Over half of all tech industry workers view AI as overrated

midian182

Posts: 9,567   +120
Staff member
In brief: Few technologies have gone from the tech fringes to becoming a global phenomenon quite like generative AI. But even with billions of dollars being invested into the industry and tools like ChatGPT attracting over 100 million weekly users, the question of whether the hype is justified hasn't gone away. According to a new survey, over half of those working in the tech industry believe AI is overrated.

Retool, a development platform for business software, recently published the results of its State of AI survey. Over 1,500 people took part, all from the tech industry: software engineers, business leaders, execs, product folks, designers, etc.

The first and biggest question the survey asked was how fairly rated is AI. Just over 23% believe it is rated fairly, while a quarter of respondents were presumably proponents of the tech as they said it was underrated. However, 51.6% of people said it was overrated.

It might not be surprising to learn that upper management, many of whom see generative AI as a way of cutting costs by replacing workers, had the most favorable views, while non-executive employees who actually have to use generative AI once it's implemented in their workplaces (assuming it doesn't replace them) mostly felt it was overrated.

Some of that skepticism will likely be from factors found in the section on "pain points around developing AI apps." Just under 40% of respondents said the accuracy of answers was the biggest concern, followed by data security, hallucinations, and associated costs.

Among those respondents who believe AI is overhyped, only 14.4% said their employers were overinvesting in the technology, suggesting they understand the importance and potential of the technology in the workplace even if they don't see it as world-changing, at least not yet.

Elsewhere, 77.1% of those who took part said their companies were making some effort to adopt AI into the workplace. Moreover, an overwhelming number of respondents expect AI will either somewhat or significantly change their jobs and industry over the next five years.

"The AI revolution has been breathlessly covered but we've seen a lot less about use cases, especially in business," said David Hsu, CEO and founder of Retool. "We did this survey and report because it won't be possible to truly harness AI without first appreciating how it's being used. What our findings make clear is that while AI isn't replacing most technical jobs, it's reshaping them – and people are latching onto the technologies that help them accelerate and strengthen their work."

Permalink to story.

 
IMO, its a no-brainer that AI will not and cannot solve all the world's problems. Anyone who thinks it can is in for a big disappointment, IMO.
 
Unfortunately the criminal billionaires behind tech companies think it will and they are calling the shots. AI is the new gold rush and a lot of spivs and scumbags are going to get much richer cough Huang cough.
 
I think the irony of AI is that it will replace jobs that have already left advanced economies and have been offshored. Those jobs were already offshored because they were devalued and considered "cost centers", now companies can potentially increase the "quality" with simultaneously reducing the cost. Low hanging fruit.

AI might cause some grief for the American or European or Chinese worker, but it also stands to cause massive social upheaval in places like India or the Philippines where industries like contact centers employ an enormous number of people.
 
It's expected to replace around 85 million jobs worldwide by 2025.
Expectations are not always met. Couple that with the dissatisfaction of consumers with AI functionality in current customer service situations where AI just makes consumers jump through hoops without providing any information that consumers are unable to find elsewhere, I think we are seeing just the beginning of a massive dissatisfaction with AI in general. IMO, its a formula for increased customer complaints and dissatisfaction. Not to mention, it outright gets things wrong. I have no use for something that is supposed to solve a problem before we know that the problem it solves exists and just gets it wrong.
 
Expectations are not always met. Couple that with the dissatisfaction of consumers with AI functionality in current customer service situations where AI just makes consumers jump through hoops without providing any information that consumers are unable to find elsewhere, I think we are seeing just the beginning of a massive dissatisfaction with AI in general. IMO, its a formula for increased customer complaints and dissatisfaction. Not to mention, it outright gets things wrong. I have no use for something that is supposed to solve a problem before we know that the problem it solves exists and just gets it wrong.

According to IBM and other sources, 77 pct of business are already using AI, with 54 pct of IT workers, etc. Adoption in marketing and advertising's now at 37 pct, 35 pct in tech, and so on. Meanwhile, something like 81 pct of office workers argue that it will improve their work, with at least 14 pct saying they lost their job because of AI and automation. Given these, I think the expectations are at worst a bit too early, but that's it.

Meanwhile, consumers are forced to deal with them, with more businesses likely passing on costs or charging more if the former want human agents.
 
I think the irony of AI is that it will replace jobs that have already left advanced economies and have been offshored. Those jobs were already offshored because they were devalued and considered "cost centers", now companies can potentially increase the "quality" with simultaneously reducing the cost. Low hanging fruit.

AI might cause some grief for the American or European or Chinese worker, but it also stands to cause massive social upheaval in places like India or the Philippines where industries like contact centers employ an enormous number of people.

Another irony is that robots aren't consumers, and the ones who are expected to pay for goods and services brought about by productivity thanks to automation are the same workers replaced by automation.
 
Another irony is that robots aren't consumers, and the ones who are expected to pay for goods and services brought about by productivity thanks to automation are the same workers replaced by automation.

-Just you wait...

Had an idea for a Star Trek episode a while back, where Kirk and Co stumble on a planet that has machine laborors, machine technicians, and machine consumers all driving a thriving economy long after the actual species that created them had gone extinct due to the very problem that type of society would engender.
 
Back