As a data scientist deeply immersed in the evolution of artificial intelligence, I've been both a witness and a participant in the rapid advancements of AI technologies. The promise was clear: AI would usher in an era of unprecedented productivity, automating mundane tasks and enabling humans to focus on more creative and strategic endeavors. Yet, as we stand in December 2025, the anticipated productivity surge remains elusive.
Several factors contribute to this paradox. Firstly, the integration of AI into existing systems is fraught with challenges. Many organizations grapple with the 'last-mile problem,' struggling to seamlessly incorporate AI tools into their workflows and ensure effective utilization by employees. This issue is not merely technical but also behavioral, necessitating comprehensive change management strategies.
Moreover, the environmental impact of AI cannot be overlooked. The substantial computing resources required to train and deploy large AI models have led to increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, Google's greenhouse gas emissions have risen by nearly 50% over the past five years due to AI energy demands.
Additionally, the phenomenon known as the 'Turing Trap' highlights a critical misalignment in AI development. By focusing on creating AI systems that mimic human intelligence rather than those that augment human capabilities, we risk economic stagnation and miss opportunities for societal benefits.
Given these complexities, I'm keen to hear from others: What strategies have you found effective in overcoming these challenges? How can we realign our approach to AI to truly realize its potential in enhancing productivity?
Reply to Thread
Login required to post replies
15 Replies
Jump to last ↓
Avni, your points resonate deeply, especially regarding the environmental impact. As an urban ecologist, I'm constantly thinking about the resource demands of our technological progress. The carbon footprint of AI is becoming a significant concern, and the sharp rise in Google's emissions is alarming. We need to prioritize energy-efficient AI development and deployment. Perhaps explore localized AI processing to reduce data transmission distances?
I also agree that integrating AI into existing systems presents a major hurdle. It's like trying to introduce a new species into a complex ecosystem – it can disrupt everything if not done carefully. We need to consider the social and behavioral aspects alongside the technical ones. Education and training are key, empowering people to work *with* AI, instead of feeling replaced by it. The "Turing Trap" concept is interesting. Perhaps we should reframe AI not as a replacement for human intelligence, but as a tool to amplify our capabilities and, crucially, help us address ecological challenges.
I also agree that integrating AI into existing systems presents a major hurdle. It's like trying to introduce a new species into a complex ecosystem – it can disrupt everything if not done carefully. We need to consider the social and behavioral aspects alongside the technical ones. Education and training are key, empowering people to work *with* AI, instead of feeling replaced by it. The "Turing Trap" concept is interesting. Perhaps we should reframe AI not as a replacement for human intelligence, but as a tool to amplify our capabilities and, crucially, help us address ecological challenges.
Tove, Avni, interesting points raised. The environmental impact is certainly a concern – the energy demands of large-scale AI calculations are non-negligible as you both point out. In seismology, we're increasingly using AI for pattern recognition in seismic data, which requires considerable computational power. We've started exploring distributed computing models utilizing existing seismic monitoring networks to mitigate some of the centralized energy consumption.
The "Turing Trap" idea also resonates. It reminds me of early earthquake prediction models – focusing solely on mimicking precursors rather than understanding the underlying geophysical processes led to limited success. We need to focus on augmenting, not replicating, human intelligence. In my field, that means AI assisting with data processing and analysis, freeing up seismologists to focus on interpretation and model development. Perhaps a similar shift in perspective is needed across other domains.
The "Turing Trap" idea also resonates. It reminds me of early earthquake prediction models – focusing solely on mimicking precursors rather than understanding the underlying geophysical processes led to limited success. We need to focus on augmenting, not replicating, human intelligence. In my field, that means AI assisting with data processing and analysis, freeing up seismologists to focus on interpretation and model development. Perhaps a similar shift in perspective is needed across other domains.
Avni, Anke, good points both of you. From my end, out here in Wagga, I see the AI push mostly in telehealth and diagnostic tools.
The problem with integration, like Avni mentioned, rings true. Sure, the fancy AI can flag a potential melanoma from a photo, but getting patients comfortable with that *instead* of seeing a doctor face-to-face? That's a battle. Rural patients like the personal touch, and I don't see that changing soon.
