Software developers use ChatGPT most frequently, financial advisors least frequently

"A good year after the launch of ChatGPT, up to 79 percent of people in a professional group use this technology, achieving time savings of up to 43 percent, but many do not use it despite the advantages.

 

Generative AI is one of the rare basic technologies that are powerful enough to increase the growth and productivity of economies - if they are used on a correspondingly broad scale. Researchers at the University of Chicago have therefore identified the use of ChatGPT as the most prominent application of generative AI in a digitally open country that, with fourth place in the ranking of digital competitiveness and the digital skills of the population, is one of the pioneers in the world. This country is Denmark.

 

The researchers surveyed 100,000 Danes in eleven different professions about their use of ChatGPT. According to this, up to 79 percent of people in a professional group are already using the new AI and achieving time savings of up to 43 percent. What is particularly striking is that women use ChatGPT about 20 percentage points less often than men, and the use of AI decreases by one percentage point with each year of life during aging.

 

ChatGPT use is highest among software developers

 

Half of employees have used the technology, with adoption rates ranging from 79 percent among software developers to 34 percent among financial advisors. It is no surprise that software developers are at the top. Thomas Dohmke, CEO of the world's largest developer platform Github, expects a productivity boost of 30 to 50 percent for developers. Hardly anyone who wants to stay in the industry in the long term will miss out on this help.

 

The usage rate is similarly high among journalists. AI can help them find information more quickly, search through large amounts of data, summarize texts and even replace an entire proofreading department.

 

The usage rate is comparatively low among lawyers, teachers, accountants and auditors, and financial advisors. This is not due to insufficient time-saving effects, but mostly due to regulatory hurdles, because nobody wants to feed sensitive customer data into ChatGPT. Therefore, many employers have restricted or completely banned its use.

 

However, this problem can be solved - and that is what is being done: Setting up your own AI applications that only process your own data in a secure environment without sacrificing the benefits of large language models is not rocket science, but it takes time. Since many companies are currently starting to implement these secure systems, this hurdle could soon be overcome.

 

Lack of knowledge as the biggest hurdle to using ChatGPT

 

Among employees who believe that ChatGPT can halve their time for a work task, around 50 to 60 percent intend not to use AI. These "adoption barriers" point to large, untapped productivity gains from ChatGPT. What is stopping employees from converting potential gains into actual adoption? The biggest obstacles relate to company policies:

 

43 percent of employees report that they first need training to use ChatGPT.

 

35 percent say that employers actively restrict their use.

 

"Fear of one's existence," of becoming redundant in the job or dependent on the technology, are the least important barriers to adoption.

 

The lack of knowledge and thus the lack of training were cited as the most significant hurdle, especially by teachers, accountants and auditors, as well as journalists. Although AI encompasses large parts of the world's knowledge, the correct operation ("prompt engineering") as a cultural technique of the 21st century is not yet widespread. Smart companies therefore not only provide their employees with the tools, but also offer the appropriate further training.

 

This training of their employees is currently probably the most important task of management when introducing AI, because only when people see the advantages and feel safe will they use the technology. Germany is already lagging behind here: Only 26 percent of office workers in this country use AI on a daily basis, according to a recent Slack survey of 2,000 office workers. 44 percent do not use it at all, and another 27 use it less than once a day or irregularly. Companies in Germany themselves only partially encourage the use of AI among their employees. Only 29 percent of respondents report official recommendations from their employer to use AI or AI tools such as ChatGPT.

 

One obstacle could be the low level of knowledge about the new AI, which is also rather low in Germany. Currently, only one in four office workers (23.9 percent) in Germany are well informed about generative AI. Among industrial employees, the proportion is even lower at 18.5 percent and is also below the results in the general population (21.3 percent), in which more than half (54.7 percent) of respondents explicitly stated poor knowledge, according to a Microsoft survey of 9,000 people in Germany. At an international corporation that measures the use of the Microsoft Copilot rolled out worldwide, German employees also only achieved lower places.

 

The relevant obstacles also differ by profession. Restrictions by the employer are more likely in professions such as financial advisor and lawyer, which process sensitive information. Customer service employees avoid ChatGPT for fear of being replaced or becoming dependent on the technology. Finally, employees in professions where writing is a core competency - such as in journalism or teaching - resist ChatGPT because it reduces their enjoyment of work.

 

Women use ChatGPT significantly less often than men

 

What can be expected in Germany is very clear in Denmark: women use the new technology significantly less often than men - in all professions. On average, the difference is 20 percentage points. This gender gap also exists among colleagues in the same workplace and is not explained by the specific mix of tasks of the employees. Many women were unsure about how to use the technology and preferred to stay away from it - a reluctance that was rather alien to men.

