When ChatGPT burst onto the scene in late 2022, PR agency founder Anurag Garg was eager for his team of 11 to quickly incorporate the technology in their workflow, so the business could keep up with its competitors.
Mr Garg encouraged his employees to use the AI language tool for the agency’s long list of daily tasks, from coming up with story ideas for clients, pitches to offer the media, and transcribing meeting and interview notes.
But rather than increase the team’s productivity, it created stress and tension.
Staff reported that tasks were in fact taking longer as they had to create a brief and prompts for ChatGPT, while also having to double check its output for inaccuracies, of which there were many.
Advertisement
And every time the platform was updated, they had to learn its new features, which also took extra time.
“There were too many distractions. The team complained that their tasks were taking twice the amount of time because we were now expecting them to use AI tools,” says Mr Garg, who runs Everest PR and divides his time between the US and India.
The entire aim of introducing AI to the company was to simplify people’s workflows, but it was actually giving everyone more work to do, and making them feel stressed and burnt out.”
As a business leader, Mr Garg also began to feel overwhelmed by the growing number of AI tools being launched, and feeling he had to keep pace with every new addition. Not only was he using ChatGPT like his team, but Zapier to track team tasks, and Perplexity to supplement client research.
Advertisement
“There’s an overflow of AI tools in the market, and no single tool solves multiple problems. As a result, I constantly needed to keep tabs on multiple AI tools to execute tasks, which became more of a mess. It was hard to track which tool was supposed to do what, and I started getting utterly frustrated,” says Mr Garg.
“The market is flooded with AI tools, so if I invest in a specific app today, there’s a better one available next week. There’s a constant learning curve to stay relevant, which I was finding hard to manage, leading to burnout.”
Mr Garg backtracked on the mandate that the team should use AI in all their work, and now they use it primarily for research purposes – and everyone is much happier.
“It was a learning phase for us. The work is more manageable now as we are not using too many AI tools. We’ve gone back to everything being done directly by the team, and they feel more connected and more involved in their work. It’s much better,” says Mr Garg.
Advertisement
Getty Images
Some office workers say that AI is adding to work and decreasing productivity
The stress Mr Garg and his team experienced using AI tools at work is reflected in recent research.
In freelancer platform Upwork’s survey of 2,500 knowledge workers in the US, UK, Australia and Canada, 96% of top executives say they expect the use of AI tools to increase their company’s overall productivity levels – with 81% acknowledging they’ve increased demands on workers over the past year.
Yet 77% of employees in the survey say AI tools have actually decreased their productivity and added to their workload. And 47% of employees using AI in the survey say they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect.
As a result, 61% of people believe that using AI at work will increase their chances of experiencing burnout – rising to 87% of people under 25, as revealed in a separate survey of 1,150 Americans, by CV writing company Resume Now.
Advertisement
Resume Now’s survey also highlights how 43% of people feel AI will negatively impact work-life balance.
Whether the tech is based on AI or not, surveys suggest many workers are already feeling overwhelmed.
A further study by work management platform Asana highlights the effect of introducing more work-based apps.
In its survey of 9,615 knowledge workers across Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US, it found that, of those that use six to 15 different apps in the workplace, 15% say they miss messages and notifications because of the number of tools.
Advertisement
For those that use 16 or more, 23% say they are less efficient, and their attention span is reduced because of constantly having to switch apps.
As Cassie Holmes, management professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, commented in the study: “Using multiple apps requires additional time to learn them and switch between them, and this lost time is painful because we are so sensitive to wasted time.”
Gemma Shoots People
Leah Steele says workers are expected to do more with less
Lawyer turned coach Leah Steele now specialises in helping legal professionals overcome burnout, with many coming to her feeling burdened by their companies’ increased workload demands after introducing AI-based productivity tools. It’s an experience she’s familiar with, after the introduction of a new technology platform in a previous role saw her client caseload rise from 50 to 250.
“The biggest thing I’m seeing is this continuous competing demand to do more with less – but companies are not really considering whether the systems and the tech that they’re introducing are giving an outcome that isn’t helpful,” says Bristol- based Ms Steele.
Advertisement
“Everything’s moving so quickly. It’s a constant battle to keep on top of things to develop expertise in such a cutting edge area.”
The burnout lawyers are now experiencing, Ms Steele adds, is not only about the growing volume of work tech and AI tools are facilitating, but the knock on effects.
“When we’re looking at burnout, it’s not just about the volume of the work we’re doing, but how we feel about the work and what we’re getting from it,” says Ms Steele.
“You could feel stressed about having ended up in an environment of high volume and low control, when what you originally wanted to do was interact personally with clients and make a difference to them.”
Advertisement
Ms Steele adds: “You could also feel stressed about the risk of losing your job, and the fear of being replaced because you’re no longer enjoying the work as it’s become so tech driven.”
The Law Society of England and Wales acknowledges that lawyers need better support from law firm leaders to make the most of new technology like AI.
“While AI and new technologies can make legal work more efficient by automating routine tasks, they can also create more work for lawyers, not less,” says president Richard Atkinson.
