How much time is AI really saving your workers? Apparently just 16 minutes a week as 'time saved generating content is being absorbed by the time
required to trust it'

Date:
Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:25:00 +0000

Description:
Although AI is savings workers hours per week on actual content generation time, they're spending most of that saved time fact-checking.

FULL STORY
Workers and execs are only getting 14-16 minutes of net time savings from AI, report claims
Most saved time is being spent fact-checking and validating output
Most executives say they plan on retraining and upskilling workers

Most execs (89%) and workers (79%) now agree that while AI is improving productivity , but exactly how much time they're saving is up for debate.

New research from Foxit suggests the real time gains could be minimal
compared to the potential, simply because of the amount of time workers are having to devote to trusting and understanding AI tools . Per the report's data, execs have only been gaining 16 minutes per week, and workers just 14 minutes, despite AI's bold claims.

AI isn't actually saving you that much time... yet -- On the flip side,
execs were spending four hours and 20 minutes validating outputs, with
workers spending an equally-significant three hours and 50 minutes checking generated content.

Foxit calls this a 'verification burden', where the time saved by creating content is being offset by fact-checking and making other corrections.

Even though they're spending more time verifying, 60% of executives say
they're highly confident in AI outputs, but only around one in three workers are confident. This lack of trust was the second-biggest AI barrier, cited by 34% of workers, with data privacy and security concerns (36%) slightly
pipping it. Accuracy concerns (25%) were also raised.

But change could be on the horizon, with nearly three-quarters (72%) of executives focusing on retraining or upskilling employees to handle AI. Are
you a pro?

"The next phase of document intelligence wont be defined by more AI features, but by embedding accurate, transparent intelligence directly into workflows," Marketing SVP Evan Reiss wrote, "reducing validation time while keeping
humans firmly in control."

Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/pro/how-much-time-is-ai-really-saving-your-workers-a pparently-just-16-minutes-a-week-as-time-saved-generating-content-is-being-abs orbed-by-the-time-required-to-trust-it

$$
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

How much time is AI really saving your workers? Apparently just 16 minutes a

>week as 'time saved generating content is being absorbed by the time
>required to trust it'

On our national news the other night they had an 'expert' on who
said that AI is putting a lot more stress on the workers and is
not doing anything close to what is being reported.

In one case they compared actual total production before AI and
then again this year with so many using it and the increase in
production was only 0.4%. (Less than 1/2 of one percent).

But I can't find that story online now for exact details..
Most links are to predictions that AI will increase productivity
by something like 40%, but I assume this story was about that
not happening.

It sounded like in general AI was doing more stuff faster, but
that the end result was greatly slowed down by actual people
trying to verify the accuracy of what the AI had done, and they
are stressed like crazy because it's coming in so fast they are
killing themselves trying to keep on top of it.

Another story aso went into some of the simplest things that
AI is terrible at doing. In one example they asked an AI system
something like how many L's were in the word 'Collectively' and
it came up with several different answers each time asked.

---
* SLMR Rob * If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

How much time is AI really saving your workers? Apparently just 16 minutes

>week as 'time saved generating content is being absorbed by the time
>required to trust it'

On our national news the other night they had an 'expert' on who
said that AI is putting a lot more stress on the workers and is
not doing anything close to what is being reported.

Yeah, I can see that. I have been using it some recently for a project. Interacting with the claude.ai website has been the least stressful, in
part because its answers seem more trustworthy.

Something I have noticed with a few others... when you are about to hit
your daily/weekly/monthly limit, it will start giving answers that are
more vague, or "more wrong," causing you to ask it more questions for clarification. I have seen that with at least two models now and suspect
they do it on purpose to force you to run out.

That said, claude.ai has yet to do this on a free account.

In one case they compared actual total production before AI and
then again this year with so many using it and the increase in
production was only 0.4%. (Less than 1/2 of one percent).

I am not too surprised. I think in a lot of fields, management is in a
rush to save money/time but the fields in question are not ones that AI is aptly suited for yet. As best as I can tell, they are somewhat good at
coding (some more than others) and are fairly good at helping you find
other related issues... like translating an unfamiliar compile error... but
I would not trust them with a whole lot.

But I can't find that story online now for exact details..
Most links are to predictions that AI will increase productivity
by something like 40%, but I assume this story was about that
not happening.

That is what the story I posted seemed to be indicating... maybe not that
exact number but that productivity was expected to go up by a lot but went
up by a lot less due to trust and verification issues.

It sounded like in general AI was doing more stuff faster, but
that the end result was greatly slowed down by actual people
trying to verify the accuracy of what the AI had done, and they
are stressed like crazy because it's coming in so fast they are
killing themselves trying to keep on top of it.

Yes, and you still very much need to verify the accuracy before just
following the rules. The other day, I was look an air frier recipe up
online. Google's AI assistant (Gemini, or whatever you get from them for
free with a google search) was suggesting that I add oil to the air frier
pan.

As I was not trying to make fire, I did not do so!

I strongly suspect it gets a lot of professional things similarly wrong.
One thing I particular that I have heard mentioned is that most models are *not* good at counting things. So they might tell you "here are four
options" but only list three, which immediately makes you question if they
left an option off or just counted them wrong to begin with.

