Okay, so I saw this article today, and the headline was "nearly a third of workers are sabotaging their companies AI," and it expands with "if companies want workers to embrace AI, they actually need to share the value it creates."
What value?
What they're counting as sabotage is refusing to use AI tools, faking AI use while completing tasks by hand, producing bad output to make AI look ineffective, and entering propietary data into unauthorised tools to discredit them.
The latter two make sense, but the company behind this investigation is an AI company, and what does an AI company have to gain by blaming purposeful sabotage and misuse of AI, to make it seem less effective?
Well, everything.
Their shareholders, hype, profit, belief and continued "success."
To start with companies have claimed AI was overused to hit mandatory use, and that is the reason why it's so expensive, and now they're claiming it not being used is the problem. It's always the employee's, never their precious AI.
Furthermore, refusing to use AI because it forces them to do more corrective work, instead of doing it themselves is not sabotage, and these AI companies are claiming that their employee's using AI makes them more productive, and the reason they're not using it, is out of spite as they're not sharing in money through pay increases.
This speaks to both the fact that AI is too expensive, and how money-hungry these companies are.
If they were to actually ask their employee's why they aren't using it, many would likely say, as I have heard stories of, that AI doesn't streamline their workload or make it more efficient, it just means they start from a flawed base, and they spend more time correcting it.
I don't doubt that a percentage of employee's are sabotaging AI (my congratulations, if they are), so it cannot train off them, and for spite possibly, but how many would really risk their jobs, in a job market like this, for little reward?
Not to mention, when companies try to automate their workload with AI, and have no humans involved, they have paid up to billions in mistakes, end-up paying more for AI expenses, and have to hire back human workers.
They're failing amazingly without any human intervention, and yet, they're so willing to blame their employees, which shows how much they value them; the news company, who are typically quite well balanced, seemingly fell for this hook, line and sinker, too.
Use Ford as an example, they thought feeding designs into a generative AI system would allow for it to create car designs from scratch, and do quality testing; it was a massive failure, it damaged their company, equipment, and they paid billions for its mistakes, and the coup de grâce is that it couldn't.
Instead of learning, and giving up on AI systems, however, they rehired their employee's to train it, showing how much these luddites know of how AI models work, because they cannot come up with original ideas, and furthermore, they need a constant flow of training data. So, if they replace the senior engineers, there will be no junior engineers to train future systems. I hope it is a catastrophic failure, and that they lose more money.
People have been rehired en mass to fix AI's mistakes, and now AI companies are blaming employee's for a faulty, built-flawed system; it seems awful suspicious, even more so, when the research into this didn't come from a neutral third party, but a company with profit and an entire industry relying on these findings to hold shareholder interest for a little longer.
