Artificial Intelligence (AI) has found its way into everyday operations in various industries. The pharmaceutical industry uses AI to discover new drugs, the consumer goods industry uses it for quality control, and in the office sector generative AI co-pilots are redefining many work processes. But how widely do Swiss tech companies use AI and in which areas is it being deployed?

AI is important, but so far adoption has been slow

“Overall, the adoption of AI in the Swiss tech industries is not advanced,” says Torbjørn Netland, Professor of Production and Operations Management at ETH Zurich. Netland draws this conclusion from a survey conducted by his Chair in collaboration with Swissmem and Next Industries, in which more than 200 Swiss tech companies took part. The survey sends a mixed message: AI is important, but so far its adoption has been slow, in fact hardly implemented beyond initial pilot tests.

In terms of manufacturing-related applications, half of the companies responded that they have not yet considered the use of AI, and a further fifth has considered the use of AI but found it not relevant enough to pursue it further. 10% are currently conducting pilot tests and another 12% are planning tests. Only few companies have indicated scaled use of AI in manufacturing.

Ambitious plans for the near future

“If you take a closer look at the responding companies, you realize that it is particularly the small and financially constrained companies that have not yet addressed the issue,” says Netland. This finding is underpinned by the responses to the question of how companies expect AI to be implemented in manufacturing in three years’ time. While many companies have ambitious plans overall—16% expect to implement AI at scale and another 22% to conduct pilot tests—the less profitable ones show less ambition.

The picture looks brighter in other areas of application. In R&D (research and development) the share of companies that are already in the phase of pilot testing is twice as large as for manufacturing, at 22%. About one-third of the companies plan to adopt AI applications at scale in R&D over the next three years. The figures for sales and marketing are similar, as are those for customer service and tech support.

“Reasons for the broader adoption in office functions may be more readily available data compared to manufacturing and the potential for utilizing generative AI like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copolit,” explains Netland.

Sobering results considering the AI hype

The results of the survey contrast other reports that suggest a much higher implementation of AI in the tech industry. “These reports are often written by organizations with vested interests in showing AI implementation, such as consulting companies, IT companies, or AI vendors,” says Netland.

He suggests many other studies have serious sample bias issues. For example, when consulting firms survey their clients or when AI conferences interview participants. He firmly believes that the ETH survey better reflects the actual situation: reality is lagging the hype.

Nevertheless, Netland believes the Swiss tech industry is keeping pace with international competitors. “If we repeated our survey with a representative European sample, the results would likely be aligned with ours, probably show even less experimentation and implementation,” Netland says.

The Swiss tech industry is known as a frontrunner in technology and manufacturing. It is also known for its innovation capabilities, excellent education system, and relatively good access to AI talent. Although, the lack of access to AI-related xcmpetences is currently seen as the most important barrier for advancing AI usage in Switzerland’s tech industry.

Two-thirds of the companies answer that they have either “not at all” or only “to a limited extent” access to in-house AI skills or AI talent at universities. “To deliver on this potential without falling behind other countries, the skill and training gap in Switzerland concerning AI needs to be closed,” says Netland.

At the same time, he is convinced that other nations are not ahead. Dr. Oliver von Dzengelevski, who coordinated the survey project, adds that if industry and academia manage to collaborate effectively in closing the skills gap, know-how in the use of AI in manufacturing could in the future turn from an obstacle into a locational advantage for Swiss manufacturers.

Efficiency improvement most important driver

There is another reason why the two believe that Swiss companies are on par internationally. Swiss manufacturers are pragmatic and smart; they don’t jump on the bandwagon just to be part of the hype.

In the survey only a fifth of companies indicated that their AI adoption is driven to a large or very large extent by current trends in the industry. Efficiency improvement emerged as the most important driver. Furthermore, his statement is backed by the fact that most of those who implement and use AI report to be satisfied with the results.

In his experience, he stresses the productivity improvement that AI can bring to organizations in Switzerland and abroad. “There is no doubt that it can be a game changer.” Yet, to this day, most companies are not yet AI-ready. For example, they lack the data governance or IT infrastructure needed to release the potential of AI.

“The good news for them is that their competitors aren’t ready either,” Netland says. “The question is, for how long?”

Recommendation: create a coherent AI strategy

What do the experts advise companies that want to implement AI to do? “In view of the low adoption rates, and the barriers to and challenges of AI adoption, managers should consider formulating a coherent AI strategy for their company—aligned with their goals for digital transformation,” the report outlines. This is significant in that only one in four companies stated in the survey that they had an AI strategy in place.

