• Research from the Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University reveals we commonly underestimate the level of influence Generative AI has over our work output when we choose to engage it 
• But, we often over-estimate how much such technologies have influenced other people’s work, leading to their efforts and ability being undervalued 
• Using Gen AI tools is no bad thing, but researchers highlight the need for greater clarity 

Whether it’s AI-generated images of Swifties in Pro-Trump T-shirts or the creation of “AI scientists” with the capability of writing fairly convincing academic papers, what is impressive and alarming in equal measure is just how incredibly, convincingly human such technology is beginning to appear. 

Which might perhaps go some way into explaining why people can sometimes struggle to differentiate between what has been produced by human and what has been the result of machine intellect. 

And that confusion, research shows, is beginning to cause complications – especially when it comes to embedding AI within our professional lives.  

Research from faculty at the Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University has found that people are commonly blind to how much influence Generative AI can have over their work when they choose to enlist the support of technologies such as Chat GPT to complete professional or educational tasks. 

Associate professors?Dr Mirjam Tuk?and?Dr?Anne?Kathrin Klesse, together with PhD candidate?Begum Celiktutan,?undertook a series of experimental studies with more than 5,000 participants, assessing their estimations as to how much AI had played a role in their own and their colleagues’ work. 

In these studies, half of the participants completed, or were asked to recall completing tasks ranging from job applications and student assignments to brainstorming and creative assignments. They were free to use ChatGPT to help them if they wished. The other half were asked to picture someone else completing such tasks, potentially utilising the help of ChatGPT to do so. 

Afterwards, all participants were asked to estimate the extent to which they believed ChatGPT had contributed to the outcome of the work produced – their own and that of others. 

In some studies, participants were also asked to indicate how acceptable they felt it was to use technologies such as ChatGPT in completing the task. 

The results of their investigations revealed a significant discrepancy between human estimation and reality. 

“Interestingly,” comments Dr Tuk, “it seems acceptable to use Gen AI for ourselves, but less so for others. This is because people tend to overestimate their own contribution to the creation of things like application letters or student assignments when they co-create them with Gen AI, because they believe that they’ve used the technology only for inspiration rather than for outsourcing the work.” 

When evaluating their own output, on average participants estimated 54% of the work to be completed by themselves, with ChatGPT contributing the remaining 46%.  

But, when evaluating other people’s work, participants were more inclined to believe that Gen?AI?had been responsible for the majority of the heavy lifting. In such instances, human input was estimated to contribute only 38%, with ChatGPT providing the remaining 62%. 

The difference in the both the estimated levels of contribution by the creator and by ChatGPT, and how people perceive others’ use of Gen AI tools, the researchers say, highlights a worrying level of bias and blindness.  

This makes establishing the ethics and limitations of using such technologies difficult to define, as the answer to whether GenAI?usage is considered acceptable is not clear-cut. 

How much is too much? 

It’s no surprise that AI use has a great deal of stigma attached to it. When ChatGPT was thrust into the world in November 2022 it received a great deal of hype – some of which was highly unflattering and contained predictions that the tech is yet to live up to. For example, the idea that it could replace 4.8 million jobs in the US alone has turned out to be, so far, unrealistic. 

What emerged hand in hand with admiration for its capability was a significant amount of distrust. A sense of having the wool pulled over one’s eyes if AI was impersonating human interaction. Whilst much attention was focused on the many ways in which the technology can streamline and simplify work tasks and processes, a similar level of attention focused in on whether it should be doing so.  

Never mind the loss to human roles and opportunities, getting AI on board to assist with assigned work tasks has been seen, by some, to be akin to cutting corners. 

“Whilst people perceive themselves as using GenAI?to get inspiration, they tend to believe that others use it as a means to outsource a task,” comments Dr Tuk. “This prompts people to think that it is totally appropriate for themselves to use GenAI, but not for others to do the same.” 

With such disparity at play, organisations face a significant hurdle when it comes to setting and adhering to effective guidelines for AI use. 

Tech for Good 

There is no turning the clock back on technological innovation, and we shouldn’t want to. After all, it has been proven that embedding AI and automation into business can not only boost profitability by increasing the capacity of work that can be done, but can also help in keeping customers happy and loyal. 

What we should be seeking to do instead is engage with it. When applied consciously and considerately, AI tools can provide industry and society with vast benefits. In fact, in keeping with the theme of their research, Dr Tuk and her team relied upon the use of Generative AI to help them complete their work, utilising a ChatGPT detector to assess participants’ accuracy in their estimations on how much they believed their work and the work of others had been completed by the technology and how much was human effort. 

The fact remains that AI can be a tool for good, so long as we can effectively harness and regulate it. As with overcoming many business challenges, clarity appears to be key. The researchers say their study is important for establishing greater awareness of the bias that exists, for both self and for others, in using Gen AI in a professional capacity. 

When embedding Gen AI? within a workplace, and in attempting to set guidelines for its use, knowledge is power. 

By, Kerry Ruffle

Interested in this topic? You might also like this…