Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interactions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.11364 v1 pith:GWRDSFXT submitted 2024-02-17 cs.HC

Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interactions

classification cs.HC
keywords genaiproductivityresearchautomationdesignfactorshumanloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) systems offer opportunities to increase user productivity in many tasks, such as programming and writing. However, while they boost productivity in some studies, many others show that users are working ineffectively with GenAI systems and losing productivity. Despite the apparent novelty of these usability challenges, these 'ironies of automation' have been observed for over three decades in Human Factors research on the introduction of automation in domains such as aviation, automated driving, and intelligence. We draw on this extensive research alongside recent GenAI user studies to outline four key reasons for productivity loss with GenAI systems: a shift in users' roles from production to evaluation, unhelpful restructuring of workflows, interruptions, and a tendency for automation to make easy tasks easier and hard tasks harder. We then suggest how Human Factors research can also inform GenAI system design to mitigate productivity loss by using approaches such as continuous feedback, system personalization, ecological interface design, task stabilization, and clear task allocation. Thus, we ground developments in GenAI system usability in decades of Human Factors research, ensuring that the design of human-AI interactions in this rapidly moving field learns from history instead of repeating it.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. How Do Software Professionals Evaluate AI-Generated Code? (Registered Report)

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A registered protocol will use survey responses plus laddering and semi-structured interviews to build a grounded theory of how software professionals evaluate AI-generated code.

  2. A meta-analysis of the effect of generative AI on productivity and learning in programming

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Meta-analysis of 23 studies shows moderate productivity gains from GenAI coding assistants (Hedges' g=0.33) but no significant effect on learning (g=0.14).