日韩中文字幕在线一区二区三区,亚洲热视频在线观看,久久精品午夜一区二区福利,精品一区二区三区在线观看l,麻花传媒剧电影,亚洲香蕉伊综合在人在线,免费av一区二区三区在线,亚洲成在线人视频观看
          首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 商潮 專題 品牌中心
          雜志訂閱

          新研究發(fā)現(xiàn):“AI腦疲勞”現(xiàn)象讓員工更疲憊而非更高效

          Sasha Rogelberg
          2026-03-15

          研究人員警告稱,過(guò)度使用需要人工監(jiān)督的AI工具可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致“AI腦疲勞”。

          文本設(shè)置
          小號(hào)
          默認(rèn)
          大號(hào)
          Plus(0條)

          圖片來(lái)源:Getty Images

          如果你是AI工具的早期使用者之一,你的大腦或許已經(jīng)完全透支。

          以軟件工程師、Cua AI創(chuàng)始人弗朗切斯科·博納奇為例。上個(gè)月,他曾經(jīng)警告稱會(huì)出現(xiàn)“氛圍編程癱瘓”。他在X平臺(tái)發(fā)帖稱,AI能夠完成大量任務(wù),讓員工有時(shí)間產(chǎn)生新想法,再把這些想法交給機(jī)器人去完善。但結(jié)果并不是員工能力增強(qiáng)、效率更高,反而是出現(xiàn)了一堆半成品項(xiàng)目,以及不堪重負(fù)、既無(wú)法完成也難以理清這些項(xiàng)目的人。

          博納奇寫(xiě)道:“這是一個(gè)悖論:能力越強(qiáng),你就越覺(jué)得非用它不可;使用得越多,你的注意力就越分散;而注意力越分散,你真正可以完成的事情就越少。”

          長(zhǎng)期撰寫(xiě)計(jì)算機(jī)編程博客的史蒂夫·耶格在Medium平臺(tái)發(fā)表文章,將這種現(xiàn)象稱為“AI吸血鬼”,認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)“令人擔(dān)憂的新現(xiàn)象”。他把AI鼓勵(lì)人類過(guò)度工作的傾向,比作FX TV的電視劇《吸血鬼生活》(What We Do In The Shadows)中的角色科林·羅賓遜——一個(gè)靠吸食人類能量為生的“能量吸血鬼”。波士頓咨詢公司(Boston Consulting Group)則用另一個(gè)說(shuō)法來(lái)形容這一現(xiàn)象。

          研究未來(lái)工作形態(tài)的專家把它稱為“AI腦疲勞”,并警告稱,對(duì)AI工具進(jìn)行過(guò)度監(jiān)督,可能會(huì)讓員工不堪重負(fù),反而損害工作效率。波士頓咨詢公司對(duì)1,488名美國(guó)全職員工進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)AI工具的使用數(shù)量與生產(chǎn)率提升并不總是成正比。受訪者表示,當(dāng)使用三種或以下AI工具時(shí),他們的生產(chǎn)率有所提高;但當(dāng)使用四種或以上AI工具時(shí),自我報(bào)告的生產(chǎn)率反而明顯大幅下降。

          研究人員指出,“AI腦疲勞”可能導(dǎo)致企業(yè)流失寶貴人才,并帶來(lái)數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元的損失。研究引用了Gartner在2018年的一份報(bào)告,該報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),一家年收入50億美元的公司因決策不當(dāng),每年損失約1.5億美元。此外,這項(xiàng)研究還發(fā)現(xiàn),在自稱出現(xiàn)“AI腦疲勞”的員工中,34%表示有明確的離職意向;而在沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)這種情況的員工中,這一比例為25%。

          AI生產(chǎn)率之爭(zhēng)

