Position: Adopting AI in Practice Does Not Guarantee the Productivity Boost

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24688v1
• Date: Sat, 23 May 2026 17:56:01 GMT
• Title: Position: Adopting AI in Practice Does Not Guarantee the Productivity Boost
• Abstract summary: We argue that adopting AI in organizational practice does not guarantee productivity gains.<n>We identify five key moderating factors: human resource composition, baseline capability of individuals, learning curve of practitioners, incentives for fair use, and flexibility of objectives.
• Score: 3.109050918589247
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues that adopting AI in organizational practice does not guarantee productivity gains, because human and environmental factors critically moderate the relationship between AI deployment and realized productivity improvements. Following the advent of high-performance generative models, AI use has been rapidly encouraged in some sectors while being restricted in others. Most practitioners assume that AI brings productivity boosts owing to enhanced technical capabilities, but regardless of apparent performance advances in AI technology, human and environmental factors of the organization may substantially attenuate -- or even negate -- the effective productivity benefits. We identify five key moderating factors: human resource composition, baseline capability of individuals, learning curve of practitioners, incentives for fair use, and flexibility of objectives. Drawing on the partial equilibrium model of Gries and Naudé (2022), we argue that existing economic frameworks may inadvertently overlook these factors. We revise the existing framework to redefine effective organizational determinants and shed light on practical implications including industry and education, responding to alternative views and calling for action of stakeholders.

Related papers

• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• Next-Billion AI Index: The compass for AI utility and adoption in the global majority [24.520947240933477]
  This paper introduces the Next Billion AI Index (nexbax)<n>It is the first diagnostic framework to treat economic viability, operational deployability, and governance alignment as co-equal determinants of AI utility.<n>We conduct a formative expert evaluation through eleven semi-structured interviews with founders, developers, product leaders, and technical practitioners building AI systems for next-billion markets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T21:01:42Z)
• Human-AI Productivity Paradoxes: Modeling the Interplay of Skill, Effort, and AI Assistance [1.9326159189892944]
  We propose a model of human-AI interaction to better understand and analyze several mechanisms by which AI affects productivity.<n>In our setup, human agents with varying skill levels exert utility-maximizing effort to produce certain task outcomes with AI assistance.<n>We find that incorporating either endogeneity in skill development or in AI unreliability can induce a productivity paradox.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T00:12:27Z)
• People-Centred Medical Image Analysis [28.028018247982686]
  People-Centred Medical Image Analysis (PecMan) is a human-AI framework that jointly optimises fairness, diagnostic accuracy, and workflow effectiveness.<n>We introduce the Fairness and Human-Centred AI (FairHAI) benchmark for evaluating trade-offs between accuracy, fairness, and clinician workload.<n>Experiments using this benchmark show that PecMan consistently outperforms existing methods, paving the way for more trustworthy and clinically viable AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T22:13:36Z)
• Keeping an Eye on AI: A Framework for Effective Human Oversight of AI Systems [46.60248293123689]
  This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems.<n>It draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T22:35:41Z)
• From Horizontal Layering to Vertical Integration: A Comparative Study of the AI-Driven Software Development Paradigm [11.70675405835839]
  This paper examines the organizational implications of Generative AI adoption in software engineering through a multiple-case comparative study.<n> transitioning from Horizontal Layering to Vertical Integration yields 8-fold to 33-fold reductions in resource consumption.<n>We conclude with managerial strategies for organizational redesign, including the reactivation of idle cognitive bandwidth in senior engineers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:38:16Z)
• AI Product Value Assessment Model: An Interdisciplinary Integration Based on Information Theory, Economics, and Psychology [5.57756598733474]
  This paper develops a multi-dimensional evaluation model that integrates information theory's entropy reduction principle, economics' bounded rationality framework, and psychology's irrational decision theories to quantify AI product value.<n>A non-linear formula captures factor couplings, and validation through 10 commercial cases demonstrates the model's effectiveness in distinguishing successful and failed products.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T15:51:14Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment.<n>We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• Follow the money: a startup-based measure of AI exposure across occupations, industries and regions [0.0]
  Existing measures of AI occupational exposure focus on AI's theoretical potential to substitute or complement human labour on the basis of technical feasibility.<n>We introduce the AI Startup Exposure (AISE) index-a novel metric based on occupational descriptions from O*NET and AI applications developed by startups.<n>Our findings suggest that AI adoption will be gradual and shaped by social factors as much as by the technical feasibility of AI applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T10:25:05Z)
• Diversity and Inclusion in AI for Recruitment: Lessons from Industry Workshop [44.807030880787345]
  This study investigates the practical application of D&I guidelines in AI-driven online job-seeking systems. We conducted a co-design workshop with a large multinational recruitment company. The results suggest developing tailored D&I guidelines and ongoing support to ensure the effective adoption of inclusive AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T04:45:47Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiring [30.046502708053097]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, effective hybrid teamwork (human-AI) is not solely dependent on AI performance alone. We investigate how both a model's predictive performance and bias may transfer to humans in a recommendation-aided decision task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T17:58:07Z)
• Dynamic Human-Robot Role Allocation based on Human Ergonomics Risk Prediction and Robot Actions Adaptation [35.91053423341299]
  We propose a novel method that optimize assembly strategies and distribute the effort among the workers in human-robot cooperative tasks. The proposed approach succeeds in controlling the task allocation process to ensure safe and ergonomic conditions for the human worker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-05T17:29:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.