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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I wrote this and feed it through chatGPT to help make it more readable. To me that’s pretty awesome. If I wanted I can have it written like an Elton John song. If that doesn’t convince you it’s fun and worth it then maybe the argument below could, or not. Either way I like it.


      I don’t think I’ll convince you, but there are a lot of arguments to make here.

      I heard a large AI model is equivalent to the emissions from five cars over its lifetime. And yes, the water usage is significant—something like 15 billion gallons a year just for a Microsoft data center. But that’s not just for AI; data centers are something we use even if we never touch AI. So, absent of AI, it’s not like we’re up in arms about the waste and usage from other technologies. AI is being singled out—it’s the star of the show right now.

      But here’s why I think we should embrace it: the potential. I’m an optimist and I love technology. AI bridges gaps in so many areas, making things that were previously difficult much easier for many people. It can be an equalizer in various fields.

      The potential with AI is fascinating to me. It could bring significant improvements in many sectors. Think about analyzing and optimizing power grids, making medical advances, improving economic forecasting, and creating jobs. It can reduce mundane tasks through personalized AI, like helping doctors take notes and process paperwork, freeing them up to see more patients.

      Sure, it consumes energy and has costs, but its potential is huge. It’s here and advancing. If we keep letting the media convince us to hate it, this technology will end up hoarded by elites and possibly even made illegal for the rest of us. Imagine having a pocket advisor for anything—mechanical issues, legal questions, gardening problems, medical concerns. We’re not there yet, but remember, the first cell phones were the size of a brick. The potential is enormous, and considering all the things we waste energy and resources on, this one is weighed against it benefits.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        For the curious, the message rewritten as lyrics for an Elton John song:

        (Verse 1) I don’t think I’ll convince you, but I’ve got a tale to tell, They say AI’s like five cars, burning fuel and raising hell. And the water that it guzzles, like rivers running dry, Fifteen billion gallons, under Microsoft’s sky.

        (Pre-Chorus) But it’s not just AI, oh, it’s every data node, Even if you never touch it, it’s a heavy load. We point fingers at AI, like it’s the star tonight, But let me tell you why I think it shines so bright.

        (Chorus) Oh, the potential, can’t you see, It’s the future calling, setting us free. Bridging gaps and making life easier, An equalizer, for you and me.

        (Verse 2) I’m an optimist, a techie at heart, AI could change the world, give us a brand new start. From power grids to medicine, it’s a helping hand, Economic dreams and jobs across the land.

        (Pre-Chorus) Yes, it drinks up energy, but what’s the price to pay? For the chance to see the mundane fade away. Imagine doctors with more time to heal, While AI handles notes, it’s a real deal.

        (Chorus) Oh, the potential, can’t you see, It’s the future calling, setting us free. Bridging gaps and making life easier, An equalizer, for you and me.

        (Bridge) If we let the media twist our minds, We’ll lose this gift to the elite, left behind. But picture this, a pocket guide for all, From car troubles to legal calls.

        (Chorus) Oh, the potential, can’t you see, It’s the future calling, setting us free. Bridging gaps and making life easier, An equalizer, for you and me.

        (Outro) First cell phones were the size of a brick, Now they’re magic in our hands, technology so quick. AI’s got the power, to change the way we live, So let’s embrace it now, there’s so much it can give.

        (Chorus) Oh, the potential, can’t you see, It’s the future calling, setting us free. Bridging gaps and making life easier, An equalizer, for you and me.

        (Outro) Oh, it’s the future, it’s the dream, AI’s the bright light, in the grand scheme.

        • rekorse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is the stupidest shit ive seen yet.

          We dont care about other data centers as much because we get a service in return that people want.

          Most people didnt ask for or want AI, didnt agree to its costs, and now have to deal with it potentially taking their jobs.

          But go ahead and keep posting idiotic and selfish posts about how you like it so much and its so fun and cool, look at my shitty song lyrics that make no fucking sense!

          I’d say touch grass but the lyrics make me want to say touch instrument instead.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not being able to use your own words to explain something to me and having the thing that is an ecological disaster that also lies all the time explain it to me instead really only reinforces my point that there’s no reason to like this technology.

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It is my own words. Wrote out the whole thing but I was never good with grammar and fully admit that often what I write is confusing or ambiguous. I can leverage chatgpt same way I would leverage spell check in word. I don’t see any problems there.

          But if you don’t mind, I’m interested in the points discussed.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ok, let’s look at your own words then:

            I heard a large AI model is equivalent to the emissions from five cars over its lifetime.

            Cool, I hear lots of things. Where’s the evidence?

            So, absent of AI, it’s not like we’re up in arms about the waste and usage from other technologies. AI is being singled out—it’s the star of the show right now.

            Who is we? I am not happy about any of it, but especially when it is something not especially useful (you could have used spelling and grammar checkers that have predated AI by many years but you decided to waste water).

            And I don’t really care about the potential of an orphan-crushing machine as long as we let it keep crushing orphans.

            I love this last part the best though:

            Sure, it consumes energy and has costs

            We can just forget about these because you didn’t want to use standard grammar and spellcheckers and they have the potential to do a bunch of things they can’t do. Awesome. Totally worth the end of civilization.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                What New Yorker article? You didn’t link to one. I, however, linked to Yale University which has a slightly better track record on science than The New Yorker.

                And, again, you are arguing that emitting less CO2 is a good thing. It is not.

                And if water can be a big issue, why is AI a good thing when it uses it up? You can say “people shouldn’t build data centers in those locations,” but they are. And the world doesn’t run on “shouldn’t.”