          受訪員工表示,當(dāng)與AI相關(guān)的工作需要更高程度的人工監(jiān)督時(shí),例如需要閱讀和解讀大語(yǔ)言模型生成的文本,而不是讓AI智能體完成行政類任務(wù),他們?cè)诠ぷ髦械哪X力消耗增加了14%。高強(qiáng)度的AI監(jiān)督還導(dǎo)致精神疲勞感增加12%,信息過(guò)載感增加19%。

          許多受訪者稱,過(guò)度使用AI會(huì)帶來(lái)一種“腦霧”或“大腦嗡嗡作響”的感覺(jué),以至于他們不得不暫時(shí)離開(kāi)電腦休息。還有人說(shuō),在這種“腦力過(guò)載”的狀態(tài)下,他們犯的小錯(cuò)誤數(shù)量也隨之增加。

          研究作者、波士頓咨詢公司的董事總經(jīng)理兼合伙人朱莉·貝達(dá)德對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“人們?cè)谑褂眠@些工具時(shí)確實(shí)完成了更多工作,但同時(shí)也感覺(jué)自己的腦力接近極限,似乎他們需要做出的決定太多。事情推進(jìn)得太快,他們?nèi)狈ψ銐虻恼J(rèn)知能力來(lái)處理所有信息并做出所有決定?!?/p>

          圍繞AI能夠提升生產(chǎn)率的夸張說(shuō)辭,加上并不確定的數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果,引發(fā)了關(guān)于職場(chǎng)使用這項(xiàng)技術(shù)的實(shí)際效能的廣泛爭(zhēng)論。Meta前高級(jí)工程負(fù)責(zé)人埃里克·梅耶爾最近感嘆稱,Anthropic的Claude Code在短短幾個(gè)月內(nèi)“推動(dòng)軟件工程的技術(shù)水平進(jìn)步,甚至超過(guò)了75年的學(xué)術(shù)研究”。

          圣路易斯聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)2025年2月的一份報(bào)告估計(jì),在職場(chǎng)使用生成式AI使整體生產(chǎn)率提高了1.1%。這意味著員工在使用該工具的每個(gè)小時(shí)內(nèi),工作效率提高了33%。

          不過(guò),高盛集團(tuán)(Goldman Sachs)本月的一項(xiàng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),“在整體經(jīng)濟(jì)層面,生產(chǎn)率與AI采用之間沒(méi)有明顯關(guān)聯(lián)”,AI的效果主要體現(xiàn)在客戶服務(wù)和軟件開(kāi)發(fā)任務(wù)這兩個(gè)具體應(yīng)用場(chǎng)景。該報(bào)告還引用了一項(xiàng)對(duì)6,000名企業(yè)高管的調(diào)查,其中90%的受訪者表示,在過(guò)去三年里,他們沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)AI對(duì)企業(yè)生產(chǎn)率或就業(yè)產(chǎn)生明顯影響。這些高管預(yù)計(jì),在未來(lái)三年里,AI將使生產(chǎn)率提高1.4%。

          AI帶來(lái)的職場(chǎng)生產(chǎn)率提升似乎也伴隨著代價(jià)。加州大學(xué)伯克利分校(University of California at Berkeley)研究人員對(duì)一家擁有200名員工的美國(guó)科技公司進(jìn)行了為期八個(gè)月的研究,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),AI工具雖然能夠增加員工的工作量,但隨之而來(lái)的卻是更嚴(yán)重的職業(yè)倦怠,從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看反而拖累了工作效率。

          研究人員得出的結(jié)論是,AI實(shí)則加劇了工作強(qiáng)度,而不是為員工釋放更多時(shí)間和心理空間。員工需要處理的信息越來(lái)越多,工作與非工作之間的界限也變得更加模糊。換言之,AI更像是 “吸血鬼”或“油炸鍋”——它不會(huì)替你完成工作,卻會(huì)迫使你比以往更加頻繁地用腦。

          貝達(dá)德表示:“這些都是真實(shí)存在的成本。企業(yè)會(huì)說(shuō):‘我們希望減少錯(cuò)誤,優(yōu)化決策,并留住最優(yōu)秀的人才?!?/p>

