Connect with us

Tools & Platforms

AI and the Workplace in 2025: Can Technology Replace the Office?

Published

on


For years, predictions of the “death of the office” have cycled through business pages with varying levels of credibility.

According to GoTo’s latest Pulse of Work in 2025 survey, over half of employees – 51 percent – believe AI will eventually make physical offices obsolete.

It’s a striking headline, but one that deserves interrogation.

Can survey sentiment be translated into actionable strategy for CIOs and CFOs deciding how to allocate millions in IT budgets and real estate costs? Or is this another case of workplace wishful thinking?

The report, conducted with Workplace Intelligence, canvassed 2,500 employees and IT leaders in ten markets (USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, India, Mexico and Brazil).

That breadth gives the research some heft, but it also raises questions: do respondents in high-density cities like Mumbai or São Paulo view office necessity differently than workers in suburban North America?

And how might cultural or regulatory differences influence attitudes toward remote work and AI adoption?

Reading Between the Numbers

The data suggests a strong belief in AI’s positive impact:

  • 62 percent of employees say they’d prefer AI-enhanced remote work to office life.
  • 71 percent cite work-life balance improvements.
  • 66 percent believe AI makes them equally productive anywhere.
  • 65 percent say AI helps them serve customers better remotely.

These numbers are compelling, but sentiment doesn’t always equal outcomes.

Productivity gains attributed to AI are difficult to measure independently, and much depends on the definition of “AI.”

Does an automated helpdesk count? A predictive scheduling assistant? A generative AI tool summarising meetings? The term itself risks becoming a catch-all for digitalisation.

There’s also a potential sample bias: respondents are evenly split between remote, hybrid, and on-site workers, but those with positive AI experiences may be more inclined to participate enthusiastically.

Enterprises should therefore view the statistics as directional, not definitive.

The IT Leader/Employee Disconnect

One of the most telling (and troubling) findings in the report is the gulf between leaders and staff – 91 percent of IT leaders believe their organisation uses AI effectively to support remote teams, but only 53 percent of employees agree.

This gap suggests that while IT leaders are satisfied with deployments, end-users find them less impactful.

That has implications for ROI, as an underused tool represents sunk cost.

This disconnect also highlights a risk often glossed over in surveys: the change management challenge.

Buying AI tools is the easy part, but embedding them into everyday workflows is far harder.

For CIOs, this should be a red flag. If employees are unconvinced, then AI becomes just another layer of technology – tolerated rather than embraced.

Generational Enthusiasm – Or Just Adaptation?

The survey reports that adoption spans all ages: 90 percent of Gen Z, 84 percent of Millennials, 71 percent of Gen X, and 74 percent of Boomers cite productivity gains from AI.

While impressive, one might question whether these figures reflect genuine efficiency or simple adaptation to new tools.

Older workers may not be “embracing” AI as much as learning to cope with it.

Without more granular data – e.g., are they saving measurable hours, or just tolerating a chatbot instead of a helpdesk call? – the headline percentages could risk overstating the universality of AI’s benefits.

The Economics of Perks vs. Platforms

Perhaps the most actionable finding is that 61 percent of employees want investment in AI over office amenities.

For CFOs weighing where to allocate budgets, this could justify diverting funds from underutilised real estate or perks into digital infrastructure.

Yet here too, nuance is needed as preferences don’t necessarily translate into performance.

If AI spend is seen as a trade-off against office culture or collaboration, could organisations risk long-term erosion of engagement? And how should CFOs model the return on investment from AI tools that may reduce support costs but increase licensing fees?

The Real Questions for Buyers

For CIOs, CFOs, and HR leaders, the survey may prove informative and reveals where employee sentiment lies, but not necessarily where the business case stands.

Decision-makers will need to interrogate:

  • ROI Validity: What measurable productivity gains does AI actually deliver compared to cost outlay?
  • Security & Compliance: Are AI tools being evaluated for GDPR, HIPAA, or sector-specific risks?
  • Scalability: Can solutions scale across regions with different regulatory and cultural contexts?
  • Change Management: How can enterprises close the perception gap between IT leaders and employees?
  • Hybrid Trade-Offs: Will heavy AI investment reduce the role of offices, or will offices remain critical for creativity, onboarding, and sensitive discussions?

