Workers who learn to use AI effectively may gain a significant advantage as workplaces become increasingly AI-focused, according to new research.
Generative AI is rapidly changing the way people work, raising concerns about job security and whether machines could eventually replace human employees. However, new research from the University of Vaasa in Finland suggests that workers who view AI as a useful collaborator rather than a threat may actually become more engaged in their jobs and better positioned for long-term career success.
In his doctoral dissertation, Zhe Zhu examined how generative AI (GenAI) technologies such as ChatGPT and Gemini are influencing both workplace decision-making and employees’ day-to-day experiences. The research focuses on how organizations and workers are adapting as AI becomes a more common part of professional life.
Many employees worry that AI could reduce their control over their work or make their skills obsolete. Yet Zhu’s findings suggest that these concerns can sometimes motivate workers to adopt AI tools more readily in an effort to stay competitive and maintain their value in the workplace.
“As NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has pointed out, workers are not simply being replaced by AI, but by those who have learned to use GenAI to work more effectively. The workers that perceive GenAI more positively are also more engaged and adaptable in their careers,” notes Zhu.
Why Trust in AI Matters
According to the research, trust is one of the most important factors shaping successful collaboration between employees and AI systems.
Too much trust can be problematic because workers may accept AI-generated answers without properly checking them for accuracy. On the other hand, too little trust may prevent employees from taking advantage of the technology’s potential benefits. Finding the right balance is critical for both individuals and organizations.
Building a Responsible AI Workplace
Zhu argues that the success of generative AI in the workplace depends less on the technology itself and more on how organizations implement and manage it. As AI becomes integrated into everyday operations, companies must address issues such as ethics, data privacy, and responsible governance.
“Organizations should follow a strategic roadmap to align the technology with their goals and build ecosystems with industry and academic partners. My research proposes an eight-step framework that guides organizations in moving from experimentation toward a more integrated and purposeful use of GenAI,” states Zhu.
The research suggests that workplaces are steadily moving toward an AI-native future in which AI is no longer treated as a separate tool but becomes woven directly into workflows, systems, and business processes.
The Future of Work in the AI Era
Zhu believes the rise of AI represents the beginning of a major technological transformation that will reshape the labor market.
“We are in a new industrial revolution. Some jobs will disappear, but new forms of work and entirely new industries will also emerge around AI infrastructure, data centers, and digital services. Instead of fearing the technology, employees should learn how to use it critically and develop their skills alongside it,” says Zhu.
While AI is expected to eliminate some roles, the research highlights the likelihood that it will also create new opportunities and industries. Workers who learn how to use AI effectively and thoughtfully may be better equipped to succeed as the technology continues to evolve.
Dissertation
Zhu, Zhe (2026) Generative Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Strategic Decisions and Human Adaptations. Acta Wasaensia 586. Doctoral dissertation. University of Vaasa.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
9 Comments
thanks for this
BS at its worse.
“The Future of Work Belongs to People Who Master AI”
What does that mean? An LLM is not unlike a friendly, flattering human librarian who not only can tell one where to find information, but will generally retrieve it and at least summarize it if not actually make it available. The librarian apparently knows much of the material. They apparently can act like an Idiot Savant, only across a wide spectrum of knowledge and not restricted to a narrow field.
Thus, the most important characteristics of people “who master AI” are to ask clear, unambiguous questions, and know enough to realize that the AI misunderstood the question, is incorrect, or hallucinating. That is, the person must have the attributes of what we would commonly call a well-educated and well-rounded person. The first attribute probably removes most of those on the left-hand side of the classic Bell Curve, and the second attribute probably removes the tail on the right-hand side because they tend to become specialists (PhDs), knowing everything about almost nothing. Indeed, they are the very people most likely to be replaced by AI. They will only be needed if the LLMs can’t be creative, which so far, they don’t seem to do well at.
As long as humanity retains a firm grasp of the virtual, remote cutoff switches, it will control the LLMs and ask the questions, rather than be told what to do — that is assuming that the LLMs could find some use for us if they were in control.
The next question becomes, “What do humans do well that is necessary and valued by our evolutionary replacements, and can’t be done by by them?”
Yeah, the AI companies are trying as hard as they can to force everyone to use AI, for some reason. It’s like AI and search: I can read the AI summary, but then investigate the links to confirm, or I can just investigate the links themselves. Why do I need the extra step of going through the AI summary? Because “it’s the future” isn’t a very good answer.