          在AI時(shí)代重塑職場(chǎng)

          貝達(dá)德指出,解決“AI腦疲勞”的辦法并不是在工作中放棄AI,而是要以批判性思維審視如何使用這項(xiàng)技術(shù)。她表示,許多公司在引入AI時(shí),只是把它簡(jiǎn)單疊加到員工原有的一整套工作職責(zé)之上。相反,企業(yè)管理者應(yīng)該重新設(shè)計(jì)崗位職責(zé),并為員工提供關(guān)于規(guī)劃和任務(wù)優(yōu)先級(jí)管理技能的培訓(xùn)。

          研究發(fā)現(xiàn),當(dāng)管理者為員工提供使用AI工具的培訓(xùn)和支持時(shí),“腦疲勞”現(xiàn)象會(huì)有所減少。伯克利研究人員建議,應(yīng)對(duì)“AI腦疲勞”的方法是把需要使用AI工具的工作集中安排在一天中的某個(gè)時(shí)間段。研究人員還表示,員工應(yīng)該為自己安排一些時(shí)間從工作中抽離出來(lái),尤其是在面對(duì)復(fù)雜決策或高強(qiáng)度任務(wù)之前。換言之,AI是一種非常強(qiáng)大的工具,人們也需要適時(shí)與它保持距離,給自己一點(diǎn)喘息空間。畢竟吸血鬼會(huì)飛,但有時(shí)也需要給它們剪剪翅膀。

          貝達(dá)德說(shuō):“對(duì)企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和管理者而言,一個(gè)令人鼓舞的信息是:在AI時(shí)代重新思考工作的形態(tài),你們肩負(fù)著至關(guān)重要的使命。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

          譯者:劉進(jìn)龍

          如果你是AI工具的早期使用者之一,你的大腦或許已經(jīng)完全透支。

          以軟件工程師、Cua AI創(chuàng)始人弗朗切斯科·博納奇為例。上個(gè)月,他曾經(jīng)警告稱會(huì)出現(xiàn)“氛圍編程癱瘓”。他在X平臺(tái)發(fā)帖稱,AI能夠完成大量任務(wù),讓員工有時(shí)間產(chǎn)生新想法,再把這些想法交給機(jī)器人去完善。但結(jié)果并不是員工能力增強(qiáng)、效率更高,反而是出現(xiàn)了一堆半成品項(xiàng)目,以及不堪重負(fù)、既無(wú)法完成也難以理清這些項(xiàng)目的人。

          博納奇寫(xiě)道:“這是一個(gè)悖論:能力越強(qiáng),你就越覺(jué)得非用它不可;使用得越多,你的注意力就越分散;而注意力越分散,你真正可以完成的事情就越少?!?/p>

          長(zhǎng)期撰寫(xiě)計(jì)算機(jī)編程博客的史蒂夫·耶格在Medium平臺(tái)發(fā)表文章,將這種現(xiàn)象稱為“AI吸血鬼”,認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)“令人擔(dān)憂的新現(xiàn)象”。他把AI鼓勵(lì)人類過(guò)度工作的傾向,比作FX TV的電視劇《吸血鬼生活》(What We Do In The Shadows)中的角色科林·羅賓遜——一個(gè)靠吸食人類能量為生的“能量吸血鬼”。波士頓咨詢公司(Boston Consulting Group)則用另一個(gè)說(shuō)法來(lái)形容這一現(xiàn)象。

          研究未來(lái)工作形態(tài)的專家把它稱為“AI腦疲勞”,并警告稱,對(duì)AI工具進(jìn)行過(guò)度監(jiān)督,可能會(huì)讓員工不堪重負(fù),反而損害工作效率。波士頓咨詢公司對(duì)1,488名美國(guó)全職員工進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)AI工具的使用數(shù)量與生產(chǎn)率提升并不總是成正比。受訪者表示,當(dāng)使用三種或以下AI工具時(shí),他們的生產(chǎn)率有所提高;但當(dāng)使用四種或以上AI工具時(shí),自我報(bào)告的生產(chǎn)率反而明顯大幅下降。

