The immediate challenge is not killer robots, its job replacement. If individuals are automated out of jobs, the future for society is bleak.

Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here?

The robots are coming. Although often spoken of in future tense, the truth is machine learning is well and truly here. Without realising, consumers interact with ‘smart’ technology at almost every touch point; from robotic vacuums to facial recognition technology, artificial intelligence (AI) is helping to complete tasks faster, cheaper and – sometimes - more effectively than ever before.

In an economy that’s driven by speed and efficiency, it should come as no surprise that a computer’s ability to communicate at a trillion bits per second is favoured above the human capability of about 10 bits.

McKinsey recently reported that 40 per cent of work tasks can be automated using existing technology, prompting everyone from factory workers to lawyers and accountants to consider the threat of being replaced by robots as not just inevitable, but imminent.

For technologists, we are witnessing first-hand how this emerging field is transforming the companies we work for.

In my work at Isentia, we use machine learning to process seven million news items each day. Not long ago this was a task relegated performed solely by humans with the mind-numbing task of flipping through newspapers in search of stories that might relate to a client.

We have a duty to empower those around us to learn everything they can about what their job may evolve into in order to become the very best man-machine partner possible.

Today, machines trawl video, audio and digital content across over 5,500 new sites at a rate of 234 stories per second and present meaningful summaries to clients in real-time.

Whether a story breaks on Twitter and then spills across news platforms and onto television and radio, machine learning can track and analyse how a story evolves with 99 per cent accuracy.

While AI is revolutionising the way that we work, the impact is far greater for those in the tech industry. In our mission to develop software that can learn complex problems without needing to be taught how, the success of the AI industry ultimately comes down to technology professionals: our ability to automate, and the pace at which we expand the field of machine learning.

With an annual growth rate of 19.7 per cent percent (predicted to be worth $15.3 billion by 2019), it’s safe to say our foot is well and truly on the pedal. While this relies greatly on our technical capabilities, it is something that challenges many of us ethically: what set of values should AI be aligned with?

Two of the greatest technologists of our times, Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, have spoken about both the potential benefit and the harm that an AI arms race could deliver. An eradication of disease is not unfathomable, but nor is a threat to humanity. They hold grave concerns as to whether or not robots can be controlled against misuse or malfunction.

While thought provoking, the immediate challenge is not killer robots, it’s job replacement. Employment may not seem like an ethical problem, but if individuals are automated out of jobs, the future for society is bleak. While the phrase ‘Thank God it’s Friday’ has forged its way into the 9-to-5 vernacular, for most people, jobs create a huge sense of personal and professional satisfaction… not to mention a means to pay bills.

An apocalypse might be somewhat melodramatic, however I do agree that it is important to consider just how closely we should merge biological and digital intelligence.

Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here? It’s both exciting and terrifying. The last time we experienced a revolution like this was in the early 1900s when cars, telephones and the airplane all emerged at once.

Contrary to the hype, there lies an enormous opportunity for humans to work with artificial intelligence, not be replaced by it.

Make no mistake: at some level every job can be carried out by a robot. But there are certain jobs, particularly in technology, that require decision making, planning or coding software.

While computers do a brilliant job of executing well-defined activities - such as telling us the fastest route to get from home to work - it is safe to say that humans are an essential component of goal setting, interpreting results, humour, sarcasm and implementing common sense checks.

The most difficult jobs to automate are those that involve managing and developing people. While in this industry most of our jobs are safe (for now), we should heed the advice of Musk and Hawkings and protect those outside our field by proceeding with caution. How then to facilitate human and robots working together harmoniously without the workforce morphing into cyborgs? The secret is to not sail out farther we can row back.

As technologists, we also have a duty to empower those around us to learn everything they can about what their job may evolve into in order to become the very best man-machine partner possible. It's the best, and most ethical, way to prepare for the inevitable advent of AI.

First publish in CIO New Zealand

Andrea Walsh, CIO

A weekly tracker tracing the stories, figures and policies driving media and social coverage in the 2026 New Zealand General Election across TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 28th October - 3rd November 2026, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.

1. Election Conversation

Media = news coverage. Social = all public posts across X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums - everyone posting, not just media outlets.

2. Media Issue of the Week

Vote Splitting Divides the Centre-Right in the Final Week

The argument took off after an RNZ-Reid Research poll put National below a quarter of the party vote. Former National and ACT leader Don Brash then ran advertisements in the Herald telling National supporters to give their party vote to ACT or NZ First instead. The reasoning was that National was expected to win more electorate seats than its party vote entitled it to, so extra party votes for National would not add any MPs. That situation is known as an overhang.

