Women more likely to work in jobs impacted by AI, report warns
A report by the Greater London Authority finds women are more likely than men to work in jobs highly exposed to artificial intelligence, particularly in administrative and customer service roles. Despite making up 45% of London's workforce, women hold nearly 60% of the jobs at highest risk of change due to AI. The report emphasizes that exposure to AI does not necessarily mean job loss, but rather significant changes in job content.
- ▪Almost 60% of jobs at high risk of AI-related change in London are held by women, who make up only 45% of the city’s workforce.
- ▪Eight percent of women in London work in roles with high AI exposure, compared to 4% of men.
- ▪Administrative and customer service roles, where women are overrepresented, are most vulnerable to generative AI capabilities.
- ▪Over 300,000 administrative roles in London are at the highest risk of AI disruption due to task alignment with AI capabilities.
- ▪London faces higher AI exposure than the UK average, with 46% of workers in affected roles compared to 38% nationally.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
NewsUKHome NewsStudy shows AI puts more women’s jobs at riskTwice as many women as men work in the roles with the highest risk of exposure, the report foundNicole Wootton-Cane Tuesday 28 April 2026 10:06 BSTBookmarkCommentsGo to commentsBookmark popoverRemoved from bookmarksClose popover{"translations":{"comments":"Go to comments","share":"Share","copyLink":"Copy link","bookmark":"Bookmark","removeBookmark":"Remove bookmark"},"showComments":true,"showBookmark":true,"articleId":"b2966182","articleMeta":{"url":"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-jobs-ai-at-risk-london-report-b2966182.html","title":"Study shows AI puts more women’s jobs at risk"}}AI risks becoming ‘weapon of mass destruction of jobs’, Sadiq Khan warnsYour support helps us to tell the storyRead moreSupport…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Independent.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Independent