The experts also advise companies to invest in in-house AI talent. Furthermore, they suggest that companies keep a realistic view of AI adoption and what it can bring. “Start with asking the question, ‘what problem are we trying to solve?”,” advises Netland.

Finally, what pitfalls should companies avoid at all costs? “Overreliance and AI distrust,” Netland says. According to Netland, overreliance means implementing AI and letting it run the show. This would not only risk reducing workers’ knowledge, but also harbors the risk of succumbing to AI “hallucinations” and errors.

Distrust of AI, on the other hand, stifles attempts to explore AI and leaves its full potential on the tablel. “As for most things in life there is a golden middle way, and Swiss companies are often good at finding it,” says Netland.

Debate continues to rage in Australia over whether children should (or can) be banned from social media. Following politicians’ recent promises to ban those under 16 from the platforms, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has raised concerns that imposing age restrictions could push children to use social media in secret and limit their access to critical social supports.

A recent analysis in the United Kingdom found a social media ban “would solve nothing“, citing evidence from an 18-year study across 168 countries that showed “no causal relationship” between internet access and young people’s well-being.

The Australian federal government is committed to trial age assurance technology to restrict children‘s access. For now, it’s unclear what tech solutions currently exist that could effectively restrict access by age.

Other countries have tried, and mostly failed, to ban children from accessing online content for decades. Australia would be wise to heed the lessons learned from these experiences.

What has the United States tried?

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) was introduced in the United States in 1998. It continues to influence how children—globally—access information online.

COPPA imposes several requirements on “operators of websites or online services” who gather personal information from children under 13. This includes the need to obtain parental consent.

To comply with this law, many companies (including social media platforms) imposed bans on children under 13 from accessing online services.

However, these bans have been heavily criticized for contributing to age fraud online. They also limit children’s rights to access information and rights to self-expression, as protected under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Another wide-reaching attempt to restrict children’s access to “obscene or harmful content over the internet” was introduced in the United States in 2000.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) required schools and libraries to control the content children could access online. This was typically achieved using internet filters which blocked searching for particular words.

However, these blunt instruments often blocked useful information. A blocked search for the word “breast” to limit access to pornographic content could also block information on breast cancer, for example.

Over many years, research has shown internet filtering is ineffective at shielding children from bad experiences online.

Unsuccessful age bans

Many other countries have imposed bans on children’s access to online content, with varying degrees of success.

South Korea imposed a “shutdown law” in 2011. It was designed to address online gaming addiction by limiting those under 16 from accessing gaming sites after midnight.

However, many children used accounts in their parents’ names to continue accessing gaming sites. The law also faced legal challenges, with parents concerned about restrictions on their rights to parent and educate their children. The law was abolished in 2021.

In 2015, the European Union introduced legislation that would ban children under 16 from accessing online services (including social media) without parental consent.

The proposed legislation was controversial. There was a significant outcry from technology companies and human rights organizations. They claimed the rules would violate children’s rights to expression and access to information.

The law was amended to allow individual countries to opt out of the new age ban, with the United Kingdom opting to keep limits only for those under age 13. This patchwork approach meant individual countries could set their own limits.

In 2023, for example, France enacted a law requiring social media platforms to restrict access for teens under 15 unless authorized by a parent or guardian.

Today, Europe leads the world in imposing significant online protections for children, with huge implications for tech companies.

In 2023 a new Digital Services Act was introduced, which forbids platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat from targeting children with personalized advertisements.

Rather than banning children from online services, this legislation focuses on controlling how very large platforms engage with children. It’s meant to ensure protections are in place to manage harmful content and algorithmic influences on platform use.

What can Australia learn from these global attempts?

A critical message over the last two decades is that bans are not effective. While technological interventions (like filtering and age assurance technologies) continue to improve, there are many workarounds (such as using others’ accounts) that make it impossible to ban children outright.

One effective approach has focused on protecting children’s personal data. This has led to long-standing requirements for companies to comply with restrictions. India and Brazil have recently introduced similar data-focused protections for children.

However, for older children, significant restrictions can conflict with UN protections for children’s rights. Australia must carefully balance potential conflicts when attempting to limit or ban children’s online access.

Even if Australia did impose a ban for children under 16, it would be unlikely to reshape global approaches to such bans.

The US and EU are large markets, with significant influence on the actions of technology companies. As with COPPA’s influence on limiting social media access for children under 13 globally, it’s likely that American and European policy innovations will continue to play a primary role in shaping global approaches.

Australia should lead by aligning its approach to these international endeavors to bolster appropriate protections for young children. At the same time, we should help parents educate older children about appropriate social media use.

This strikes an appropriate balance between protecting children’s rights to access information and express themselves, while ensuring guardrails are in place to do so safely.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.