this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
3037 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheddar@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Me: no way, AI is very helpful, and if it doesn't then don't use it

created challenges in achieving the expected productivity gains

achieving the expected productivity gains

Me: oh, that explains the issue.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's hilarious to watch it used well and then human nature just kick in

We started using some "smart tools" for scheduling manufacturing and it's honestly been really really great and highlighted some shortcomings that we could easily attack and get easy high reward/low risk CAPAs out of.

Company decided to continue using the scheduling setup but not invest in a single opportunity we discovered which includes simple people processes. Took exactly 0 wins. Fuckin amazing.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, this sounds like the analysis uncovered some managerial failings and so they buried the results; a cover-up.

Also, and I have yet to understand this, but selling "people space" solutions to very technically/engineering-inclined management is incredibly hard to do. Almost like there's a typical blind spot for solving problems outside their area of expertise. I hate generalizing like this but I've seen this happen many times, at many workplaces, over many years.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No I would think you are spot on. I'm constantly told I'm a type [insert fotm managerial class they just took term] and my conversations intimidate or emasculate people. They are probably usually correct but i find it's usually just an attempt to cover their asses. I'm a contract worker, i was hired for a purpose with a limited time window and i fuckin deliver results even when they ignore 90% of the analysis. It's gotta piss them off.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

Yeah but they didn't have a line for that in their excel sheet, so how are they supposed to find that money?

Bean counters hate nothing more than imprecise cost saving. Are they gonna save 100k in the next year? 200k? We can't have that imprecision now can we?

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

AKA "shit, looks like now we need to re-hire some of those engineers"