                Edit: Now you linked to it. It’s paywalled, which means I can’t read it and I doubt you did either.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Whole article for ref since you cant access it for whatever reason (its not very nice assuming bad faith like that btw)

                  In 2016, Alex de Vries read somewhere that a single bitcoin transaction consumes as much energy as the average American household uses in a day. At the time, de Vries, who is Dutch, was working at a consulting firm. In his spare time, he wrote a blog, called Digiconomist, about the risks of investing in cryptocurrency. He found the energy-use figure disturbing.

                  “I was, like, O.K., that’s a massive amount, and why is no one talking about it?” he told me recently over Zoom. “I tried to look up some data, but I couldn’t really find anything.” De Vries, then twenty-seven, decided that he would have to come up with the information himself. He put together what he called the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index, and posted it on Digiconomist. According to the index’s latest figures, bitcoin mining now consumes a hundred and forty-five billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which is more than is used by the entire nation of the Netherlands, and producing that electricity results in eighty-one million tons of CO2, which is more than the annual emissions of a nation like Morocco. De Vries subsequently began to track the electronic waste produced by bitcoin mining—an iPhone’s worth for every transaction—and its water use—which is something like two trillion litres per year. (The water goes toward cooling the servers used in mining, and the e-waste is produced by servers that have become out of date.)

                  Last year, de Vries became concerned about another energy hog: A.I. “I saw that it has a similar capability, and also the potential to have a similar growth trajectory in the coming years, and I felt immediately prompted to make sure people are aware that this is also energy-intensive technology,” he explained. He added a new tab to his blog: “AI sustainability.” In a paper he published last fall, in Joule, a journal devoted to sustainable energy, de Vries, who now works for the Netherlands’ central bank, estimated that if Google were to integrate generative A.I. into every search, its electricity use would rise to something like twenty-nine billion kilowatt-hours per year. This is more than is consumed by many countries, including Kenya, Guatemala, and Croatia.

                  “There’s a fundamental mismatch between this technology and environmental sustainability,” de Vries said. Recently, the world’s most prominent A.I. cheerleader, Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, voiced similar concerns, albeit with a different spin. “I think we still don’t appreciate the energy needs of this technology,” Altman said at a public appearance in Davos. He didn’t see how these needs could be met, he went on, “without a breakthrough.” He added, “We need fusion or we need, like, radically cheaper solar plus storage, or something, at massive scale—like, a scale that no one is really planning for.”

                  Video From The New Yorker

                  What a Mammal’s Loss Teaches Us About Mortality: Requiem for a Whale

                  Last week, the International Energy Agency announced that energy-related global CO2 emissions rose, yet again, in 2023, to more than thirty-seven billion metric tons. The increase comes at a time when the whole world is supposedly striving to reach net-zero emissions, and it indicates that global efforts are, to put it mildly, falling short. Much of the increase in emissions came from China, and most of it was driven by century-old technologies, such as the internal-combustion engine. So data centers are, for now at least, a small part of the problem. Still, as the use of A.I. ramps up and bitcoin prices reach new heights, the question is: How can the world reach net zero if it keeps inventing new ways to consume energy? (In the U.S., data centers now account for about four per cent of electricity consumption, and that figure is expected to climb to six per cent by 2026.)

                  Mining cryptocurrencies like bitcoin eats up electricity owing to the way the system was set up. To acquire bitcoin (and other currencies that rely on a similar scheme), miners compete to answer cryptographic riddles. Winning the competition takes a lot of computing power. As a result, server farms devoted to crypto mining tend to be situated in parts of the world where electricity is cheap. China used to lead the world in crypto mining, but it imposed a ban on the practice in 2021, and now the U.S. is No. 1. A few months ago, the U.S. Department of Energy tried to compel mining concerns to report their energy use, but in February a Texas judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the effort. (According to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, crypto mining in the U.S. uses almost as much energy as all the nation’s home computers combined.) Meanwhile, the higher the price of bitcoin rises—it reached a record of sixty-nine thousand dollars on March 5th—the bigger the financial incentives for mining it, and the more energy consumed.

                  Artificial intelligence requires a lot of power for much the same reason. The kind of machine learning that produced ChatGPT relies on models that process fantastic amounts of information, and every bit of processing takes energy. When ChatGPT spits out information (or writes someone’s high-school essay), that, too, requires a lot of processing. It’s been estimated that ChatGPT is responding to something like two hundred million requests per day, and, in so doing, is consuming more than half a million kilowatt-hours of electricity. (For comparison’s sake, the average U.S. household consumes twenty-nine kilowatt-hours a day.)

                  A.I. could potentially be used to alleviate some of the problems it is exacerbating. For instance, it might be used to improve the efficiency of renewable-energy systems, which could reduce emissions from server farms. But it seems unlikely that such gains will keep up with A.I.’s growing electricity demands; this, presumably, is why Altman argues that a technological breakthrough is needed.

                  De Vries, for his part, is dismayed by what he sees as a lack of human learning in the face of so much machine learning. “I think the only thing that’s realistic in terms of policy, at least in the short to medium term, is disclosure requirements,” he said. “It’s taken a very long time before we got there with regard to cryptocurrencies, and I’m disappointed that we haven’t gotten there sooner with A.I. It’s like we saw what cryptocurrency mining could do, and we totally forgot about it.” ♦

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Your link is just about Google’s energy use, still says it uses a vast amount of energy, and says that A.I. is partially responsible for climate change.

                    It even quotes that moron Altman saying that there’s not enough energy to meet their needs and something new needs to be developed.

                    I have no idea why you think this supports your point at all.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 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.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 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!