The Impact of AI on Perceived Job Decency and Meaningfulness: A Case Study

Kuntal Ghosh, Shadan Sadeghian
6/20/2024
cs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in workplaces stands to change the way humans work, with job satisfaction intrinsically linked to work life. Existing research on human-AI collaboration tends to prioritize performance over the experiential aspects of work. In contrast, this paper explores the impact of AI on job decency and meaningfulness in workplaces. Through interviews in the Information Technology (IT) domain, we not only examined the current work environment, but also explored the perceived evolution of the workplace ecosystem with the introduction of an AI. Findings from the preliminary exploratory study reveal that respondents tend to visualize a workplace where humans continue to play a dominant role, even with the introduction of advanced AIs. In this prospective scenario, AI is seen as serving as a complement rather than replacing the human workforce. Furthermore, respondents believe that the introduction of AI will maintain or potentially increase overall job satisfaction.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{ghosh2024impact,
  title  = {The Impact of AI on Perceived Job Decency and Meaningfulness: A Case Study},
  author = {Kuntal Ghosh and Shadan Sadeghian},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2406.14273},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14273v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2406.14273.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2406.14273)

Discussion