Despite 96% of C-suite executives expecting AI to boost productivity, employees say it has increased their workload, hampered productivity and caused job burnout, research shows.

The new global study, in partnership with The Upwork Research Institute, interviewed 2,500 global C-suite executives, full-time employees and freelancers. Results show that the optimistic expectations about AI’s impact are not aligning with the reality faced by many employees. The study identifies a disconnect between the high expectations of managers and the actual experiences of employees using AI.

Despite 96% of C-suite executives expecting AI to boost productivity, the study reveals that, 77% of employees using AI say it has added to their workload and created challenges in achieving the expected productivity gains. Not only is AI increasing the workloads of full-time employees, it’s hampering productivity and contributing to employee burnout.

  • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    Apologies, I didn’t post the link, it’s edited now.

    If you want to take issue with all energy usage that’s fine, its a position to take. But it’s quite a fringe one given that harnessing energy is what gives us the quality of life we have. Thankfully electricity is one of the easiest forms of energy to decarbonise and is already happening rapidly with solar and wind power, we need to transition more of our energy usage to it in order to reduce fossil fuel usage. My main point is that this railing against AI energy usage is akin to the whole plastic straw ban, mostly performative and distracting from the places where truely vast amounts of fossil fuels are burnt that need to be tackled urgently.

    You can say “people shouldn’t build data centres in those locations,” but they are. And the world doesn’t run on “shouldn’t.”

    I’m 100% behind forcing data centres to use sustainable water sources or other methods of cooling. But that is a far cry from AI energy consumption being a major threat, the vast majority of data centre usage isn’t AI anyway, it’s serving websites like the one we are talking on right now.

    • rekorse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Why can’t we analyze AI on its own merits? We dont base our decisions on whether an idea is more or less polluting than automobiles. We can look at what we are getting for what’s being put into it.

      The big tech companies could scrap their AI tech today and it wouldnt change most peoples lives.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      2 months ago

      Apologies, I didn’t post the link, it’s edited now.

      Yes, and it’s paywalled, so I can’t read it. I think you knew that. It could say anything.

      I’m 100% behind forcing data centre’s to use sustainable water sources or other methods of cooling.

      Cool, good luck with that happening.

      But that is a far cry from AI energy consumption being a major threat,

      A different subject from water. You keep trying to get away from the water issue. I also think you know why you’re doing that.

      Also, define threat. It contributes to climate change. It gets rid of potable water. I’d call that a threat.

      By the way, there is nowhere in the U.S. where water is not going to be a problem soon.

      https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/us-groundwater-reserves-being-depleted-at-alarming-rate

      But hey, we can just move the servers to the ocean, right? Or maybe outer space! It’s cold!

      • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        2 months ago

        Ok, you just want to shout not discuss so I wont engage any further.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          2 months ago

          That’s a nice cop-out there since nothing I said could remotely be considered shouting and your New Yorker article in no way supported your point.