This chapter critiques the dominant reductionist approach in AI and work studies, which isolates tasks and skills as replaceable components. Instead, it advocates for a systemic perspective that emphasizes the interdependence of tasks, roles, and workplace contexts. Two complementary approaches are proposed: an ethnographic, context-rich method that highlights how AI reconfigures work environments and expertise; and a relational task-based analysis that bridges micro-level work descriptions with macro-level labor trends. The authors argue that effective AI impact assessments must go beyond predicting automation rates to include ethical, well-being, and expertise-related questions. Drawing on empirical case studies, they demonstrate how AI reshapes human-technology relations, professional roles, and tacit knowledge practices. The chapter concludes by calling for a human-centric, holistic framework that guides organizational and policy decisions, balancing technological possibilities with social desirability and sustainability of work.

Previous research on expert advice-taking shows that humans exhibit two contradictory behaviors: on the one hand, people tend to overvalue their own opinions undervaluing the expert opinion, and on the other, people often defer to other people's advice even if the advice itself is rather obviously wrong. In our study, we conduct an exploratory evaluation of users' AI-advice accepting behavior when evaluating the truthfulness of a health-related statement in different "advice quality" settings. We find that even feedback that is confined to just stating that "the AI thinks that the statement is false/true" results in more than half of people moving their statement veracity assessment towards the AI suggestion. The different types of advice given influence the acceptance rates, but the sheer effect of getting a suggestion is often bigger than the suggestion-type effect.