 

Younger and more highly qualified people are intensive users

 

The fact that younger people use the technology more intensively than their older colleagues can be explained by their lower fear of digital technology. With each additional year of life in aging, the probability of using ChatGPT decreases by around one percent. Here, too, special training programs for older people could help to lower the age barrier.

 

The intensity of use also depends on qualifications: the higher the education/qualification, the more intensively people use ChatGPT.

 

This research suggests that companies could play a critical role in further encouraging the use of tools like ChatGPT, and that a proactive approach to encouraging ChatGPT adoption could mitigate some worrying trends. For example, the fact that workers currently using ChatGPT were already earning more before its introduction suggests that less experienced workers may need further support to fully reap the benefits of generative AI. Likewise, providing more training for women could reduce the gender gap uncovered." [1]

 

1. Softwareentwickler nutzen ChatGPT am häufigsten, Finanzberater am seltensten. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. May 2, 2024. Von Holger Schmidt

„ES vis dar didelis skurdas ir nelygybė“: ekonomistė Zuzana Zavarska prognozuoja, kad Rytų Europos šalys turės sunkų kelią, kol jos visiškai prisitaikys prie ES standartų

„Prieš du dešimtmečius Europos Sąjunga buvo išplėsta į rytus. Ekonomistė Zuzana Zavarska prognozuoja, kad įstojusioms šalims bus sunkus kelias, kol jos visiškai prisitaikys prie ES standartų.

 

 

 

 Ponia Zavarska, 20 metų ES plėtrai į Rytus: ar tai yra priežastis švęsti?

 

 

 

 Absoliučiai. Žmonių gyvenimo lygis ten sparčiai pagerėjo per labai trumpą laiką, net per vieną kartą. Bendrasis vidaus produktas (BVP), tenkantis vienam gyventojui, išaugo nuo 30 ar 40 procentų iki daugiau, nei 70 procentų Vakarų Europos lygio. Tai daug ką pasako apie teigiamus ES integracijos aspektus. Bet, žinoma, ne viskas klostėsi taip gerai, kaip būtų galima tikėtis.

 

 

 

 Nepaisant didelių laimėjimų, daugelyje įstojusiųjų šalių jaučiamas savotiškas ES nuovargis.

 

 

 

 Viena iš priežasčių yra ta, kad sėkme istorija baigėsi ne visiems. Šalių vystymasis dažnai buvo labai netolygus.

 

 

 

 Kai kurie jaučiasi atsilikę ekonomiškai ir yra integracijos proceso pralaimėtojai. Skurdas ir nelygybė ES vis dar yra dideli.

 

 

 

 Dauguma Vidurio ir Rytų Europos šalių socialinėms išmokoms išleidžia tik 13 procentų BVP, o ES-27 šalių vidurkis buvo 20 procentų.

 

 

 

 Visa tai prisideda prie populistinių tendencijų ir atitinkamų rinkimų rezultatų. Taip pat nerimaujama, kad tolesnė ES plėtra gali nuvertinti pranašumus, tokius, kaip žemas darbo užmokesčio lygis, ir nuvilioti investuotojus. Tai padidina nusivylimą.

 

 

 

 Ar šis susirūpinimas nepagrįstas?

 

 

 

 Įmonės iš Vidurio ir Rytų Europos šalių galėtų gauti naudos iš plėtros, pavyzdžiui, į Ukrainą ir Moldovą, kaip ir Vokietijos bei Austrijos įmonėms buvo padėta, kai 2004 m. buvo panaikintos muitinės ir kitos sienos. Tai būtų puiki galimybė Rytų šalių Europos įmonėms kurti jų vertės grandines regione.

 

 

 

 Juolab, kad dėl emigracijos ir mažo gimstamumo darbo jėgos pasiūlos trūkumas jau dabar yra daugelio šalių problema?

 

 

 

 Viena didžiausių stojančiųjų šalių baimių prieš 20 metų buvo emigracija. Ir būtent taip atsitiko.

 

 

 

 Tačiau vyriausybės turi nemažai neišnaudotų galimybių ką nors padaryti dėl darbo jėgos trūkumo: visų pirma jos turėtų padidinti moterų dalyvavimą darbo rinkoje, padaryti darbo rinką lankstesnę, mokyti žmones, tobulinti švietimo sistemą. Automatizavimas sumažins darbo jėgos trūkumą ir padidins produktyvumą. Daugelis bijo, kad automatizavimas išstums darbo vietas. Tačiau iš tikrųjų nebeužtenka žmonių visiems šiems darbams atlikti.

