“In the mainstream literature, AI is often conceptualized as having a two-fold purpose: to take over simple jobs or routine tasks from humans (commonly referred to as “automation”), and to assist humans in more complex tasks, such as” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 1) […] “data analysis and decision-making (commonly referred to as “augmentation”) (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2) […] “Tasks that are performed by humans versus those conducted by AI-enabled automation or augmentation solutions (referred to in the text as “AI-solutions”) are a moving target. This is due to the pace of technological change and idiosyncrasies in each workplace ecosystem (for example, digitalizing a car manufacturing plant is different from digitalizing investment banking advisory services). Moreover, what is commonly accomplished by humans versus by AI has changed considerably in the past decades (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2017;Daugherty&Wilson,2018; Davenport & Kirby, 2016).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Perspektiivi määratlemine:

“Our research takes as its starting point Raisch and Krakowski’s (2021, p. 203) review essay inviting scholars to apply a paradox theory perspective (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) in their empirical studies of AI in organizations to explore “human–machine interactions in real-world settings.” According to the paradox perspective, AI-enabled automation and augmentation solutions are both contradictory and interdependent, leading to inherent tension between the two (Schad et al., 2016).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Lakkamatu õppimine:

“Rather, our research emphasizes a need for continual learning for a harmonious co-existence to form between humans and locally implemented AI-solutions, and longterm development work for people to comprehend the nature of the new technology and to find the perfect “fit” between humans and AI.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Inimese ja tehisintellekti kooseksisteerimine:

“We thus define the co-existence of humans and AI in the workplace ecosystem as organizational members interacting with AI-solutions, including any kind of contact or bond between people and AI generating beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and behavioral patterns once the AI-solution is implemented and as it evolves over time.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 3)

Relatsiooniline suhe:

“Humans shape AI through their daily choices, actions, and interactions by defining objectives, setting constraints, generating, and choosing the training data, and providing AI with feedback (Deng et al., 2017). Simultaneously, AI shapes human behavior by informing, guiding, and steering human judgment (Lindebaum et al., 2020; Moser et al., 2022).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 4)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Our study offers practical advice for business leaders and HR professionals interested in implementing AI and other digital technologies.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 14)

Einola, K., & Khoreva, V. (2022). Best friend or broken tool? Exploring the co-existence of humans and artificial intelligence in the workplace ecosystem. Human Resource Managementn/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22147