          研究人員指出,“AI腦疲勞”可能導(dǎo)致企業(yè)流失寶貴人才,并帶來(lái)數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元的損失。研究引用了Gartner在2018年的一份報(bào)告,該報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),一家年收入50億美元的公司因決策不當(dāng),每年損失約1.5億美元。此外,這項(xiàng)研究還發(fā)現(xiàn),在自稱出現(xiàn)“AI腦疲勞”的員工中,34%表示有明確的離職意向;而在沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)這種情況的員工中,這一比例為25%。

          AI生產(chǎn)率之爭(zhēng)

          受訪員工表示,當(dāng)與AI相關(guān)的工作需要更高程度的人工監(jiān)督時(shí),例如需要閱讀和解讀大語(yǔ)言模型生成的文本,而不是讓AI智能體完成行政類任務(wù),他們?cè)诠ぷ髦械哪X力消耗增加了14%。高強(qiáng)度的AI監(jiān)督還導(dǎo)致精神疲勞感增加12%,信息過(guò)載感增加19%。

          許多受訪者稱,過(guò)度使用AI會(huì)帶來(lái)一種“腦霧”或“大腦嗡嗡作響”的感覺(jué),以至于他們不得不暫時(shí)離開(kāi)電腦休息。還有人說(shuō),在這種“腦力過(guò)載”的狀態(tài)下,他們犯的小錯(cuò)誤數(shù)量也隨之增加。

          研究作者、波士頓咨詢公司的董事總經(jīng)理兼合伙人朱莉·貝達(dá)德對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“人們?cè)谑褂眠@些工具時(shí)確實(shí)完成了更多工作,但同時(shí)也感覺(jué)自己的腦力接近極限,似乎他們需要做出的決定太多。事情推進(jìn)得太快,他們?nèi)狈ψ銐虻恼J(rèn)知能力來(lái)處理所有信息并做出所有決定?!?/p>

          圍繞AI能夠提升生產(chǎn)率的夸張說(shuō)辭,加上并不確定的數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果,引發(fā)了關(guān)于職場(chǎng)使用這項(xiàng)技術(shù)的實(shí)際效能的廣泛爭(zhēng)論。Meta前高級(jí)工程負(fù)責(zé)人埃里克·梅耶爾最近感嘆稱,Anthropic的Claude Code在短短幾個(gè)月內(nèi)“推動(dòng)軟件工程的技術(shù)水平進(jìn)步,甚至超過(guò)了75年的學(xué)術(shù)研究”。

          圣路易斯聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)2025年2月的一份報(bào)告估計(jì),在職場(chǎng)使用生成式AI使整體生產(chǎn)率提高了1.1%。這意味著員工在使用該工具的每個(gè)小時(shí)內(nèi),工作效率提高了33%。

          不過(guò),高盛集團(tuán)(Goldman Sachs)本月的一項(xiàng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),“在整體經(jīng)濟(jì)層面,生產(chǎn)率與AI采用之間沒(méi)有明顯關(guān)聯(lián)”,AI的效果主要體現(xiàn)在客戶服務(wù)和軟件開(kāi)發(fā)任務(wù)這兩個(gè)具體應(yīng)用場(chǎng)景。該報(bào)告還引用了一項(xiàng)對(duì)6,000名企業(yè)高管的調(diào)查,其中90%的受訪者表示,在過(guò)去三年里,他們沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)AI對(duì)企業(yè)生產(chǎn)率或就業(yè)產(chǎn)生明顯影響。這些高管預(yù)計(jì),在未來(lái)三年里,AI將使生產(chǎn)率提高1.4%。