Another story aso went into some of the simplest things that
AI is terrible at doing. In one example they asked an AI system
something like how many L's were in the word 'Collectively' and
it came up with several different answers each time asked.

Yes, that is the one I was referencing above... they have difficulty
counting things like that which, IMHO, might also make them bad at
verifying test results.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * Phone Farr: the Vulcan 900 number for phone sex
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Re: How much time is AI reall
By: Mike Powell to ROB MCCART on Mon Mar 16 2026 10:05 am

Yeah color me highly skeptical of any
of the supposed benefits of AI for the
average joe, in particular LLMs. I
personally find those of my coworkers
who use them do so mindlessly and
slavishly.

I still don't know how people can see
these things hallucinate every third
answer and think that the results it
spits out from their prompts are
flawless nd unimpeachable. Blows my
mind.

--Just Post, World Is A Fuck!--

This Quality Shit-Post Brought
To You Via Commodore 64 Ultimate
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Yeah color me highly skeptical of any of the supposed benefits of AI for the average joe, in particular LLMs. I personally find those of my coworkers who use them do so mindlessly and slavishly.

I am skeptical about many AI claims. Today, I started to post an article
here where a CEO was claiming that AI was going to take over the customer service market and put most customer service reps out of their jobs.

However, as I read it, I realized that this CEO is the leader of a company
that is selling that actual service -- replacing human customer service
workers with AI -- so of course he would say that. It was really a fluff
piece for his business. :(


* SLMR 2.1a * Four snack groups: frozen, crunchies, cakes and sweets.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Re: How much time is AI reall
By: Mike Powell to MAX STUBBS on Tue Mar 17 2026 09:52 am

Nailed it. The "AI" industry is a lot
of smoke, mirrors, grift, infringement,
and outright corruption. I'm not saying
the tech isn't going to revolutionize
the industry; I'm just saying it's
going to blow up in our faces first.


--Just Post, World Is A Fuck!--

This Quality Shit-Post Brought
To You Via Commodore 64 Ultimate
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

On our national news the other night they had an 'expert' on who

>> said that AI is putting a lot more stress on the workers and is
>> not doing anything close to what is being reported.

I am not too surprised. I think in a lot of fields, management is in a

>rush to save money/time but the fields in question are not ones that AI is
>aptly suited for yet.

I think a lot of companies don't want to be left behind and end
up trying to do things with it that are not suited, or are not
waiting until the AI has been fully tested. All the AI providers
want to be first and don't seem to care if they are not 'best'..

Yes, and you still very much need to verify the accuracy before just

>following the rules. The other day, I was look an air frier recipe up
>online. Google's AI assistant (Gemini, or whatever you get from them for
>free with a google search) was suggesting that I add oil to the air frier
>pan.

As I was not trying to make fire, I did not do so!

Ha.. yes, and they are running into similar problems when people ask
AI for medical advice.

Another story aso went into some of the simplest things that

>> AI is terrible at doing. In one example they asked an AI system
>> something like how many L's were in the word 'Collectively' and
>> it came up with several different answers each time asked.

Yes, that is the one I was referencing above... they have difficulty

>counting things like that which, IMHO, might also make them bad at
>verifying test results.

4 out of 3 people can't do math... B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Survival Tip #2: Never MOON a werewolf
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Nailed it. The "AI" industry is a lot of smoke, mirrors, grift, infringement, and outright corruption. I'm not saying the tech isn't going to revolutionize the industry; I'm just saying it's going to blow up in our faces first.

I think that covers a lot of what it is being used for, and also at least
some of the companies providing it. I have not been impressed in
particular by a couple of companies who've been all too keen to hop in bed
with the US Government over the past year or so, for example, when it comes
to handling of taxpayer data and being used for autonomous weapons.


* SLMR 2.1a * Number 6 of Borg - Why I resigned is irrelevant.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

I am not too surprised. I think in a lot of fields, management is in a

>rush to save money/time but the fields in question are not ones that AI is
>aptly suited for yet.

I think a lot of companies don't want to be left behind and end
up trying to do things with it that are not suited, or are not
waiting until the AI has been fully tested. All the AI providers
want to be first and don't seem to care if they are not 'best'..

Well, if they see a payday they certainly are not likely to point out that
they are not the "best" for the task. :D

Yes, and you still very much need to verify the accuracy before just

>following the rules. The other day, I was look an air frier recipe up
>online. Google's AI assistant (Gemini, or whatever you get from them for
>free with a google search) was suggesting that I add oil to the air frier
>pan.

As I was not trying to make fire, I did not do so!

Ha.. yes, and they are running into similar problems when people ask
AI for medical advice.

Yep!

Another story aso went into some of the simplest things that

>> AI is terrible at doing. In one example they asked an AI system
>> something like how many L's were in the word 'Collectively' and
>> it came up with several different answers each time asked.

Yes, that is the one I was referencing above... they have difficulty

>counting things like that which, IMHO, might also make them bad at
>verifying test results.

4 out of 3 people can't do math... B)

Something like that. You would think that would be an easier task but I
guess there must be more to it than I would think.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * "Silence. Music's original alternative. Roots-grunge!"
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)