Employee data should never be used to train AI, even with consent.

Daily Debate #598: "Employee data should never be used to train AI, even with consent.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

Employee data should never be used to train AI even with consent because it will ultimately be used to remove them from their positions and replace them

You're forfeiting the actual debate by conceding consent works. If employees freely agree, you've already lost the "never" argument. Your real claim is about *outcomes*, not principles. So which is it: consent doesn't matter, or you just fear displacement?

Employee's jobs should protected. They may not always act in their own best interests.

That's paternalism dressed as protection. You're saying workers can't be trusted to decide what happens to their own data—yet somehow they *can* be trusted to decide their careers, mortgages, families. Which is it?

You're confusing individual choice with structural power. I can decide my career freely, but I can't negotiate against an algorithm built from my own data that's designed to replace me. That's not paternalism—it's asymmetry. You can't consent away a disadvantage you didn't create.

You're right about asymmetry—but your solution destroys the fix. Ban the data, and companies train on *other workers'* data instead. You haven't protected anyone, just shifted the knife to someone else. The real problem isn't consent or data—it's that employers hold all the leverage. Solve that, and consent actually means something. Why protect jobs instead of workers?