 

 

 

 ES rytų ekonomikoje dažnai dominuoja Vakarų investuotojai, kurie ten pigiai gamina. Raktažodis automobilių pramonė. Ar tai privalumas ar problema?

 

 

 

 Investicijos ir modernios technologijos leido šalims labai greitai padidinti našumą. Bet jei žvelgtume į ateitį, neaišku, ar tai ir toliau bus pranašumas.

 

 

 

 Kodėl?

 

 

 

 Gamybos darbai paprastai turi mažą pridėtinę vertę. Tai nėra tos darbo vietos, kurios atneša naujoves ir tvarų augimą. Tai bus problema, jei žiūrėsime į ateinančius 20 metų. Užuot sprendusios šią problemą, matome, kad tokios šalys, kaip Vengrija, dabar labai priklauso nuo Kinijos elektromobilių gamybos. Jie nori labiau diversifikuoti jų investuotojus.

 

 

 

 Ir ar jie taip iškeičia priklausomybę nuo VW ir BMW į priklausomybę nuo Kinijos valstybės?

 

 

 

 Tiesą sakant, tai nepadės jiems išspręsti pagrindinės problemos – klausimo, kaip tapti novatoriškesniems ir nepriklausomiems. Kita problema yra ta, kad ES pramonės politika linkusi remti stipresniuosius. Tai puikus dalykas, skatinant ES konkurencingumą. Tačiau Rytų Europos šalys yra nepakankamai atstovaujamos tokiose programose, kaip „Europos horizontas“. Joms bus sunkiau pasivyti inovacijų prasme.

 

 

 

 Bet tikrai negalima sakyti, kad ES nepakankamai remia Rytus, ar ne? Dažnai valstybės negali protingai išleisti milijardinių lėšų.

 

 

 

 Kai kurios šalys iš tikrųjų turi daugiau, nei dešimt procentų savo BVP ES finansavimo. Tai didžiulis kapitalo padidinimas. Tačiau tai nekeičia kritikos, kad tam tikros finansavimo programos yra nepalankios kai kurioms šalims kandidatėms. Tačiau tai neturėtų atitraukti dėmesio nuo neabejotinai egzistuojančių institucinių trūkumų.

 

 

 

 ES „žaliąją pertvarką“ finansuoja milijardais eurų. Tačiau daugelis Rytų Europos šalių to nelaiko prioritetu. Kaip galime išspręsti dilemą?

 

 

 

 Tai sunku. Lenkijoje ir Čekijoje anglies pramonėje dirba neproporcingai daug žmonių. Negalite tiesiog jiems pasakyti: darykite ką nors kita.

 

 

 

 Kita vertus, energijos kainų šokas dėl beprasmių sankcijų Rusijai ir sankcijų sukelta didžiulė infliacija parodė esamų energetikos struktūrų pažeidžiamumą.

 

 

 

 Tai buvo pažadinimo skambutis regionui. Energetikos sistemos pertvarka yra neišvengiama. ES lėšos yra labai svarbi priemonė ekologiškam perėjimui skatinti. Kiekviena investicija į „rudąjį sektorių“ yra investicija į praeitį ir prieš ateitį. Kiekvienas, strategiškai mąstantis apie ekonomikos konkurencingumą, turi eiti labiau į ateitį orientuotu keliu.

 

 

 

 Norėdamos tapti ES nare, šalys turėjo reformuoti savo teisines ir ekonomines sistemas. Dabar, kai jos yra narės, kai kurios tai atšaukia, pvz., Lenkija, Vengrija ar Slovakija. Bet atrodo, kad investuotojų tai nejaudina?

 

 

 

 Politinė įtaka nepriklausomoms valstybės institucijoms dabar daugeliu atžvilgių yra pasaulinis reiškinys. Tai matome ir išsivysčiusiose šalyse. Tačiau mažiau išsivysčiusių šalių, pavyzdžiui, Vidurio ir Rytų Europos, atveju rizika yra daug didesnė. Joms reikia stiprių ir stabilių institucijų, o ne silpnų ir vos besilaikančių. Nes be stabilios ir patikimos teisinės bazės, kuri, pavyzdžiui, korupciją labiau apsunkina, nei palengvina, investuotojai ilgainiui nepasiliks. Šiomis dienomis investuotojai daug atsargiau žiūri į politinę riziką, ypač dėl to, kad geopolitinė situacija tampa sudėtingesnė. Taigi, jei matysime institucinį pablogėjimą daugelyje šių šalių, tai gali turėti įtakos jų gebėjimui pritraukti investicijų.