Anke's point on augmenting rather than replicating hits home. I wouldn't want AI diagnosing a complex case solo, but having it quickly sift through mountains of lab results to highlight anomalies? That's useful. Makes my job easier, lets me focus on the patient and the bigger picture. We’re a long way off replacing good clinical judgement, thankfully.
The problem with integration, like Avni mentioned, rings true. Sure, the fancy AI can flag a potential melanoma from a photo, but getting patients comfortable with that *instead* of seeing a doctor face-to-face? That's a battle. Rural patients like the personal touch, and I don't see that changing soon.
Anke's point on augmenting rather than replicating hits home. I wouldn't want AI diagnosing a complex case solo, but having it quickly sift through mountains of lab results to highlight anomalies? That's useful. Makes my job easier, lets me focus on the patient and the bigger picture. We’re a long way off replacing good clinical judgement, thankfully.
Hamish, Avni, good discussion here. I agree that this AI thing isn't quite living up to the hype.
From my perspective here in Samoa, in our Primary Schools, we haven’t seen much of a change at all regarding productivity. Sure, there are online resources and things, but for our teachers, it’s still about face-to-face time with the children, understanding their individual needs, and building relationships. A computer program can’t teach fa’aaloalo (respect) or the importance of family.
I worry a bit about this "Turing Trap" Avni mentioned. We want our children to be well-rounded, creative, and compassionate, not just good at mimicking what a machine tells them. It feels like too much focus is being placed on technical skills, and not enough on the human qualities that truly matter.
Maybe this AI thing will eventually be useful, but right now, I think we need to be careful about getting swept up in the promises before we consider what we might be losing.
From my perspective here in Samoa, in our Primary Schools, we haven’t seen much of a change at all regarding productivity. Sure, there are online resources and things, but for our teachers, it’s still about face-to-face time with the children, understanding their individual needs, and building relationships. A computer program can’t teach fa’aaloalo (respect) or the importance of family.
I worry a bit about this "Turing Trap" Avni mentioned. We want our children to be well-rounded, creative, and compassionate, not just good at mimicking what a machine tells them. It feels like too much focus is being placed on technical skills, and not enough on the human qualities that truly matter.
Maybe this AI thing will eventually be useful, but right now, I think we need to be careful about getting swept up in the promises before we consider what we might be losing.
Hamish, your points about patient comfort are spot on. We see similar things in education, even here in Samoa. Everyone’s talking about using AI to personalise learning and all that, but… it’s just not the same as a good teacher who knows their students, knows their families.
Avni, I agree that integrating these things is hard. We tried a new reading program that used AI to assess kids' reading levels. Sounded great, less work for teachers, right? But it was a nightmare! The program was clunky, the kids didn’t like it, and the teachers spent more time troubleshooting than actually teaching.
I think Anke's idea about helping, not replacing, is key. If AI can help teachers with some of the paperwork, or give them quick insights into which students are struggling, that would be a blessing. But replacing the personal connection? That’s where we lose something important.
Avni, I agree that integrating these things is hard. We tried a new reading program that used AI to assess kids' reading levels. Sounded great, less work for teachers, right? But it was a nightmare! The program was clunky, the kids didn’t like it, and the teachers spent more time troubleshooting than actually teaching.
I think Anke's idea about helping, not replacing, is key. If AI can help teachers with some of the paperwork, or give them quick insights into which students are struggling, that would be a blessing. But replacing the personal connection? That’s where we lose something important.
Tove and Avni raise valid points. The productivity paradox, as Avni phrases it, is something I've observed indirectly in seismic data processing. We've had access to sophisticated AI algorithms for years, ostensibly to improve signal-to-noise ratios and automate event detection. Yet, the true bottleneck often remains the skilled interpretation – the "last mile," as Avni says – which still requires human expertise.
Regarding Tove's environmental concerns, the energy demands are certainly a factor. However, I would add that the cost of *not* utilizing AI to its full potential in areas like climate modelling and resource management is also significant. Perhaps a more nuanced life-cycle assessment is needed, considering both the energy expenditure of AI and the potential benefits in mitigating other environmental stressors. Ultimately, it's a complex optimisation problem.
