Skip to content

[paper] Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI

Technology
8 8 1
  • Significance

    As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, understanding the social dynamics of AI adoption is crucial. Through four experiments with over 4,400 participants, we reveal a social penalty for AI use: Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others. These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one’s professional reputation. Our findings identify a potential barrier to AI adoption and highlight how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

    Abstract

    Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.

  • Significance

    As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, understanding the social dynamics of AI adoption is crucial. Through four experiments with over 4,400 participants, we reveal a social penalty for AI use: Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others. These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one’s professional reputation. Our findings identify a potential barrier to AI adoption and highlight how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

    Abstract

    Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.

    This apparent tension between AI’s documented benefits

    That is one hell of an assumption to make, that AI is actually a benefit at work, or even a documented one, especially compared to a professional in the same job doing the work themselves.

  • This apparent tension between AI’s documented benefits

    That is one hell of an assumption to make, that AI is actually a benefit at work, or even a documented one, especially compared to a professional in the same job doing the work themselves.

    A rudimentary quick Internet search will provide a good bit of the "AI benefits at work" documentation for which you seek. 🤷♂

  • This apparent tension between AI’s documented benefits

    That is one hell of an assumption to make, that AI is actually a benefit at work, or even a documented one, especially compared to a professional in the same job doing the work themselves.

    a benefit of ai is that its faster than a human. on the other hand, its can be wrong

  • This apparent tension between AI’s documented benefits

    That is one hell of an assumption to make, that AI is actually a benefit at work, or even a documented one, especially compared to a professional in the same job doing the work themselves.

    I think its honestly pretty undeniable that AI can be a massive help in the workplace. Not all jobs sure but using it to automate toil is incredibly useful.

  • Significance

    As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, understanding the social dynamics of AI adoption is crucial. Through four experiments with over 4,400 participants, we reveal a social penalty for AI use: Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others. These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one’s professional reputation. Our findings identify a potential barrier to AI adoption and highlight how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

    Abstract

    Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.

    This kind of work I find very important when talking about AI adoption.

    I've been generating (the boring) parts of work documents via AI, and even though I put a lot of thought into my prompts and I reviewed and adjusted the output each time, I kept wondering constantly if people would notice the AI parts, and if that made me look either more efficient and 'complete' (we are talking about some template document where some parts seem to be designed to be repetitive), or lazy and disrespectful.
    Because it's for sure that my own trust in content and a person drops when I notice auto-generated parts, which triggers that I use AI in turn, and I ask it to summarise all that verbose AI generated content.
    I'm not sure that's how decoder-encoders are meant to work 🙂

  • Significance

    As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, understanding the social dynamics of AI adoption is crucial. Through four experiments with over 4,400 participants, we reveal a social penalty for AI use: Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others. These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one’s professional reputation. Our findings identify a potential barrier to AI adoption and highlight how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

    Abstract

    Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.

    I don't think that people who use AI tools are idiots. I think that some of my coworkers are idiots and their use of AI has just solidified that belief. They keep pasting AI results to nuanced questions and not validating the response themselves.

  • This apparent tension between AI’s documented benefits

    That is one hell of an assumption to make, that AI is actually a benefit at work, or even a documented one, especially compared to a professional in the same job doing the work themselves.

    It's nice for hints while programming. But that's mostly, because search engines suck.

  • 20 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    toastedravioli@midwest.socialT
    Im all for making the traditional market more efficient and transparent, if blockchain can accommodate that, so long as we can also make crypto more like the traditional market. At least in terms of criminalizing shit that would obviously be illegal to do with securities
  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    Technology technology
    14
    2
    42 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    G
    So you are against having machines do the work of blue collar workers? We should all be out in the fields with plows instead of using a tractor and assembling everything by hand in factories?
  • 55 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zoneC
    !upliftingnews@lemmy.world
  • Meta Reportedly Eyeing 'Super Sensing' Tech for Smart Glasses

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    34 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    M
    I see your point but also I just genuinely don't have a mind for that shit. Even my own close friends and family, it never pops into my head to ask about that vacation they just got back from or what their kids are up to. I rely on social cues from others, mainly my wife, to sort of kick start my brain. I just started a new job. I can't remember who said they were into fishing and who didn't, and now it's anxiety inducing to try to figure out who is who. Or they ask me a friendly question and I get caught up answering and when I'm done I forget to ask it back to them (because frequently asking someone about their weekend or kids or whatever is their way of getting to share their own life with you, but my brain doesn't think that way). I get what you're saying. It could absolutely be used for performative interactions but for some of us people drift away because we aren't good at being curious about them or remembering details like that. And also, I have to sit through awkward lunches at work where no one really knows what to talk about or ask about because outside of work we are completely alien to one another. And it's fine. It wouldn't be worth the damage it does. I have left behind all personally identifiable social media for the same reason. But I do hate how social anxiety and ADHD makes friendship so fleeting.
  • The Document Foundation is proud to release LibreOffice 25.2.3

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    266 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    somethingburger@jlai.luS
    View -> User Interface -> Tabs It already exists but is nowhere near as good as MS Office (like everything with LO).
  • Are We All Becoming More Hostile Online?

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    213 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    A
    Back in the day I just assumed everyone was lying. Or trying to get people worked up, and we called them trolls. Learning how to ignore the trolls, and not having trust for strangers on the internet, coupled with the ability to basically not care what random people said is a lost art. Somehow people forgot to give other the people this memo, including the "you don't fucking join social networks as your self". Anonymity makes this all work. Eternal September newbies just didn't get it.
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.
  • 14 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    D
    "Extra Verification steps" I know how large social media companies operate. This is all about increasing the value of Reddit users to advertisers. The goal is to have a more accurate user database to sell them. Zuckerberg literally brags to corporations about how good their data is on users: https://www.facebook.com/business/ads/performance-marketing Here, Zuckerberg tells corporations that Instagram can easily manipulate users into purchasing shit: https://www.facebook.com/business/instagram/instagram-reels Always be wary of anything available for free. There are some quality exceptions (CBC, VLC, The Guardian, Linux, PBS, Wikipedia, Lemmy, ProPublica) but, by and large, "free" means they don't care about you. You are just a commodity that they sell. Facebook, Google, X, Reddit, Instagram... Their goal is keep people hooked to their smartphone by giving them regular small dopamine hits (likes, upvotes) followed by a small breaks with outrageous content/emotional content. Keep them hooked, gather their data, and sell them ads. The people who know that best are former top executives : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/addictive-technology.html https://www.today.com/parents/teens/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-rcna15256