this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
1007 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59665 readers
2894 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
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ok, let's look at your own words then:

I heard a large AI model is equivalent to the emissions from five cars over its lifetime.

Cool, I hear lots of things. Where's the evidence?

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.

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:

Sure, it consumes energy and has costs

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.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cool, I hear lots of things. Where's the evidence?

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That is training, not use. You are being dishonest.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)