Human Resilience in the AI Era -- What Machines Can't Replace

Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.

We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI. However, such metrics ignore the greater impacts of human--agent collaboration in transforming the nature of work. To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today, and instead focus on how AI can augment entire workflows of the future. To ground this analysis, we establish a precise definition of AI augmentation comprising six conditions, spanning durable net value, meaningful human control, accountability and recovery, and long-term human development through learning, career pathways, and job purpose. We elaborate on these conditions and apply the framework in a case study of AI-mediated social surveys. We conclude by outlining how organisations, researchers, and government leaders can use this framework to make sense of the future of work.

Artificial intelligence is changing both software production and the economics of software-based business models. Classical technology due diligence mainly examines technical properties such as architecture, scalability, and technical debt. These criteria do not fully capture how AI can affect a company's value proposition, competitive position, margins, or access to customers. This paper develops Artificial Intelligence Exposure and Resilience (AI-ER) as a two-dimensional assessment framework. AI exposure describes the pressure for change that AI creates for a business model. AI resilience describes the company's ability to absorb that pressure, adapt to changed conditions, and use AI in an economically viable way. Metrics for both dimensions are derived from current AI capabilities, their deployment conditions, and relevant research on business models and organizational adaptability. The model keeps exposure and resilience separate and adds an explicit assessment of evidence quality and confidence. It can be applied first with public information and later refined with internal evidence. The result is a traceable company profile that supports comparison without concealing uncertainty in the underlying evidence. The paper also specifies an initial score logic and a procedure for empirical validation.