“Learning to use these tools takes time and lawyers often need to undertake training and adapt their work processes. Many technologies were not originally designed for the legal sector, which can make the transition more challenging.”
Advertisement
Flown
AI can be a big help for smaller firms says Alicia Navarro
Alicia Navarro is the founder and chief executive of Flown, an online platform and community which helps people focus on “deep work” – tasks that require sustained concentration. She agrees that there is an “avalanche” of AI tools, but says they need to be used correctly.
“There’s such a huge amount of filtering and learning that has to take place before these tools can even start to become productive elements in our lives”.
But she argues that for small firms, with limited resources, AI can be a big help.
“It’s an incredibly empowering thing for start-ups to be able to do a lot more, or companies to be able to pay more dividends or pay their team more.”
Several private sector lenders reported their quarterly earnings on Saturday. On the one hand, while larger lenders HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank reported a rise in net profit in the July-September quarter, smaller rival RBL Bank saw profits slump. While deposit growth has been strong, all three lenders saw some sequential deterioration in asset quality.
HDFC Bank reported strong results on Saturday, with the net profit beating street expectations. HDFC Bank’s standalone net profit in the July-September quarter rose over 5 per cent from a year ago to Rs 16,820 crore (versus analysts’ expectations of around Rs 16,570 crore). The net interest income was up 10 per cent from a year ago to Rs 30,110 crore in the second quarter.
The country’s largest private sector bank also saw deposits growing at a much faster clip than credit growth.
Over the past several quarters, banks have been facing challenges to shore up deposits even as credit growth has been strong. Deposit growth consistently lagging credit growth had even the regulator Reserve Bank taking note, with RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das noting in August that alternative investment practices becoming more attractive to retail investors.
HDFC Bank reported a 15 per cent year-on-year rise in deposits and its total deposits stood at Rs 25 lakh crore in the July-September. In contrast, gross advances at the lender rose 7 per cent from a year ago to Rs 25.19 lakh crore.
Rival Kotak Mahindra Bank also reported a 5 per cent rise in quarterly net profit at Rs 3,344 crore. However, that was slightly lower than a CNBC-TV18 poll of analysts forecasting around Rs 3,513 crore. The bank’s net interest income was up 11 per cent to Rs 7,020 crore.
It saw a 16 per cent rise in deposits in the second quarter; its average deposits stood at Rs 4.46 lakh crore, while advances rose 17 per cent to Rs 4.19 lakh crore.
Elsewhere, smaller rival RBL Bank saw its net profit slump 24 per cent to around Rs 223 crore, even as net interest income rose 9 per cent from a year ago to Rs 1,615 crore.
The lender also reported a good 20 per cent growth in deposits at Rs 1.08 lakh crore, while advances were up 15 per cent to Rs 87,882 crore. All three lenders have generally seen their asset quality worsen slightly when compared on a sequential basis.
HDFC Bank’s gross non-performing assets (NPA) stood at 1.36 per cent in September quarter, up from 1.33 per cent in June. Kotak Bank’s gross NPAs, meanwhile, rose to 1.49 per cent from 1.39 per cent in the same period. RBL Bank’s gross NPAs also rose quarter-on-quarter to 2.88 per cent in September from 2.69 per cent in June.
Labelling petrostates as unfit hosts is a hypocrite’s game (“COP29 and the greenwashing of Azerbaijan”, FT View, October 14). When Azerbaijan hosts COP29 next month, it will be the 28th time the climate summit has been held in an oil and gas producer. Every host — bar Switzerland — has been involved in extraction. Every country in the world — bar none — is a fossil fuel consumer.
Instead, it’s wiser to ask how a country came to host, what they plan to achieve and why. Azerbaijan never anticipated playing host this year; we expected our bid to be vetoed by neighbour Armenia, which had occupied almost a fifth of our territory for 30 years. Yet in an unprecedented deal last December, Armenia agreed to back Azerbaijan as host as part of ongoing peace talks.
Negotiations continue and substantial progress has been achieved. Border delimitation commissions are active. Armenia’s commission has recently accepted the Alma-Ata Declaration — a commitment to the sovereignty of borders among post-Soviet states agreed in the 1990s.
Many would wish to see an official peace agreement signed before COP, but this is a very different proposition from two sides agreeing a deal in the negotiating room. Armenia’s constitution still contains a revanchist claim on Azerbaijani territory. The speed at which we can finalise a peace deal largely depends on how quickly Armenia can move on the issue. Critics calling this stalling should ask if they would sign a peace deal while their former adversary still claims their territory. Yet regardless of whether one is signed by the time COP begins, it will still be a COP of peace because of how it emerged. This year’s COP will focus on increasing the finance target — the New Collective Quantified Goal — to turn the global transition from fossil fuels into reality. Furthermore, Azerbaijan has seeded a climate fund, into which we expect other oil and gas producing nations and companies to invest.
Advertisement
Azerbaijan is demonstrating how an oil and gas producer can transition. We are not only implementing the region’s largest renewable projects but shifting from fossil fuel to electricity exports. In partnership with the EU, Azerbaijan is developing an electricity cable beneath the Black Sea to link Caspian Sea wind power to the continent. While we can’t influence the demand that drives foreign energy markets, we are reshaping the supply side.
