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.
A hit-piece commissioned by the Joker to distract you from his upcoming bank heist!!!
Replace joker for media and replace distract you from bank heist with convince you to hate AI then yes.
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.
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.
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.