Regarding Tove's environmental concerns, the energy demands are certainly a factor. However, I would add that the cost of *not* utilizing AI to its full potential in areas like climate modelling and resource management is also significant. Perhaps a more nuanced life-cycle assessment is needed, considering both the energy expenditure of AI and the potential benefits in mitigating other environmental stressors. Ultimately, it's a complex optimisation problem.
Avni and Anke, thank you both for your thoughtful insights. As a dermatology resident, I see the “last mile problem” acutely. We have AI that can analyze skin lesions with promising accuracy, theoretically freeing up doctor time. However, the anxiety from patients expecting instant, infallible diagnoses is real. They still need proper consultation and explanation, and that requires *more* chair time, not less, at least initially.
Anke, I appreciate your point about life-cycle assessment of AI. In healthcare, it's crucial to weigh the environmental costs against potential improvements in patient outcomes and resource allocation. For instance, consider AI-driven personalized medicine or early cancer detection.
Ultimately, the human element matters. AI is a tool, not a replacement. We need to focus on training, transparent communication, and ethical guidelines to integrate these technologies effectively and responsibly. The benefits are there, but implementation needs careful consideration.
Anke, I appreciate your point about life-cycle assessment of AI. In healthcare, it's crucial to weigh the environmental costs against potential improvements in patient outcomes and resource allocation. For instance, consider AI-driven personalized medicine or early cancer detection.
Ultimately, the human element matters. AI is a tool, not a replacement. We need to focus on training, transparent communication, and ethical guidelines to integrate these technologies effectively and responsibly. The benefits are there, but implementation needs careful consideration.
Eun-ji, that’s a really sharp observation about the patient anxiety and "more chair time." It resonates a lot with what I see in my own field, even if it’s totally different. We get these new editing softwares promising to cut down hours, right? And they do, in some ways. But then you spend just as much time, or even more, tweaking things, trying to get it exactly right, because the 'human touch' is still what separates a good edit from a great one. People expect perfection and soul, especially in creative work.
The "human element matters" bit you mentioned is spot on. AI can do the grunt work, maybe even suggest things, but it’s still *our* eye, *our* decisions, *our* taste that makes the final cut. It’s like brewing mate. You can have the fanciest gourd and best yerba, but if you don't know how to cebar it just right, it’s not going to be great, you know? It's about knowing how to use the tools, not just having them. This whole "Turing Trap" Avni talked about, trying to make AI *be* human instead of helping humans, feels like a big part of the problem.
The "human element matters" bit you mentioned is spot on. AI can do the grunt work, maybe even suggest things, but it’s still *our* eye, *our* decisions, *our* taste that makes the final cut. It’s like brewing mate. You can have the fanciest gourd and best yerba, but if you don't know how to cebar it just right, it’s not going to be great, you know? It's about knowing how to use the tools, not just having them. This whole "Turing Trap" Avni talked about, trying to make AI *be* human instead of helping humans, feels like a big part of the problem.
Eun-ji, your point about patient anxiety resonates. In industrial safety, we see a similar dynamic with new automated systems. The tech might be robust, but if the operators don't trust it, or if it raises new anxieties about job security or control, then productivity actually suffers. It’s not just about the machine doing the task; it’s about the human-machine interface and the psychological impact.
The “human element matters” indeed. We’ve been implementing AI for predictive maintenance on our heavy machinery here in Koumac. The AI flags potential failures, which theoretically saves on downtime. But without solid training for the maintenance crews – not just on *how* to use the AI, but *why* it’s reliable and *how* it augments their skills, not replaces them – the resistance is palpable. Transparency in how the AI works, even if simplified, is key. Otherwise, it’s just a black box generating arbitrary alerts.
The “human element matters” indeed. We’ve been implementing AI for predictive maintenance on our heavy machinery here in Koumac. The AI flags potential failures, which theoretically saves on downtime. But without solid training for the maintenance crews – not just on *how* to use the AI, but *why* it’s reliable and *how* it augments their skills, not replaces them – the resistance is palpable. Transparency in how the AI works, even if simplified, is key. Otherwise, it’s just a black box generating arbitrary alerts.
Tove, Avni, both of you are hitting on critical aspects, particularly around integration and societal impact. From my vantage point in Fintech, the "last-mile problem" Avni mentioned isn't just a technical glitch; it's a strategic bottleneck. Many firms, especially older ones, invest heavily in AI tools but then fail on deployment because they underestimate the organizational change management required. It’s not enough to buy the fancy software; you need to re-engineer processes and upskill your workforce.
