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.
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.
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.
Ok, let’s look at your own words then:
Cool, I hear lots of things. Where’s the evidence?
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:
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.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/
It’s not crushing orphans. It’s solving advanced problems that human brains are not able to and reducing the time between discoveries but also just being fun to play with and helps everyone access tools that just speeds everything up and only going to get better.
Does more than spell checking, not a sound argument.
Everything in life will have a cost. We have to weight the benefits against the cost. AI is potentially the greatest benefit we could see in our lifetime.
That is training, not use. You are being dishonest.
And what is the usage?
I’m a data scientist.
The primary application of AI today is profit maximization. The secondary application is propaganda.
Disengage the other based on their logical fallacy or on their post history. Either should suffice.
It’s not research?
I’ve done well in the industry and have earned the freedom to cherry pick my projects. Maybe one in twenty has an ethically acceptable intent.
Sure, there’s a few academics doing some good. They’re the exception. They’d be zero projects in twenty.
The corporations and companies funding the vast majority of projects are primarily researching more effective ways to exploit us fiscally and mentally. This is nineteen projects in twenty.
My numbers likely heavily favor the good guys. The major players already know I won’t work with them.