logo
Use AI at Work? Your Coworkers May Be Judging You

Use AI at Work? Your Coworkers May Be Judging You

CNET29-05-2025

Bosses everywhere are saying generative AI is the future. The signals emanating from the C-suites of corporations big and small are clear: If artificial intelligence doesn't take your job, it will at least change it significantly.
The catch: If you use AI at work, your coworkers and maybe even your managers may think you're lazy. That is if you can get hired in the first place. This is the finding of a new study by researchers at Duke University published this month in the journal PNAS. Across four studies, the researchers examined whether people who used AI at work worried others would see them as lazy or incompetent and whether those fears were valid.
"We found there was this universal social evaluation penalty where people described as using AI are evaluated as being less competent, less diligent, lazier than people who are described as receiving help from all sorts of other searches," Jessica Reif, a Ph.D. candidate at the Duke University Fuqua School of Business and lead author of the study, told me.
The study highlights the difference between the hype over AI at work and the reality on the ground. Although business leaders and AI companies can't stop themselves from envisioning a utopian AI future in which autonomous agents do most of the work and humans focus on truly creative tasks, workers are skeptical. That skepticism — only 23% of American adults said they expect AI will improve how people do their jobs in a recent survey by Pew — affects how people view coworkers who use these tools.
People worry they are judged for using AI
The Duke University team first looked at whether employees would hesitate to admit they use an AI tool relative to a non-AI tool. The first of four studies found the 500 online participants were more likely to believe they would be judged by a manager or colleague as being lazy, replaceable or less competent if they said they use a generative AI tool versus a non-AI tool.
The second test confirmed it. The 1,215 participants read a paragraph about an employee and rated how lazy, competent, diligent, ambitious, independent, self-assured or dominant they perceived the person to be. The people being rated were described as either receiving help from generative AI (like a lawyer using a tool to summarize information) or non-AI sources (like a paralegal) or were in a control group with no statement about help. People who received AI help were seen as more lazy, less competent, less diligent, less independent and less self-assured than either the control group or those receiving non-AI help.
The case of a lawyer getting help from AI versus a paralegal is just one example. The researchers used 384 different scenarios, with different jobs and types of help. "What we found is that this was pretty consistent across all the occupations we queried," Reif said.
In their third study, the researchers had 1,718 participants serve as "managers" to hire someone for a task. Some of the "candidates" were reported as using AI regularly, and some were people who never use AI. The managers were also asked about their own AI use. Managers who use AI regularly were more likely to see candidates who use AI as a good fit, while those who don't usually preferred candidates who don't.
The third study was unclear about whether AI would actually be helpful for the task, so in the final study, participants were asked to imagine they were hiring a gig worker for a task. They were then asked to evaluate workers who either used AI tools or non-AI tools and rate how they would perceive them for manual tasks or digital tasks. The results found that while people who used AI were seen as more lazy, that perception is reduced if the evaluator uses AI or if AI is clearly useful for the task.
But just because there isn't a penalty doesn't mean there's an advantage, perception-wise, for AI users in that last study, according to Richard Larrick, one of the authors and a professor of management at Duke University. "The people themselves who are heavy AI users don't actually kind of give any particular benefit or reward, in terms of their perceptions, to the AI user," Larrick said. "So it isn't like there's some boost in perceptions when high AI users think about another AI user. It's just that you wipe out for them the laziness perception."
Your CEO may think AI is the future
Ever since large language models like ChatGPT burst onto the scene in 2022, management consultants and corporate executives have been touting generative AI as the next big thing in the workplace. Workplace apps from companies like Google and Microsoft seem more packed each day with new AI functions and prompts. As the technology has matured a bit and more useful applications have arisen, that perception has only gotten stronger for many companies.
Shopify and Duolingo, for instance, both recently announced they would prioritize AI-driven work and try to see if an AI can do a job before hiring a new employee or contractor. A commandment from a CEO to be AI-first is one thing. Actually changing the culture in your workplace and among the people you work around is entirely different.
"I think there are cases where, when the rubber meets the road implementing tools like generative AI, there are challenges," Reif said. "What we're showing is just one such challenge of many." She speculated as more employers, especially tech-savvy ones, prioritize AI use and skills, the social costs will drop eventually. "I think it's going to take a while for this penalty to really go away," she said.
Larrick said that even if general perceptions around AI users change, the social penalty may only disappear for certain tasks. For some work, using generative AI will be more acceptable. For others, it won't.
How to avoid judgment from coworkers
One way not to be judged at work is not to use AI on the job. And that may be what people are doing already, just based on the simple fact that people will judge you, as the researchers found in their first study.
"As long as my choice of adopting AI is based on my theory of what others will think, even as what other people think changes, if my theory doesn't change fast enough, I still might be reluctant to use it and to reveal it," Larrick said. Another way to deal with the perception of laziness is to point out whether AI is saving you time and whether the time you save is being used well, Reif said.
Perceived laziness isn't the only problem with using generative AI at work. There are concerns about whether the work you ask it to do is accurate or competent. So be sure you're checking your work and show that you are, in fact, using skills that can't be easily replaced, said Jack Soll, one of the authors and a professor of management at Duke University.
"The more that employees can make their peers and their bosses understand that it takes skill and knowledge in order to use it appropriately, I think others can then appreciate their AI use," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Springfield, Pennsylvania, commissioners approve micro-hospital, despite opposition from some residents
Springfield, Pennsylvania, commissioners approve micro-hospital, despite opposition from some residents

CBS News

time22 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Springfield, Pennsylvania, commissioners approve micro-hospital, despite opposition from some residents

ChristianaCare has announced Springfield as its second location for a micro-hospital in Delaware County. This comes after the Springfield board of commissioners approved the project during a meeting Wednesday night. Eighty townhomes will be built near the micro-hospital. Some residents at the meeting expressed concerns about ambulance noise, traffic and stormwater runoff. ChristianaCare "I have mixed feelings about it," Gary Lockman from Springfield said. "Generally, I'm in favor of it. I think we need it. I know it doesn't replace the hospitals that have closed." The micro-hospital won't be as large as a full-scale hospital, but ChristianaCare said it will include 10 inpatient beds with an emergency room equipped to handle heart attacks, strokes, injuries and falls. Springfield solicitor Jim Byrne said the project will create jobs and generate more than a million dollars every year in tax revenue. "We believe the hospital will take all reasonable steps to minimize any impact on the surrounding residents, but the commissioners have to look at what's best for the whole town," Byrne said. ChristianaCare The new facility will be 2.5 miles from Springfield Hospital, which closed down three years ago. "I think it'll be good because we seem to be running out of hospitals with the closing of Crozer," Mike Whelan from Springfield said. The Springfield micro-hospital is set to open in late 2026. ChristianaCare's micro-hospital in Aston is set to open in late 2026 to early 2027.

Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes

Wall Street Journal

time23 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes

A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at

Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions

CNN

time24 minutes ago

  • CNN

Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions

A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store