity, and conducted a study in which 131 crowd-workers judged these scenarios. We found that a technology was judged to be right depending on the following three aspects of increasing importance. That is, whether the technology: 1) was currently supported by existing tools; 2) did not interfere with work or was fit for purpose; and 3) did not cause any harm or did not infringe on any individual rights. Ubicomp research currently focuses on how to design better technologies by making them more accurate, or by increasingly blending them into the background. It might be time to design better ubiquitous technologies by unpacking AI ethics as well.