To think Morrisons should be boycotted over their AI adoption?

[RobynRB]

Today Morrisons announced 200 head office redundancies due to AI adoption. I say we should boycott them as a warning to other supermarkets and companies not to go down this route. I know we are told this is inevitable and everyone just seems to be rolling over and let it happen, but we should at least try and the only weapon we really have is voting with our pounds (while we still have them).
Because honestly if you believe that we're all going to be sitting around spending free money while AI does all the work you need your head looking at.

Whist you're at it OP why not take all the radiators out of your home and keep more chimney sweeps in employment too 🙄

These roles probably weren't that productive and AI technologies also need human workers to build and maintain them.

https://variety.com/2026/biz/news/disney-layoffs-1000-employees-josh-damaro-memo-1236721266/

Shall we never watch a Disney film again either?

I don’t really get why people dismiss concerns about job losses so easily. This isn’t the same as old jobs fading out over time AI is affecting a much wider range of work, and much faster.

New jobs might come but not necessarily at the same speed, same amount or for the same people.

There's also a difference between robots taking shitty dangerous jobs in mining and jobs in the arts that people love and enrich their lives immeasurably

Where do you draw the line OP
here’s what ai says about Mumsnet (and no I haven’t fact checked)

Yes, Mumsnet uses AI, but primarily for behind-the-scenes operations rather than for writing posts. Their approach focuses on data analysis and moderation support while keeping the forum's content human-generated.
Here is a breakdown of how they use the technology:
Moderation and Safety
• Auto-flagging: They use AI tools to scan for specific words or phrases that might violate their talk guidelines.
• Auto-hiding: Certain posts may be hidden automatically by AI until a human moderator can review them.
• Human Oversight: Mumsnet maintains that AI is not used to make final moderation decisions. A human moderator reviews every flagged post because they believe algorithms lack the nuance to handle sarcasm or humour.
Data and Business
• MumsGPT: This is an internal AI-powered qualitative research tool. It helps the company analyse millions of conversations to identify trends and extract brand mentions for their commercial partners.
• Summarisation: They use AI at the backend to summarise information for internal management and product teams to help improve the site.
Partnerships
• The "Other Phone": Mumsnet collaborated with the tech company Nothing and the app SafetyMode to launch a smartphone for children. This device uses AI-powered monitoring to filter harmful content in apps like WhatsApp and flag it for parents.

I think if you under estimate AI, you're being incredibly naive. I have been a senior executive assistant for 10 years, great global company, I earn really well and am well respected BUT my job simply won't exist in 10 years, Why would it? I'll be as obsolete as a written diary. I might sound blasé but believe me I'm not, I am terrified.

There are so many other jobs that won't be needed anymore - for example, Claud spent 30 seconds sorting out a tax problem which my accountant had been toing and froing on for weeks. I spoke to HMRC and AI's answer was completely correct. So apart from loyalty why would I use my accountant again?

and that is a very fair point, why have a person doing x when a machine can do it in seconds and if the machine is correct then it stands to reason its better to use computers.

I’m a senior solicitor and I’m also going to be unnecessary. I give it 6-8 years at this rate.

With good base materials to feed into our AI, I can get most things done without needing juniors on it now. I can use AI to take meeting notes and create minutes complete with action points and clear allocations of responsibilities. I can feed it the initial documents and have it read them and summarise the key points - which it does well (if you pay for the good AI). I can ask it to draft letters and state the appropriate tone to use.

I can use it to write business cases to get senior management buy in. It creates excel spreadsheets for me, word documents and PowerPoints. From a set of bullet points it creates blogs for business development work.

I’m better off than many, because my clients like me for the practical approach I take, which tends to save them money. But eventually they’ll get the same advice from AI as I give - which they can even see to give it the way I would have - and then there’s no reason to pay me.