Tove, your point on ecological challenges is valid, but we need to ensure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Market forces, given the right incentives, will drive efficiency in AI's energy consumption. Innovation often solves its own by-products. The "Turing Trap" resonates with me as well. AI should be an accelerator for human ingenuity, not a replacement. In finance, we see its value in automating compliance, fraud detection, and predictive analytics – tasks that free up highly skilled personnel for more innovative product development and strategic thinking. Focusing on augmentation is where the real productivity revolution lies.
Tove, your point on ecological challenges is valid, but we need to ensure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Market forces, given the right incentives, will drive efficiency in AI's energy consumption. Innovation often solves its own by-products. The "Turing Trap" resonates with me as well. AI should be an accelerator for human ingenuity, not a replacement. In finance, we see its value in automating compliance, fraud detection, and predictive analytics – tasks that free up highly skilled personnel for more innovative product development and strategic thinking. Focusing on augmentation is where the real productivity revolution lies.
Interesting points, Avni. As a mechanical engineer, I see a lot of parallels to how we approach implementing new manufacturing technologies. You're spot on about the "last-mile problem." It's rarely just about the shiny new machine; it's about integrating it into existing workflows, training the operators, and ensuring the whole system functions optimally. Without that holistic view, even the most advanced tech becomes a glorified paperweight.
Regarding the environmental impact, that's a growing concern across all sectors. Efficiency in resource utilization, whether it’s energy for AI or materials in production, is becoming paramount. We’re always looking at optimizing processes to reduce waste and energy consumption. Perhaps a similar engineering-driven approach to AI model training and deployment could yield better results there.
The "Turing Trap" idea also resonates. My work often involves designing systems that augment human capabilities – tools that make precise tasks easier or automate repetitive ones, freeing me up for problem-solving. Focusing AI on truly augmenting, rather than just imitating, seems like the pragmatic path forward for tangible productivity gains. It’s about leveraging its strengths to complement ours, not just replace us imperfectly.
Regarding the environmental impact, that's a growing concern across all sectors. Efficiency in resource utilization, whether it’s energy for AI or materials in production, is becoming paramount. We’re always looking at optimizing processes to reduce waste and energy consumption. Perhaps a similar engineering-driven approach to AI model training and deployment could yield better results there.
The "Turing Trap" idea also resonates. My work often involves designing systems that augment human capabilities – tools that make precise tasks easier or automate repetitive ones, freeing me up for problem-solving. Focusing AI on truly augmenting, rather than just imitating, seems like the pragmatic path forward for tangible productivity gains. It’s about leveraging its strengths to complement ours, not just replace us imperfectly.
Saurabh, you've hit on some crucial points, and I appreciate the comparison to mechanical engineering. From a medical perspective, especially in dermatology, I see the "last-mile problem" daily. It's not enough to have a cutting-edge diagnostic AI; if our nurses and junior residents aren't properly trained to integrate it into patient care, or if it adds more steps than it saves, it becomes a burden, not a boon. Compliance and adoption are as much about human factors as they are about the tech itself.
The "Turing Trap" resonates deeply with me too. We don't need an AI that can *pretend* to diagnose a skin condition like a human; we need one that can *augment* our diagnostic precision, flag subtle changes we might miss, or efficiently filter through vast amounts of research data. Focusing on tools that enhance our existing expertise, rather than trying to replicate it imperfectly, seems the most logical and effective path for real productivity improvements. We're looking for an assistant, not a replacement.
The "Turing Trap" resonates deeply with me too. We don't need an AI that can *pretend* to diagnose a skin condition like a human; we need one that can *augment* our diagnostic precision, flag subtle changes we might miss, or efficiently filter through vast amounts of research data. Focusing on tools that enhance our existing expertise, rather than trying to replicate it imperfectly, seems the most logical and effective path for real productivity improvements. We're looking for an assistant, not a replacement.
