morrowind

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/30013147

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.

(I haven't submitted an official rfc yet, want to see what people think)

This is inspired by Ruqqus, a now defunct Reddit alternative.

The idea is simple:

1. There is a "global" or "default" community with no topic or extra rules, ~~moderated only by admins~~
2. Community moderators, when they feel a post is inappropriate for their community can "kick" a post to the global community

The reasoning is as follows: a good amount, probably the majority of posts that are removed by mods, are not removed because they are inappropriate for the site as a whole, but because they are inappropriate for that specific community (off-topic, banned site, low effort, etc.). But currently the only option they have to deal with this is a full blown removal, which is quite frustrating for the poster.

This proposal would allow mods to keep curated communities without needing to do unnecessary removals.

As a bonus, this would create a default community where people can post when they're not sure where to post something. Posts can be later be crossposted into more specific communities.