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.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        3 months ago

        Replace joker for media and replace distract you from bank heist with convince you to hate AI then yes.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          3 months ago

          Do convince us why we should like something which is a massive ecological disaster in terms of fresh water and energy usage.

          Feel free to do it while denying climate change is a problem if you wish.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            3 months ago

            AI is a rounding error in terms of energy use. Creating and worldwide usage of chatGPT4 for a whole year comes out to less than 1% of the energy Americans burn driving in one day.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              62·
              3 months ago

              I think I’ll go with Yale over ‘person on the Internet who ignored the water part.’

              https://e360.yale.edu/features/artificial-intelligence-climate-energy-emissions

              From that article:

              Estimates of the number of cloud data centers worldwide range from around 9,000 to nearly 11,000. More are under construction. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that data centers’ electricity consumption in 2026 will be double that of 2022 — 1,000 terawatts, roughly equivalent to Japan’s current total consumption.

              • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                3 months ago

                Forgive me for not trusting an ariticle that says that AI will use a petawatt within the next two years. Either the person who wrote it doesnt understand the difference between energy and power or they are very sloppy.

                Chat GPT took 50GWh to train source

                Americans burn 355 million gallons of gasoline a day source and at 33.5 Kwh/gal source that comes out to 12,000GWh per day burnt in gasoline.

                Water usage is more balanced, depending on where the data centres are it can either be a significant problem or not at all. The water doesnt vanish it just goes back into the air, but that can be problematic if it is a significant draw on local freshwater sources. e.g. using river water just before it flows into the sea, 0 issue, using a ground aquifer in a desert, big problem.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  51·
                  3 months ago

                  Training is already over. This has nothing to do with training, so that is irrelevant. This is about how much power is needed as it is used more and more. I think you know that.

                  Also, I’m not sure why you think just because cars emit a lot of CO2, it doesn’t mean that other sources that emit a lot of CO2, but less than cars, are a good thing.

                  The water doesnt vanish it just goes back into the air,

                  Cool, tell that to all the people who rely on glaciers for their fresh water. That only includes a huge percentage of people in India and China.

                  But really, what you’re telling me is that studies and scientists are wrong and you’re right. Cool. Good luck convincing people of that.

                  • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    This New Yorker article estimates GPT usage at 0.5GWhr a day, which comes out to 0.0041% of the energy burnt just in vehicle gasoline per day in the USA (and this is for worldwide usage for chatGPT).

                    I’m not asking you to trust me at all, I’ve listed my sources, if you disagree with any of them or multiplying three numbers together that’s fine.

                    Cool, tell that to all the people who rely on glaciers for their fresh water. That only includes a huge percentage of people in India and China.

                    Yes, if you read my last reply I answered that directly. Water usage can be a big issue, or it can be a non-issue, its locale dependent.

        • John Wilker@lemmy.worldEnglish
          82·
          3 months ago

          Most folks don’t need an excuse to hate the internet enabled lie generator that “AI” is.

          • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            No but most media moved quick to present every article to convince people why they should hate it. Pack mentality like when a popular kid starts spreading rumours about the new kid in class. People quickly adopt the common shared belief and most of those now are Media driven.

            AI is pretty cool new tech. Most people would have been mediocre to interested in it if it were not for corporate media telling us all why we need to hate it.

            I saw an article the other day about “people shitting on the beach” which was really an attack on immigrants. Media is now about forming opinions for us and we all accept it more than ever.

    • FarFarAway@startrek.websiteEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      The summary for the post kinda misses the mark on what the majority of the article is pushing.

      Yes, the first part describes employees struggling with AI, but the majority of the article makes the case for hiring more freelancers and updating “outdated work models and systems…to unlock the full expected productivity value of AI.”

      It essentially says that AI isn’t the problem, since freelancers can use it perfectly. So full time employees need to be “rethinking how to best do their work and accomplish their goals in light of AI advancements.”