Many workers would remove generative AI, survey finds

Adaptavist has published research suggesting many white-collar workers would prefer working life before generative AI. The survey found that 38% would remove generative AI tools altogether.

The study of 2,500 knowledge workers in the UK, US, Canada, Germany and Spain points to a growing mismatch between heavy corporate investment in AI and employee sentiment.

According to the findings, 65% of respondents regularly feel nostalgic for how work operated before generative AI became common, while 30% said they preferred that earlier period. Another 26% said they had no preference either way.

Younger workers appeared more likely to reject the technology outright. Four in 10 Gen Z and Millennial respondents said they would remove generative AI from the world, compared with 32% of Gen X workers and 29% of Baby Boomers.

Creative concerns

The data suggests the concerns extend beyond productivity. Among workers who said they would remove AI, 31% cited reduced creativity, 29% pointed to misuse, and 28% raised surveillance and privacy concerns.

The research also found a broader effect on day-to-day morale. Some 46% said dealing with low-quality AI-generated material made their jobs feel less meaningful and more repetitive, while 37% said it had left them less engaged at work overall.

Verification burden

One of the clearest findings was the extra work created by AI output. Some 42% of respondents now spend more time checking and verifying AI-generated material than they save by using the tools in the first place.

That burden appears to be affecting delivery. Nearly half of those surveyed, or 49%, said poor-quality AI-generated work was slowing their projects, and 55% said it was reducing overall team efficiency.

The survey also highlighted pressure on workers to match machine output. Half of respondents said their performance was now being compared, fairly or unfairly, with AI-generated work.

For some, AI use appears to be driven less by enthusiasm than by necessity. A quarter said they use AI simply to meet workload demands, while 23% said they use it to keep pace with colleagues.

Workers also reported pressure to improve output in a workplace shaped by AI. The study found that 26% felt pressure to improve performance, 25% to improve quality, and 24% to become more efficient.

Mixed picture

Despite the dissatisfaction, the survey did not show a blanket rejection of AI in the workplace. It found that 67% of workers would like their organisation to increase AI use, 69% trust that AI is being used ethically, and 66% said their employer had been transparent about adoption.

Even so, support for wider use did not always mean understanding or engagement. More than a third, or 36%, said they often do not understand why they are expected to use AI in their role, and the same proportion reported AI fatigue.

That combination suggests companies may be succeeding in rollout while falling short on workplace acceptance. Formal adoption of AI tools does not necessarily translate into confidence that they improve the quality or meaning of work.

Adaptavist framed the issue as one of implementation rather than a simple backlash against the technology itself, arguing that many organisations focus on measuring usage rates rather than whether AI improves work.

Neal Riley, AI Innovation Lead at The Adaptavist Group, said: "These findings point to an underlying gap we see in most AI implementations. It is much easier for organisations to focus on adoption metrics - who is using AI, how often they are using it - than it is to measure its impact on the work itself. By understanding the nature of the work and the different value streams across your business, you can more accurately measure outcomes and impact rather than simply counting actions. When AI is introduced thoughtfully, with the right guardrails and genuine support for the people using it, it can enhance rather than erode what makes work meaningful and impactful."