A new research report explores the implications of Saudi Arabia’s artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions and its intersection with the workforce.
The report, by Alexander Ash Consulting and the Saudi British Joint Business Council (SBJBC), highlights how the kingdom is investing over US$100bn to become a global AI leader.
As part of this, Riyadh has secured access to advanced US semiconductors, signed landmark partnerships with the likes of xAI, AMD, Cisco and Qualcomm, and is building 6.6 gigawatts (GW) of data centre capacity.
“Yet the binding constraint on these ambitions is not capital or infrastructure,” the report notes. “It is people.”
As part of the nation’s AI blueprint, this means integrating workforce into long-term planning.
The report examines how the kingdom is now nurturing the workforce required to operate, manage and innovate such AI systems at scale.
It also analyses Saudisation requirements, training programme outcomes, Arabic language AI development, retention challenges and the layered workforce structure needed to translate infrastructure investment into sustainable competitive advantage.
Crucially, the next few years through to 2030 mark a “critical window” ahead, the report suggests.
“The workforce of the future in Saudi Arabia will reflect choices made in the present,” it states.
“Investment in broad-based digital literacy creates a population comfortable with technology. Development of advanced technical specialists enables indigenous innovation. Training of business translators ensures technical capabilities serve commercial and social objectives. Building robust governance frameworks protects against risks whilst enabling experimentation.”
Each of these components contributes to an ecosystem where AI serves national development goals rather than simply generating returns for foreign technology companies, the report adds.
According to World Economic Forum research, AI augmentation increases productivity substantially when implemented thoughtfully, but can reduce quality and employee
satisfaction when poorly executed.
“The difference often lies in how organisations, government and academia manage the human side of implementation rather than technical system design.”