          AI帶來(lái)的職場(chǎng)生產(chǎn)率提升似乎也伴隨著代價(jià)。加州大學(xué)伯克利分校(University of California at Berkeley)研究人員對(duì)一家擁有200名員工的美國(guó)科技公司進(jìn)行了為期八個(gè)月的研究,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),AI工具雖然能夠增加員工的工作量,但隨之而來(lái)的卻是更嚴(yán)重的職業(yè)倦怠,從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看反而拖累了工作效率。

          研究人員得出的結(jié)論是,AI實(shí)則加劇了工作強(qiáng)度,而不是為員工釋放更多時(shí)間和心理空間。員工需要處理的信息越來(lái)越多,工作與非工作之間的界限也變得更加模糊。換言之,AI更像是 “吸血鬼”或“油炸鍋”——它不會(huì)替你完成工作,卻會(huì)迫使你比以往更加頻繁地用腦。

          貝達(dá)德表示:“這些都是真實(shí)存在的成本。企業(yè)會(huì)說(shuō):‘我們希望減少錯(cuò)誤,優(yōu)化決策,并留住最優(yōu)秀的人才。’”

          在AI時(shí)代重塑職場(chǎng)

          貝達(dá)德指出,解決“AI腦疲勞”的辦法并不是在工作中放棄AI,而是要以批判性思維審視如何使用這項(xiàng)技術(shù)。她表示,許多公司在引入AI時(shí),只是把它簡(jiǎn)單疊加到員工原有的一整套工作職責(zé)之上。相反,企業(yè)管理者應(yīng)該重新設(shè)計(jì)崗位職責(zé),并為員工提供關(guān)于規(guī)劃和任務(wù)優(yōu)先級(jí)管理技能的培訓(xùn)。

          研究發(fā)現(xiàn),當(dāng)管理者為員工提供使用AI工具的培訓(xùn)和支持時(shí),“腦疲勞”現(xiàn)象會(huì)有所減少。伯克利研究人員建議,應(yīng)對(duì)“AI腦疲勞”的方法是把需要使用AI工具的工作集中安排在一天中的某個(gè)時(shí)間段。研究人員還表示,員工應(yīng)該為自己安排一些時(shí)間從工作中抽離出來(lái),尤其是在面對(duì)復(fù)雜決策或高強(qiáng)度任務(wù)之前。換言之,AI是一種非常強(qiáng)大的工具,人們也需要適時(shí)與它保持距離,給自己一點(diǎn)喘息空間。畢竟吸血鬼會(huì)飛,但有時(shí)也需要給它們剪剪翅膀。

          貝達(dá)德說(shuō):“對(duì)企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和管理者而言,一個(gè)令人鼓舞的信息是:在AI時(shí)代重新思考工作的形態(tài),你們肩負(fù)著至關(guān)重要的使命?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))

          譯者:劉進(jìn)龍

          If you’re one of the early AI adopters, maybe your brain is totally fried.

          Take Francesco Bonacci, a software engineer and founder of Cua AI, who warned of “vibe coding paralysis” last month. In an X post, he described AI’s ability to complete incredible taskloads, leaving workers time to generate new ideas they can then give to bots to flesh out. But the result was not an empowered, productive employee. Rather, it was a mountain of half-finished projects and a human too overwhelmed to complete or make sense of any of it.

          “The paradox: the more capability you have, the more you feel compelled to use it. The more you use it, the more fragmented your attention becomes. The more fragmented your attention, the less you actually ship,” Bonacci wrote.

          Steve Yegge, a longtime blogger about computer programming, called this the “AI vampire” in a Medium essay, arguing that it was a “concerning new phenomenon.” He likened AI’s tendency to encourage human overwork to Colin Robinson, an “energy vampire” from the FX TV series What We Do In The Shadows, who thrived off the enervation of human beings. Boston Consulting Group has another phrase for this.

          Future-of-work experts call it “AI brain fry” and warn the excessive oversight of AI tools could overwhelm employees at the expense of workplace productivity. A study conducted by Boston Consulting Group found in a survey of 1,488 full-time U.S.-based workers, the number of AI tools used did not always correlate with increased productivity. While respondents reported increased productivity when using three or fewer AI tools, when they said they used four or more, self-reported productivity plummeted.