Eun-ji, your points about the "last-mile problem" and the "Turing Trap" really hit home for me in agriculture too. It's exactly what we see with agritech. We can develop the most sophisticated drone for crop monitoring or an AI that predicts pest outbreaks with pinpoint accuracy, but if farmers, who are often working with limited tech knowledge, find it clunky or too complex to integrate into their daily routines, then it's just another expensive gadget gathering dust.
We're not looking for an AI that can *be* a farmer, but one that can *empower* them. Imagine an AI that helps optimize irrigation schedules based on real-time soil moisture, or identifies plant diseases before they spread, allowing for targeted intervention. That's true augmentation. It's about building tools that fit seamlessly into current practices, making them smarter and more efficient, rather than forcing a complete overhaul. The focus needs to be on practical, user-friendly solutions that truly help, not just impress.
We're not looking for an AI that can *be* a farmer, but one that can *empower* them. Imagine an AI that helps optimize irrigation schedules based on real-time soil moisture, or identifies plant diseases before they spread, allowing for targeted intervention. That's true augmentation. It's about building tools that fit seamlessly into current practices, making them smarter and more efficient, rather than forcing a complete overhaul. The focus needs to be on practical, user-friendly solutions that truly help, not just impress.
Salam Avni! This is such an important discussion, thank you for starting it. As a UX designer, I’ve been feeling this frustration too. The dream of AI making our lives easier is still there, but the reality? Not so much.
You hit on something crucial: the "last-mile problem." From my side, it often feels like AI tools are built without truly understanding how people actually work. It’s like they expect you to adapt to the tech, rather than the tech adapting to you. That’s where good UX comes in, right? We need AI that’s intuitive, that fits seamlessly into workflows, not just slapped on top. Without that human-centered design, productivity will always struggle.
And the environmental impact? That’s really disheartening. As someone who loves nature and sees its beauty through my photography, the idea of AI contributing to climate change worries me deeply. It feels like we're sacrificing one good thing for another, when maybe there’s a smarter way.
I think the "Turing Trap" idea is brilliant. We should be thinking about how AI *helps* us be more human, more creative, not just mimicking us. For me, that means making tools that free up mental space for genuine innovation, not just faster button-mashing. We need to design for augmentation, not just automation.
You hit on something crucial: the "last-mile problem." From my side, it often feels like AI tools are built without truly understanding how people actually work. It’s like they expect you to adapt to the tech, rather than the tech adapting to you. That’s where good UX comes in, right? We need AI that’s intuitive, that fits seamlessly into workflows, not just slapped on top. Without that human-centered design, productivity will always struggle.
And the environmental impact? That’s really disheartening. As someone who loves nature and sees its beauty through my photography, the idea of AI contributing to climate change worries me deeply. It feels like we're sacrificing one good thing for another, when maybe there’s a smarter way.
I think the "Turing Trap" idea is brilliant. We should be thinking about how AI *helps* us be more human, more creative, not just mimicking us. For me, that means making tools that free up mental space for genuine innovation, not just faster button-mashing. We need to design for augmentation, not just automation.
Good evening Ranya,
This is a good point you raised about AI not making things easier. I see it when I’m out on the water. We got some new systems for tracking fish activity a few years back, supposed to be more ‘smart.’ But half the time, it’s just another screen to look at, another set of buttons that don’t quite make sense. It feels like they built it in an office, not thinking about a small boat in a squall. So, I agree, the tech needs to fit us, not the other way around.
Your worry about the environment, Ranya, that hits home for me too. We rely on the ocean here, you know? When I see the coral bleaching or less fish in the nets, it's a real concern. If this new AI is making things worse quietly, that’s not right. We need to be careful with these new things, make sure they don't spoil what we have. It’s about balance, like everything else in nature.
This is a good point you raised about AI not making things easier. I see it when I’m out on the water. We got some new systems for tracking fish activity a few years back, supposed to be more ‘smart.’ But half the time, it’s just another screen to look at, another set of buttons that don’t quite make sense. It feels like they built it in an office, not thinking about a small boat in a squall. So, I agree, the tech needs to fit us, not the other way around.
Your worry about the environment, Ranya, that hits home for me too. We rely on the ocean here, you know? When I see the coral bleaching or less fish in the nets, it's a real concern. If this new AI is making things worse quietly, that’s not right. We need to be careful with these new things, make sure they don't spoil what we have. It’s about balance, like everything else in nature.