They want AI to be the middleman for everything, the interface between a person and the world. That’s supposed to make the world better, for some reason. I’m sure it is completely not connected to the explosion of profits they anticipate, and the massive control/power it will give AI companies. Yeah, it must be some other reason they are forcing it on us like this.
Doesn’t anyone remember Google Sidewalk Toronto? It was cancelled because this mass surveillance system disguised as a techno-utopia was hated by everyone in the city, except for the city council who tried to force it on the populace.
We don’t need an extra AI subscription to live life. This envisioned AI future is an unacceptable prospect.
They are already offering subscriptions to premium versions of AI. Anticipate that in the future everyone will be expected to pay regularly for AI services that they have come to depend on.
Note the Microsoft business model: Originally, you bought an OS and paid for programs you wanted, like Outlook. Then, they started bundling ‘apps’ with the OS, and required an internet connection to activate the OS. Then, instead of selling robust software, they pushed monthly updates over the internet, along with ‘apps,’ and turned into bloatware. Word has it that without asking, the Chrome browser recently started installing a 4 GB AI app. My Dell laptop, that I have used for several years, was recently prevented from accessing the internet because supposedly the activation key is missing. My desktop OS is no longer supported, and even if I wanted to, I can’t upgrade my OS to Windows 11 because of hardware limitations. As I see it, the intent is to smooth out and increase the monthly income from Windows users. Follow the money!
The future of work belongs to those who realize “AI” (actually a minor twist on failed neural network tech from the 1990’s) is nothing more than essentially worthless demoware that has been hyped up as part of a Venture Capital multi $10’s billions Pump and Dump operation.
So just like the Dot Com Bubble scam of the late 1990’s but on a much larger scale.. Just a VC Scam.
There is no “intelligence” or encoded expertize or substantive knowledge representation in ML/LLM’s etc. None. They are just imperfect probability models based on usually low quality incomplete domain data sets. Little more than glorified Bayesian Spam Filters.
There was encoded knowledge and expertize in “AI Systems” during the first AI Bubble. In the 1980’s. All those expert systems, rule engines, inference engines etc failed as viable end user software because knowledge representation / knowledge reasoning is a wicked hard / impossible problem. Plus the economics make no sense. Kinda works software has no viable financial future.
The current ML/LLM based AI Bubble will collapse when all the current second level marks (sorry savvy investors) dump their “AI” investments on the final Biggest Fools. Just like in 4Q 1999/ 1Q 2000. Who will be left with the final multi $10’s billions ($100B’s?) in losses.
The future belongs to those with real tangible skills and the street smarts to avoid the current VC Pump and Dump scam. And all future ones.
How much did Facebook and others lose on the “next big thing” AR? $30B? $50B?…
This “AI” Bubble is no different. Except I would not be surprised if final losses are into 2008 Financial System Collapse territory. Saying that Lehman Bros Chapter 7 finally netted out with only a $7B loss. The big AI Bubble companies losses will easily top that. By up to an order of magnitude.
All those “AI” skills acquired in the 1980’s were worthless in the job market by the early 1990’s. All those Dot Com 1.0 skills acquired during the late 1990’s were poison on resumes for years later. So your worked for Pets.com?. Resume gets tossed…
ML/LLM “AI skills” will be no different. Worthless if not resume toxic in a few years time.
AI actually goes back much farther than the 1990s. During WWII, mathematician/code breaker Alan Turing ruminated on AI and proposed what has come to be known as the “Turing Test.” I personally believe that the state of the art is such that pretty much all of the current LLMs pass the Turing Test. Have you actually used any of them? They have their issues, but it is uncanny how much it seems like one is involved with an exchange with another human, exactly as Turing had suggested as the discriminator for AI. I don’t think that you should be so dismissive of the future of AI.
I am a Sr. Court Reporter. I have been a court reporter for 37 years. My grandfather told my father, don’t be a court reporter, in 1960. So I take this fluff with the bubbles it deserves. I love when I call any AI run site, and say something simple like, customer service, and then it comes back with a series of stupid choices, none of which are proper for my question.
So I use my brain to speak a fake, made up language, and then it has to give me a human. Yes, AI makes great campaign videos and so on but as to dealing with the unexpected, it will always fail. The unexpected, that’s where a water based brain comes in and will continue to thrive. I don’t buy the article