Proliferation of AI Tools: A Multifaceted Evaluation of User Perceptions and Emerging Trend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, epitomized by tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Bard, Copilot, and Copy AI, has significantly reshaped various professional landscapes. This study aimed to assess the impact of these AI tools on professional performance, job dynamics, and societal perceptions. Amidst their benefits in enhancing efficiency and introducing novel capabilities, these tools also pose challenges concerning job displacement, ethical implications, and societal balance. Data from 1623 professionals across diverse industries were analyzed to assess AI tool utilization, functionality, user satisfaction, and perceived impacts. The results indicate that AI tools substantially enhance professional efficiency and are vital in diverse tasks including data analysis and decision-making. However, they also significantly affect traditional job roles, underscoring the urgency for workforce adaptation and skill development. Notably, the study unveils a generational gap in AI adoption, with younger users showing higher engagement compared to older cohorts, suggesting a digital divide. The study’s novelty lies in its comprehensive analysis of AI tool impacts across multiple professions, highlighting ethical and societal challenges. Concerns about AI-induced job displacement, privacy, and ethical use were evident, calling for responsible AI integration. The study advocate for targeted reskilling programs to equip the workforce for an AI-driven future and ethical guidelines to ensure AI tools' responsible development and use. This research contributes to the understanding of AI’s role in modern professional settings and offers strategic insights for policymakers, educators, and industry leaders. Emphasizing a balanced approach, the study urges for AI deployment that maximizes benefits while addressing potential risks and societal concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".