          The researchers indicated AI brain fry could lose companies valuable talent and cost them millions of dollars. They cited a 2018 report from Gartner, which found suboptimal decision-making at a $5 billion revenue firm cost it $150 million per year. Moreover, the study found that among workers who reported AI brain fry, 34% showed active intention to leave the company (ie, quit). That’s compared to 25% among those who did not report AI brain fry.

          The AI productivity debate

          The surveyed workers said that when their AI-related work required higher levels of oversight—reading through and interpreting text a large language model generated versus an AI agent completing administrative tasks, for example—they expended 14% more mental effort at work. High AI oversight was also associated with 12% greater mental fatigue and 19% greater information overload.

          Many respondents reported a “fog” or “buzzing” associated with overuse of AI that required them to physically step away from their computers. Others said the number of small mistakes they made increased as a result of feeling this brain fry.

          “People were using the tool and getting a lot more done, but also feeling like they were reaching the limits of their brain power, like there were too many decisions to make,” Julie Bedard, study author and managing director and partner at Boston Consulting Group, told Fortune. “Things were moving too fast, and they didn’t have the cognitive ability to process all the information and make all the decisions.”

          Sweeping claims about AI’s productivity-increasing capabilities combined with inconclusive data has sparked widespread debate on the efficacy of using the technology in the workplace. Erik Meijer, a former senior engineering leader at Meta, recently marvelled that Anthropic’s Claude Code has “pushed the state of the art in software engineering further than 75 years of academic research” in just a matter of months.

          A February 2025 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimated a 1.1% increase in aggregate productivity as a result of using generative in the AI workplace—a boost that translated to workers becoming 33% more productive each hour they use the tool.

          An analysis from Goldman Sachs this month, however, found no “meaningful relationship between productivity and AI adoption at the economy-wide level,” but rather was effective in just two specific use cases: customer service and software development tasks. That report follows a survey of 6,000 of C-suite executives, 90% of whom found no evidence of AI impacting productivity or employment in their workplaces in the past three years. Those executives forecast AI would increase productivity by 1.4% in the next three years.

          Reported increases in workplace productivity as a result of AI also seem to come with a cost. An eight-month study of a 200-person U.S. tech firm led by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found that AI tools were able to increase an employee’s workload, which subsequently led to more burnout and overall acted as a drag on workplace efficiency in the long run.

          The researchers concluded that AI actually intensifying work, as opposed to freeing up more time and mental space. Employees are processing more information and have less of a boundary between work and non-work. AI really is something like a vampire or a fryer, in other words—it won’t do the work for you, but force you to use your brain a lot more than you’re used to.

          “Those are all real costs,” Bedard said. “Companies [say], ‘We want fewer errors, we want better decisions, and we want our best people to stay.’”

          Redesigning the workplace in the age of AI

          Bedard noted the answer to resolving AI brain fry is not to eliminate AI at work, but to think critically about how it is being implemented. Too many companies are introducing the technology in the workplace by dumping it on top of an employee’s already-established set of responsibilities. Instead, workplace leaders should instead redesign roles and give employees training on planning and prioritization skills, she said.

          The study found when managers provided training and support on using AI tools, brain fry decreased. The Berkeley researchers suggested the antidote to AI brain fry is to batch activities requiring AI tools to a specific block of the work day. They said employees should build in times to take a step back from their work, in particular ahead of a challenging decision or demanding task. In other words, AI is such a powerful tool, you need to step back from it to catch your breath. Vampires can fly, after all, but you need to clip their wings at times.

          “One really hopeful message for leaders and managers is, You have a really important role to play here in rethinking what work looks like in a world of AI,” Bedard said.

          財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
          0條Plus
          精彩評(píng)論
          評(píng)論

          撰寫(xiě)或查看更多評(píng)論

          請(qǐng)打開(kāi)財(cái)富Plus APP

          前往打開(kāi)