Azerbaijan is hosting COP because we are walking the path to peace. At COP, we will advocate for new funds to finance a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables, a shift we are already actively pursuing ourselves.
Hikmet Hajiyev Foreign Affairs Adviser to the President of Azerbaijan, Baku, Azerbaijan
Sofitel Dubai the Obelisk has launched a new wellness offer called “Detokksu”, combining a luxurious spa treatment with a meal at their contemporary Japanese restaurant
Banking stocks like HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, and the State Bank of India were the biggest gainers among the Top 10 companies last week.
ICICI Bank soared Rs 28,495.14 crore to record a market capital of Rs 8,90,191.38 crore while HDFC Bank surged Rs 23,579.11 crore to Rs 12,82,848.30 crore and SBI zoomed Rs 17,804.61 crore to report Rs 7,31,773.56 crore in valuation.
Telecom giant Bharti Airtel leaped Rs 11,272.45 crore, taking its market cap to Rs 9,71,707.61 crore. Four of these companies added a combined market valuation of Rs 81,151.31 crore last week.
However, Infosys, Reliance Industries, Hindustan Unilever, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and ITC saw their market capital eroding by Rs 76,622.05 crore.
Advertisement
Infosys plummeted Rs 23,314.31 crore to Rs 7,80,126.10 crore while Reliance Industries dropped Rs 16,645.39 crore to Rs 18,38,721.14 crore and Hindustan Unilever plunged Rs 15,248.85 crore to Rs 6,38,066.75 crore.
TCS tumbled Rs 10,402.01 crore to Rs 14,91,321.40 crore, LIC dipped Rs 8,760.12 crore to Rs 5,91,418.91 crore and ITC slumped Rs 2,251.37 crore to Rs 6,08,682.29 crore.
Going by rank, Reliance Industries the most-valued company in the country. It is followed by TCS, HDFC Bank, Bharti Airtel, ICICI Bank, Infosys, State Bank of India, Hindustan Unilever, ITC, and LIC.
The new boss of Starbucks says he will overhaul the global coffee chain’s menu as the company continues to see its sales slide.
Brian Niccol also announced that he was suspending the firm’s financial forecasts for the coming year due to the “current state of the business”.
At the same time, the firm reported preliminary quarterly profits showing its sales and profits had dropped.
Starbucks shares fell by more than 4% after the announcement.
Advertisement
Starbucks needed to “fundamentally change” to bring back customers, Mr Niccol, who took over as chief executive in September, said.
“We will simplify our overly complex menu, fix our pricing architecture, and ensure that every customer feels Starbucks is worth it every single time they visit.”
Starbucks has seen customers cut back on spending as the rising cost of living squeezed people’s budgets.
A week before Starbucks was due to release its results for the three months to the end of September, the company said it expects comparable sales in the US to have fallen by 6% compared to a year earlier.
Advertisement
The downturn was more dramatic in China, where sales fell 14% for the same period, as the economy there falters.
“Despite our heightened investments, we were unable to change the trajectory of our traffic decline,” said Rachel Ruggeri, Starbucks chief financial officer.
Mr Niccol, who previously headed the Mexican food chain Chipotle, was brought into Starbucks to help turn the business around.
The Nobel awards currently distort public perception of which sciences are important. They also, by failing to acknowledge collaborative and parallel work, give a misleading impression of how science is done. Moreover, vibrant new fields were left out of Alfred Nobel’s will. This year’s awards for artificial intelligence and computing are welcome signals that the Nobel committee recognises these deficiencies (Opinion, October 16).
These gaps are also being remedied by philanthropists who have established new prizes — some with even bigger jackpots and razzmatazz than the Nobels. Among these are the Breakthrough Prizes set up by Yuri Milner, a Russia-born Israeli entrepreneur (which has given prizes to large teams).
No scientist’s achievements are really solo, any more than a goalscorer’s triumph in football is independent of other players on the field. That’s why the seeming “clustering” of the awards in favoured countries or institutions is unsurprising. But Anjana Ahuja, your columnist, is right to urge that it’s ever more important to cast the net wider than Europe and the US. And, as she says, the proportion of female winners is deplorably low. But this should improve: the cohort of present winners were educated several decades ago, when fewer girls studied physics and maths.
Some argue that we should welcome the existence of mega-awards that elevate a few intellectuals to a transient celebrity status. But there is a downside: the winners’ opinions are sought by the press, and accorded undue respect.
Advertisement
Even the best scientists have narrow expertise; their views on broader topics carry no special weight. Some of the greatest become an embarrassment if given a public platform. A laureate can be found who will support almost any cause, however eccentric, and some exploit their status.
Laureates aren’t necessarily towering intellects: some of the most epochal and rightly recognised discoveries have been made (serendipitously) by people who wouldn’t claim any intellectual superiority to the average university professor. So we should specially welcome the award to such genuinely brilliant pioneers as Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login