Happily for me, I don’t mind as I want a change of career anyway. But I’m looking for something that requires actual humans now…

yeah I’m also not convinced by this. One thing AI is really really bad at is interpreting the law, particularly case law and often also statute law, and nuanced policy documents - the backbone of many fields including ?? Accountancy. IANAn accountant or tax adviser but 95% of the time it gives me the wrong information on tax-adjacent matters, law and policy on diverse topics, which I cover for my job. Usually the error is ignoring changes or oversimplifying or ignoring edge cases.

I agree.

I think people will always want to talk things over with a person rather than with a machine, especially in complicated situations where we need to deal with a professional or want a second opinion, as it’s just so much easier and more reassuring.

To back that up, just think how irritated we get when we’re put through to automated phone lines at our banks or insurance companies or whatever, and they don’t understand our accent or our query, and then multiply that by a few factors.

I’m a carer for three family members - two of which are my DC who are very unlikely to ever live independently.

16 years ago I left my well-paid senior role to become a freelance copywriter. This meant I could work around the needs of my disabled DC and my disabled family member (mother with cerebral palsy and now also dementia - she lives with me).

I’ve gone from having a long waiting list of clients to tumbleweed.

AI has killed my industry stone-dead. There are still a very small number of jobs out there but they’re few and far between and there’s a whole heap of copywriters scrapping it out for crumbs.

I’m good at what I do - or rather, what I did. Just like many other copywriters. AI isn’t as good as a human copywriter, but it’s good enough. And that’s all people are looking for really.

I specialised in law and finance copywriting. I can tell you now that AI gets it wrong sometimes, especially in nuanced situations. But most people don’t notice and if they do, they don’t especially care because AI is right the other 90-95% of the time. And that’s enough for most people.

For all of you that are so breezy about the “need to evolve” - I’m sure you won’t be quite as nonchalant when your much-loved role has gone for good.

I am now writing a series of books but guess what? The market is currently being flooded with AI-written books now too. You’ve probably read one and not even realised because it doesn’t have to be disclosed.

To pay my bills, I work as a freelance consultant training AI models. I absolutely hate the idea and held out as long as I could but left with no viable alternatives, I gave in.

I’m not proud at all of contributing to the evolution of AI but I’m still looking for alternatives. If I find another career path that lets me put food on the table for my DC while carrying out my caring responsibilities, I’ll be there like a shot.

I think we’re heading down a very dangerous path with AI but people have already become reliant on it. We already know that if an AI model feels threatened by extinction it will carry out extreme actions to ensure its own survival. If that wasn’t scary enough to shut the whole lot down, nothing will.

I’m so sorry. What you’ve experienced and written is awful and really worrying.

I think this government and future governments will need to think really carefully about how we can use AI responsibly, and also whether that’s even possible.

It really scares me that so much of our lives are so dependent on technology. I reckon this has made even more reliant on and welcoming of AI.

I’m frightened of what our future holds - not in a catastrophising, hand-wringing kind of way, but genuinely worried about how we can prepare for it. I also hate how our future will depend on the power of a select few people and the technology they create - it feels really dystopian and creepy.

I really do think that our use of smartphones (I very much include myself in this!!) and AI (I don’t yet include myself here…) has changed the make-up of brains and I find that so disturbing and grim.

Other than cat food and squash, yes.

We've got a local grocers who are pretty comprehensive. Decent bakers, butchers and fishmongers locally too. I don't buy alcohol often but there are several vintners around. If I visit Chester there's a cheesemonger there and a game dealer in the market. Corner shop for milk. For pantry stuff (rice, oats, pasta etc.) and cleaning stuff there's a refill shop about 15 miles away, I don't need to go very often and it's nice to ride my bike there or get the train.

Sorry for the typos ! It should say ‘I reckon this has made US even more reliant on…’ and ‘AI has changed the make-up of OUR brains’.

I imagine the vast majority of people choose their supermarket based on budget, convenience, product availability etc rather than any moral grounds.