ACT and NZ First both confirmed they had approved the ads, and businessman Harry Mowbray ran a separate "Split Your Vote" website with a similar message. National complained to the Electoral Commission about the website, which was taken down and then put back up with changes. Christopher Luxon criticised his coalition partners' involvement and warned that a party vote for anyone but National risked a Labour-led government. Winston Peters defended splitting the vote as a normal part of how MMP works, and Labour said the row showed division on the right. Te Pāti Māori is taking a similar approach on the left, asking supporters to focus on the electorate vote.

This was one of the biggest political stories of the week. About one in eleven election items in the news covered it in the headline or summary, and many more discussed it further down the article. Coverage started on 29 October and stayed strong through the weekend, with newspaper and TV coverage highest on 2 and 3 November. It matters because it put the voting rules and the relationship between the coalition partners at the centre of the final week, when parties would normally be making their closing policy pitches.

On social media it was a smaller part of the conversation, and the tone was mixed rather than angry. Many posts explained how an overhang works, urged supporters to split their vote or replied directly to Luxon, and the share of negative posts was a little below the weekly average. Because it is about how to vote and not about a policy, it is not linked to a party issue below.

3. What's happening across media and social?

Share of each channel's own conversation, so the two bars are directly comparable

"Social" is all public posts across X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums - not just media organisations' own accounts.

Most frequent presenters and newspapers: The most frequent presenters this week were Dale Husband (Waatea), Sean Plunket (The Platform), Ryan Bridge (Three) and Chris Chang and Tova O'Brien (TVNZ 1). Among newspapers, Otago Daily Times, New Zealand Herald and Daily Post ran the most election coverage.

Widest-reach accounts: Among the accounts that posted most often about the election, those with the widest reach were the New Zealand Herald, RNZ, Chris Lynch Media and the Taxpayers' Union. Parties' and leaders' own accounts are not included.

The issue agenda was very similar in the news and on social media. Cost of living came first, followed by the economy, health and law and order, in the same order on both sides. Cost of living took a somewhat bigger share of social conversation than of news coverage. Law and order has dropped to fourth now that the gang photo row that kept it at the top last week has faded.

The mix of parties differed more. National and NZ First took the biggest shares of social conversation, while National and Labour took the biggest shares of news coverage. NZ First was much more visible on social media, where many posts were about giving a party vote to NZ First or splitting the vote. The Greens had a similar share on both sides.

4. Party Share of Conversation

Shown for seven parties. Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity Party (TOP) are included because both featured in the week's polling and vote-splitting coverage. Shares add up to 100% of the seven shown. Share of conversation measures attention, not polling, and is not a sign of electoral success.

5. Top candidates this week

Share of mentions among the five candidates shown

Christopher Luxon led the field, mainly because of the vote-splitting row and the poll showing National under pressure. He criticised ACT and NZ First for their part in the ads, brought in former prime minister John Key to campaign for the party, and said the finance portfolio would stay with National.

Winston Peters came second, with a slightly bigger share of social conversation than of news, after defending vote splitting. Chris Hipkins was more prominent in the news than on social media, helped by Labour's manifesto launch and his comments on the divisions on the right.

Chloe Swarbrick featured for the Greens' wealth tax and for her response to National's attack advertisements. David Seymour featured for ACT's part in the vote-splitting ads, the contest in Epsom and speculation about whether he could become finance minister. Mentions measure how much someone is being talked about, not how they are polling.

6. Election Issues

Top 4 themes this week

Share of mentions among the four themes shown

What's driving conversation about each party?

Each party's top issues this week in social conversation, ranked by how much they were discussed

Issues are ranked from social posts. Counts are not shown because the numbers for a single party and issue are small.

7. Issues to Watch

1. The vote-splitting argument is likely to continue until election day. National is still asking supporters to give both votes to National, while ACT and NZ First have defended their position. How much it affects party votes may only be clear once the results come in, and it could then shape the talk about overhang seats and coalition negotiations.
2. Changes to the enrolment rules are another live issue. People can no longer enrol once early voting has opened. There are questions about how many people who are not enrolled will turn up to vote and how many special votes will need to be counted. Those questions are likely to return when the results are announced.
3. Questions about who would run the economy are likely to grow as coalition talks come into view. Luxon has said the finance portfolio stays with National, while there has been plenty of speculation about whether Seymour could take the role. Cost of living is the biggest issue in both the news and on social media, so promises on tax and spending are likely to stay in the conversation.

If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the NZ media landscape, please reach out to us here.