- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
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.
Which is?
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.
Most folks don’t need an excuse to hate the internet enabled lie generator that “AI” is.
No but most media moved quick to present every article to convince people why they should hate it. Pack mentality like when a popular kid starts spreading rumours about the new kid in class. People quickly adopt the common shared belief and most of those now are Media driven.
AI is pretty cool new tech. Most people would have been mediocre to interested in it if it were not for corporate media telling us all why we need to hate it.
I saw an article the other day about “people shitting on the beach” which was really an attack on immigrants. Media is now about forming opinions for us and we all accept it more than ever.
A majority of people have no use, nor want, AI. Just because you and a sub group of people like it, doesnt mean everyone else are idiots being misled by the media.
Why exactly so you think the media wants people to hate AI anyways? Wouldnt big corporate gain from automating news writing?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They aren’t just taking water noone was using.
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.
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.
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.
Didn’t realize the world needs to create thimgs and be driving by your personal wants and needs.
You sound like a republican complaining about immigrants.
Media has all of you in knots.
Never said it had to. Are you going to engage with anything I said or just call me stupid?
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.
The summary for the post kinda misses the mark on what the majority of the article is pushing.
Yes, the first part describes employees struggling with AI, but the majority of the article makes the case for hiring more freelancers and updating “outdated work models and systems…to unlock the full expected productivity value of AI.”
It essentially says that AI isn’t the problem, since freelancers can use it perfectly. So full time employees need to be “rethinking how to best do their work and accomplish their goals in light of AI advancements.”
The article is saying that instead of hiring more people, companies are trying to use AI to get the same output with less people. This leads to lost jobs.
Its not common people are actually fired and directly replaced by AI, but what happens is the normal turnover keeps turning but they won’t replace the lost jobs with as many people as before.
Personally I dont want to support any non-human created art in any field, although I think there are use cases for AI in other fields.