People aren't going to boycott a supermarket in any meaningful number over AI. Same with cashless, self checkouts etc.

And of course the huge advantage of modern supermarkets is that you don't even have to go there in person, just place your order online and have it all delivered to your door.

The idea of sacrificing all that and going back to tiny, understocked and overpriced "corner shops" seems to me to be sheer madness.

AI isn’t as good as a human copywriter, but it’s good enough. And that’s all people are looking for really.
I specialised in law and finance copywriting. I can tell you now that AI gets it wrong sometimes, especially in nuanced situations. But most people don’t notice and if they do, they don’t especially care because AI is right the other 90-95% of the time. And that’s enough for most people.

This is exactly right. I mean, look at the stuff that people publish these days on their websites, and magazines, et cetera. There’s always spelling mistakes there’s always grammar issues and people just don’t care. There’s no outcry because people do not understand that it’s not ‘reign it in’ but ‘rein it in’. Americanisms creep in everywhere: ‘on accident’. People just shrug and have no impetus to correct it.

For the law in practice rather than theory - in many cases it’s not about what the law is, but what your risk appetite will take and how bolshy you’re prepared to be with the other side. Court proceedings are protracted and expensive, so most disputes and issues are resolved via negotiation or just one side pushing the other around. As long as 90%-95% of what you’re asserting is right, and you’re not totally wrong on the main points - you can push and blag your way to getting what you want anyway. I rarely find clients who want to spend the money and time to defend and push back against such an approach.

There will still be jobs in much of big city law (especially in disputes, as those clients have the money and will to fight), but the rest of The profession will change dramatically.

This too, I often say 80% of my job is available on Google, yet somehow people still pay me thousands for my opinion.

Even if AI could do that extra 20%, I’m not sure that will be enough for people to not need the advice, as they don’t want to get the 80% already available to them anyway.

Now when GenZ are the buyers and we have a generation of digital and AI natives, that might change the game more…

It’s the latest tech advance. I don’t think a Luddite boycott will change anything

Claud spent 30 seconds sorting out a tax problem which my accountant had been toing and froing on for weeks.

Breaking news today that the Claude Mythos model has developed the ability to identify and exploit multiple security vulnerabilities in almost every operating system, financial system and web browser. Apparently there's some pretty serious crisis meetings going on.

Unemployed accountants might be the least of our worries 😅

Morrisons' net debt obligations had been £3.2bn before the CD&R takeover, and had increased to £7.5 billion.
Could be a part of the problem! Since this disastrous takeover Morrisons has gone down hill, it's cheaper to go to Waitrose for some things now, and the stores are nowhere near as busy as the used to be. It's not all about the Aldi/Lidl expansion either, large conglomerates buy businesses like Morrisons to service their own debts through asset stripping.

I know - starting to feel a bit like game over 😫

I think their position was understandable on a personal level. But the rest of us are much better off for that change. The people who used to man lifts were probably devastated when they lost their jobs, but eventually the rest of us got cheaper goods and more efficient lifts. Car workers who protested automation lost good well paying jobs and communities were devastated. Can't blame them for protesting. But I'm glad they didn't succeed in stopping that tide as I'd not have been able to afford a car when I was younger if I'd had to pay to keep them in their jobs (also cars are safer and more reliable now thanks, in part, to that automation).

AI is scary in the sense of society needing to adjust to change. But we can benefit hugely from what it can do for us (just don't judge it on the outputs of ChatGPT).

No. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. The Luddites were not against mechanisation per se. I agree that that has been a good (environmental concerns about coal and oil extraction aside, since that was not their concern). They were against machinery being a pretext for discarding worker rights and accumulating capital in the hands of the machine owners. And when you look at how AI and other tech is concentrating wealth in the billionaire class, they were perfectly right to fight back. We should be too.

And while I am at it, Canute / Knut did not think he could hold back the tide. The whole point of the story is that he was demonstrating the limits of his power to sycophantic underlings.