this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
602 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

74831 readers
2965 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

.this basically just shows that AI assistants provide no benefit when they're not used and nothing else.

so you think they may be useful but people just like to work harder? or perhps, they tried and saw no benefit at all and moved on?

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Having been part of multiple projects introducing new software tools (not AI) to departments before, people are usually just stubborn and don't want to change their ways, even if it enables a smoother work-flow with minimal training/practice. So yeah, basically people are so set in their ways,it is often hard to convince them something new will actually make their job easier.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The devil is in the details... what you describe screams to me what I call the "new boss syndrome". New boss comes in and they feel the need to pee on everyone to mark their territory so they MUST bring in some genius change.

99% of the time, they are bringing in some forced change for the sake of change or something that worked on their previous place without taking into consideration the context.

I do not know anyone who prefers to work harder... either the changes proposed make no sense (or it's too complex for people to understand the benefit) or the change is superfluous. That is usually where resistance to change comes from.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In all your software deployments did you blame the users for not getting it or did you redesign the software because it sucked (according to your users)?

[–] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I've occasionally been part of training hourly workers on software new to them. Having really, really detailed work instructions and walking through all the steps with themthe first time has helped me win over people who were initially really opposed to the products.

My experience with salaried workers has been they are more likely to try new software on their own, but if they don't have much flexible time they usually choose to keep doing the established less efficient routine over investing one-time learning curve and setup time to start a new more efficient routine. Myself included - I have for many years been aware of software my employer provides that would reduce the time spent on regular tasks, but I know the learning curve and setup is in the dozens of hours, and I haven't carved out time to do that.

So to answer the question, neither. The problem may be neither the software nor the users, but something else about the work environment.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I was one of the users, these are my observations with my colleagues reactions, and sometimes also myself.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s not what I’m asking. You designed or built something for some users. They didn’t like it, or didn’t use it as you expected. Was your response to change the software or blame the users for not using it correctly?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That depends on the issue. Sometimes it's a lack of training, sometimes it's obtuse software. That's a call the product owner needs to make.

For something like AI, it does take some practice to learn what it's good at and what it's not good at. So there's always going to be some amount of training needed before user complaints should be taken at face value. That's true for most tools, I wouldn't expect someone to jump in to my workflow and be productive, because many of the tools I use require a fair amount of learning to use properly. That doesn't mean the tools are bad, it just means they're complex.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Are you the person (alt) I was asking this of?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

Yes, because I was talking to the other person who’s been all over this thread talking about their specific experience.