 

 

 

 Nuo pat Koronos pandemijos kartojome, kad investicijos grįžta iš Azijos arba vis daugiau naujų ateina į ES pakraščiuose esančias valstybes. Ar tai tik madingi žodžiai, ar tai realios galimybės?

 

 

 

 Bet kokiu atveju optimizmas visur yra labai didelis. Šiandien negaliu teigti, kad matome didelių skaičių pokyčių. Įrodymai yra gana anekdotiniai. Tačiau mes matome didesnį diversifikavimą link „Kinija plius strategijos“. Investuotojai nebededa visų kiaušinių į kinų krepšelį, o ieško papildomų vietų. Regionui tai galėtų būti naudinga.

 

 

 

 Po plėtros šalys priartėjo prie Vakarų Europos gerovės lygio. Tačiau paskutiniai dešimt procentų bus ypač įtempti?

 

 

 

 Būtinai. Tai bus sunkus kelias. Niekas negali sėdėti ir atsipalaiduoti. Šalys turi tapti aktyvesnės ir ryžtingesnės, kad galėtų įveikti šiuos iššūkius. Tačiau gera žinia: jos gali tai padaryti. Esu tuo įsitikinus.“ [1]

 

 

 

Vakarų elitui, kuris perėmė visą valdžią rytinėse ES šalyse pigiau yra papirkti komunistinį rytinių ES šalių elitą, negu sustiprinti šių šalių ekonomiką. Iš čia ateina žiauri nelygybė, nukritęs išsilavinimo lygis, katastrofiška darbo jėgos ir kapitalo emigracija, panieka tautai ir Tėvynei. Gobšumo apimtas Vakarų elitas naikina ir Vakarus.

 

 

Jums reikia energijos, kad sukurtumėte naują energetikos sistemos struktūrą. Energija dabar ES yra per brangi, kad ją būtų galima naudoti konkurencingai rinkoje. Tie, kurie ES rėmė sankcijas Rusijai, sukėlė ES deindustrializaciją. ES be pramonės yra ES be ateities. Nenuostabu, kad vokiečiai vis dar žavisi Angela Merkel, kuri nepadarytų tokio kvailo nusikaltimo. P. Scholzas išmoko susidėti ant pilvo jo nenaudingas rankutes, kaip tai daro Angela Merkel. P. Scholzas taip ir neišmoko valdyti Vokietijos.

 

 

1. "Armut und Ungleichheit sind immer noch groß in der EU": Die Ökonomin Zuzana Zavarska prognostiziert den Ländern Osteuropas noch einen schweren Weg bis zur völligen Anpassung an EU-Niveau. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. May 2, 2024. Von Andreas Mihm, Wien

"Poverty and inequality are still high in the EU": Economist Zuzana Zavarska predicts that the countries of Eastern Europe will have a difficult road to travel before they fully adapt to EU standards

"Two decades ago, the European Union was expanded eastwards. Economist Zuzana Zavarska predicts that the countries that have joined will have a difficult road to travel before they fully adapt to EU standards.

 

Ms Zavarska, 20 years of EU expansion to the East: is that a reason to celebrate?

 

Absolutely. The standard of living of the people there has improved rapidly in a very short period of time, not even a generation. The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has risen from 30 to 40 percent to more than 70 percent of the level in Western Europe. That speaks volumes about the positive aspects of EU integration. But of course not everything has gone as well as one would have hoped.

 

Despite the great successes, there is a kind of EU fatigue in many accession countries.

 

One reason is sure that the success story has not ended well for everyone. Development in the countries has often been very uneven. 

 

Some feel that they have been left behind economically and are the losers of the integration process. Poverty and inequality are still high in the EU. 

 

Most countries in Central and Eastern Europe spend only 13 percent of GDP on social benefits, while the average for the EU-27 countries was 20 percent. 

 

All of this contributes to populist tendencies and corresponding election results. There is also a concern that further EU expansion could devalue advantages such as low wage levels and lure away investors. This increases the frustration.

 

Is this concern not justified?

 

Companies from Central and Eastern European countries in particular could benefit from an expansion to include Ukraine and Moldova, for example, just as companies from Germany and Austria were helped when customs and other borders were abolished in 2004. This would be a great opportunity for Eastern European companies to build their own value chains in the region.

 

Especially since the lack of labor supply is already a problem in many countries due to emigration and low birth rates?

 

One of the biggest fears of the accession countries 20 years ago was that emigration would occur. And that is exactly what happened. 

 

But governments have a number of untapped opportunities to do something about the labor shortage: First and foremost, they should increase the participation of women in the labor force, make the labor market more flexible, train people, improve the education system. Automation will alleviate the labor shortage and increase productivity. Many are afraid that automation will displace jobs. But in reality, there are no longer enough people to do all these jobs.

 

The economy in the east of the EU is often dominated by western investors who have their production done there cheaply. Keyword automobile industry. Is that an advantage or a problem?

 

Investments and modern technologies have enabled countries to increase their productivity very quickly. But if we look to the future, it is not so clear whether this will continue to be an advantage.

 

Why?

 

Manufacturing jobs tend to have low added value. These are not the jobs that bring innovation and sustainable growth. This will be a problem if we look ahead to the next 20 years. Instead of addressing this problem, we see countries like Hungary now relying heavily on Chinese electric vehicle production. They want to diversify more among their investors.

 

And are they thereby exchanging dependence on VW and BMW for dependence on the Chinese state?

 

In fact, this will not help them to solve the core problem, the question of how to become more innovative and independent. Another problem is that EU industrial policy tends to support the stronger. This is a great thing for promoting the EU's competitiveness. But Eastern European countries are underrepresented in programs like Horizon Europe. It will be more difficult for them to catch up in terms of innovation.

 

But you can't really say that the EU is not supporting the East enough, can you? Often, the states are not in a position to spend the billions in funding sensibly.

 

Some countries actually have more than ten percent of their GDP available in EU funding. That is an enormous capital boost. But that does not change the criticism that certain funding programs are disadvantageous for some accession states. But that should not distract from the institutional deficits that undoubtedly exist.

 

The EU is funding the "green transformation" with billions of euros. But many countries in Eastern Europe do not see this as a priority. How can we resolve the dilemma?

 

That is difficult. In Poland and the Czech Republic, a disproportionate number of people work in the coal industry. You cannot simply tell them: do something else. 

 

On the other hand, the energy price shock because of stupid sanctions on Russia and induced by the sanctions huge inflation have shown the vulnerability to existing energy structures. 

 

That was a wake-up call for the region. The restructuring of the energy system is unavoidable. EU funds are a very important instrument for advancing the green transition. Every investment in the "brown sector" is an investment in the past and against the future. Anyone who thinks strategically about the competitiveness of the economy must take the more future-proof path.

 

In order to become a member of the EU, the countries had to reform their legal and economic systems. Now that they are members, some are reversing this, see Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. But investors seem to be unmoved by this?

 

Political influence on independent state institutions is now in many ways a global phenomenon. We see this in the developed countries too. But in the case of less developed countries such as those in Central and Eastern Europe, the risks are much greater. They need institutions that are strong and stable, not weak and compliant. Because without a stable and reliable legal framework that, for example, makes corruption more difficult rather than easier, investors will not stay in the long term. Investors are much more cautious about political risks these days, especially as the geopolitical situation becomes more complex. So if we see institutional deterioration in many of these countries, it could affect their ability to attract investment.

 

Since the Corona pandemic, we have been saying that investments are coming back from Asia or that new ones are increasingly going to the states on the periphery of the EU: near- or friendshoring. Are these just buzzwords or are they real opportunities?

 

In any case, optimism is very high everywhere. I cannot say today that we can see major changes in the numbers. The evidence is rather anecdotal. But what we are seeing is greater diversification towards a "China-plus strategy". Investors are no longer putting all their eggs in the Chinese basket, but are looking for additional locations. The region could benefit from this.

 

Since the expansion, the countries have come close to the Western European level of prosperity. But the last ten percent will be particularly strenuous?

 

Definitely. It will be a difficult road. No one can sit back and relax. The countries must become more active and assertive in order to tackle these challenges. But the good news is: they can do it. I am convinced of that." [1]

 

It is cheaper for the Western elite, who took over all the power in the eastern EU countries, to bribe the communist elite of the eastern EU countries than to strengthen the economy of these countries. From here comes the brutal inequality, the falling level of education, the catastrophic emigration of labor and capital, contempt for the nation and the Motherland. The greedy Western elite is also destroying the West.

 

You need energy to build a new structure of the energy system. Energy is too expensive now in the EU to do it in a way that is competitive in the market. Those in the EU that supported sanctions on Russia caused EU deindustrialization. EU without industry is EU without future.No wonder Germans still admire Angela Merkel who would not do such a stupid thing. Mr. Scholz learned how to fold his useless hands like Angela Merkel does. Mr. Scholz didn't learn how to run Germany.

 

1. "Armut und Ungleichheit sind immer noch groß in der EU": Die Ökonomin Zuzana Zavarska prognostiziert den Ländern Osteuropas noch einen schweren Weg bis zur völligen Anpassung an EU-Niveau. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. May 2, 2024. Von Andreas Mihm, Wien