One of the promises of AI is that it can reduce workloads so employees can focus more on higher-value and more engaging tasks. But according to new research, AI tools don’t reduce work, they consistently intensify it: In the study, employees worked at a faster pace, took on a broader scope of tasks, and extended work into more hours of the day, often without being asked to do so. That may sound like a win, but it’s not quite so simple. These changes can be unsustainable, leading to workload creep, cognitive fatigue, burnout, and weakened decision-making. The productivity surge enjoyed at the beginning can give way to lower quality work, turnover, and other problems. To correct for this, companies need to adopt an “AI practice,” or a set of norms and standards around AI use that can include intentional pauses, sequencing work, and adding more human grounding.
  • laranis@lemmy.zip
    6·
    13 hours ago

    I feel like the author has never worked a day in their lives. The frameworks they’re applying seem like a naive interpretation of work at worst, or perhaps a pandering to HBR’s manager and executive audience at best.

    I’ve experienced this novelty effect a few times in my career. Something new and exciting, especially being pushed by leadership so completely, drives the early adopters and ambitious brown nosers to experiment with the new thing. Inevitably, things eventually equalize and the reality of the tool’s capabilities settle out.

    workers increasingly absorbed work that might previously have justified additional help or headcount

    Which leads me to ask, “Where did you get the time?” The article mentions squeezing in work into small breaks and lunches. But I would bet there are a lot of day jobs not getting done. Or, more likely, a bunch of day jobs that aren’t as demanding as people think and a significant portion of their “working” time is being present but not productive.

    Anyone claiming they’re making others’ work obsolete using an LLM should immediately be put on a performance review. But, they won’t. They’ll probably be promoted. At least until the bubble pops.

    • CombatWombatEsq@lemmy.worldOP
      4·
      12 hours ago

      pandering to HBR’s manager and executive audience at best

      To be fair, this is actually 100% of the target audience for the Harvard Business Review. Getting them to publish something that is even slightly pro-worker is a huge win.