Before making multi-million dollar decisions, leaders must see beyond the buzz and ask if their AI strategy actually aligns with broader business goals and long-term organisational culture.



Source link

Tools & Platforms

Your browser is not supported

Published

on


Your browser is not supported | usatoday.com
logo

usatoday.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.

Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on usatoday.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Tools & Platforms

iShares Future AI & Tech ETF (NYSEARCA:ARTY) Surges 27.6% in 2025 — Is It a Buy?

Published

on




ARTY delivers strong tech exposure with 83% allocation to AI leaders, but volatility and valuations test investor conviction | That’s TradingNEWS


TradingNEWS Archive
8/30/2025 8:54:36 PM





Source link

Continue Reading

Tools & Platforms

Emperor Musk’s AI Clothes – Will Lockett’s Newsletter

Published

on


Musk has been parading around in his AI clothes for a while now. With the amount he screams and shouts about AI, you’d think he invented it. Of course, like everything else Musk peddles, he had nothing to do with its invention or development, except for underpaying and overworking his engineers and being an awful, overpromising PR man. However, people aren’t just noticing that Musk’s clothes are non-existent — they are also starting to point and laugh at his skid marks and the “I Love the Nazi Man” tattoo down his back. Why? Because he just can’t seem to get his AI up and working. And there is no little blue pill to remedy this situation.

Take, for example, Tesla’s hilariously crap Robotaxi rollout. The media at large is only just cottoning on to it being a huge PR stunt.

I have gone on ad nauseam about why Tesla’s self-driving cars are completely inadequate, so if you want to know the details, read my previous article here. But the helicopter view is that, unlike other autonomous vehicles, Tesla’s system has zero redundancy or safety nets and requires a nearly 100% accurate AI — which categorically can’t exist — to be even remotely safe.

Tesla is painfully aware of this fatal flaw, with Tesla engineers whistleblowing their concerns about it to the media (read more here) and the DOJ opening an investigation (read more here). So I, along with countless other commentators, was pretty damn relieved to find out that Tesla’s Robotaxis had safety drivers. There was even mention of remote workers being able to take control of the car and drive it safely in the case of a critical disengagement.

But this kind of system isn’t impressive enough for Musk. Any Uber or Lyft driver with a Tesla who wastes their money on FSD can do the exact same thing. There is no social or investor kudos to be gained for Tesla or Musk here. And here is a hint: Musk doesn’t make money from Tesla sales. After all, his $50 billion pay packet (which is now less, thanks to Musk tanking Tesla’s valuation) was the equivalent of him getting $10,000 for every Tesla ever sold! Tesla makes substantially less profit from every car sold than that.

So, what do you do if you have bet your entire company’s valuation on autonomous technology that you simply can’t deliver on?

Fudge it.

Tesla put the safety driver in the passenger seat! Because, look, it’s a self-driving car — there is no one in the driver’s seat!

This is a dangerous move that offers no benefit other than optics.

Rather than being able to properly take over the car and drive it to safety, the only thing these safety drivers could do was press a button to bring the vehicle to a stop. Which, as anyone with a driving licence will tell you, is not always the safest option! Particularly when you consider that Robotaxis have been spotted driving into lanes of oncoming traffic.

Yet, this bafflingly shite decision wasn’t really reported on. Or at least it wasn’t until a video surfaced a few days ago that showed FSD failing and a safety driver being forced to exit the vehicle in the middle of traffic to take the driver’s seat and regain control. (watch it here).

This shows just how wildly dangerous Tesla’s Robotaxis are.

The safety driver had to take a serious risk to take control of the car. Not only that, but this incident suggests there are no remote operatives capable of taking over when things go wrong. That has been a core safety feature of all developing self-driving ride-hailing services, such as Waymo and Cruise, since day one and is routinely used to keep passengers safe. The fact that this is absent for Robotaxis, which Tesla already know have a far, far higher critical disengagement rate than any other self-driving ride-hailing service, could easily be seen as insanely negligent.

Musk is comfortable putting other people — not just the safety driver, but paying passengers and the public — in danger, all for a crappy PR stunt to cover up how bad his self-driving system actually is. And the media at large, as well as public consensus, are beginning to catch up to this horrifying fact.

However, Musk’s AI woes go far, far deeper than that.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending