Most workers embrace AI, but 84% worry about the risks, study says

Researcher suggests promoting AI literacy through training and education is the key to empowering workers

Image by Curated Lifestyle for Unsplash

Workers think that Artificial Intelligence (AI) makes them more efficient, but many don’t trust it. That’s according to a study cited in a new book called Entanglement by technology researcher Dr Marigo Raftopoulos.

Dr Raftopoulos found that seven in 10 (71%) people think AI performs ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ well because of its ability to save time and improve processes, accuracy and efficiency.

But 84% feel it poses cyber, military, job, privacy or other risks. The research was a pilot study, which surveyed 305 professionals working with AI-enabled technologies in Europe and 309 in the U.S.

And does AI erode people’s sense of empowerment at work? Despite high levels of positive perception of AI performance and acceptance, most people reported uneasiness about their own sense of empowerment at work as AI use expands. Almost two thirds of respondents (63%) felt only moderately empowered, or ‘not very’ empowered, at work.

Dr Raftopoulos, author of Entanglement and a technology researcher and strategic business advisor with several decades of experience, said: “AI is utterly transforming the way we work. We already know that. But I also wanted to know how employees feel about it.
“I found that most people we surveyed think AI has a positive role to play in the workplace.  Only 4% of all respondents were negative about its role at work. But there are teething problems and they relate to things like integration, trust, performance, and implementation, with 84% of people worrying about risks including cyber security, job losses and military uses.

“It’s a complex picture. We found that staff show positive goodwill to enable AI, despite an uncertain future for their personal empowerment and job security.”

Dr Raftopoulos found that people felt positively about AI in terms of workplace productivity, collaboration and innovation:

• Positive statements (52%) included: “The AI automation is great.” “It will become a common tool.” “Frees up time and resources.”
• Conditional statements (40%) included: “Needs to be used correctly.” “Can’t trust it yet.” “Still needs supervision.”
• Negative statements (4%) included: “Still severely biased.” “Can’t match human skill in this field.” “There will be job losses and hardships.”
• Don’t know (4%).

When considering AI as a viable “workplace collaborator” or “team member”, only 12% responded positively:

• Positive statements (12%) included: “It’s already part of the team. “The AI helps humans work faster.” “We get work done without all the emotion.” “It’s fast and reliable.”
• Conditional statements (40%) included: “It’s not yet trustworthy or reliable enough”. “Needs to be more human-like”. “Needs natural communication in the interfaces and interactions”.
• Negative statements (44%) included: “A human team member is irreplaceable.” “AI is a tool, not a team member.” “AI is no substitute for humans.” “AI is just an enabler.”
• Don’t know (4%)

In terms of future societal concerns about AI, the key themes raised by respondents were:

• Cyberthreats (40%) including AI terrorism and scams.
• Job losses (24%) including worker displacement, loss of skills and livelihoods.
• Ethical concerns (8%) such as invasion of privacy, military uses of AI, biased or misappropriated datasets, technology ownership and control by a few companies.
• Loss of humanness (12%) including worries about loss of common sense, empathy and emotional intelligence.
• No concerns (16%) including that “AI is not the problem, humans are”.

Dr Raftopoulos also examines how people’s perspectives and thought patterns influence their willingness (or reluctance) to embrace advanced AI technologies in the workplace. She explains that many individuals are hesitant to adopt these technologies, and this hesitation is not influenced by factors like gender, age, education, or location, suggesting it is a universal human trait.

In fact, Dr Raftopoulus’ research finds that people’s attitudes toward AI adoption fall on a spectrum. On one end, some see AI as an opportunity to pursue, while others view it as a threat to avoid.

“The reluctance to adopt AI can be attributed to genuine concern about limitations in the current generation of AI technology, the adequacy of organisational AI implementations, and the breakdown of the social contract organisations have with their employees,” she explains.

Dr Raftopoulos stresses the role of education and training in empowering employees to work effectively alongside AI systems – one of the methods explored in the book to encourage AI uptake among colleagues, is to use creative and playful interactive activities to increase AI literacy.

She highlights the importance of AI literacy programs to mitigate fears of job displacement and loss of autonomy and to help foster a culture of learning and adaptability, ensuring that employees feel empowered rather than threatened by AI technologies.

She also suggests organisations should adopt long-term investment strategies and holistic approaches to AI implementation, emphasising that the success of AI systems depends on their ability to integrate seamlessly into existing organisational structures while supporting human well-being.

“In this age of intelligent technologies, human thriving, technology effectiveness, and business enhancement cannot be separated. All are entangled. But I aim to offer a message of hope, intending to empower citizens by raising awareness of both the positive and negative effects of AI,” she explains. “We can make the most of technological advances without compromising our own humanness.”