aiqbench analysis
This study investigates the socio-technical implications of embedding generative AI into system administration, revealing how it compresses traditional expertise pathways by reducing exposure to foundational debugging cycles. The research also highlights a shift in performance perception where necessary manual validation is increasingly viewed as inefficient, potentially fostering "productivity guilt" within technical teams. These findings are critical for understanding the long-term impact of GenAI on professional skill development and organizational culture beyond simple automation metrics.
Unanticipated Effects of Generative AI on Expertise Pathways and Performance Perception in System Administration
arXiv:2607.28650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While industry discourse often emphasizes immediate productivity gains and frames GenAI primarily as a tool for automation, the integration of GenAI into system administration may involve deeper shifts in professional practice that are not yet fully understood. Drawing on 14 semi-structured interviews with IT professionals, this paper explores the lived reality of embedding GenAI into daily routines of troubleshooting, scripting, and system verification. Through inductive thematic analysis, we uncover two unanticipated socio-technical findings. First, we describe a "compression of traditional expertise pathways" where GenAI appears to function as both a mentor-like tutor and a "ladder-shortening" tool. While the tool can support faster task performance in unfamiliar domains, our findings suggest it may also reduce a practitioner's exposure to the foundational, hands-on cycles of building, failing, and debugging that historically served as the training ground for technical expertise. Second, we describe a "performance perception shift," where the speed of AI-assisted work begins to reset organizational and self-expectations for productivity. This shift may create a "two-speed culture" within teams and introduce "productivity guilt," as necessary manual work, even when required for safety or validation, is increasingly perceived as slow or a failure of efficiency. Our results raise broader questions about how GenAI may influence expertise development, how professional value is assessed in high-stakes technical environments, and the role of human judgment in complex technical environments.
Abstract:While industry discourse often emphasizes immediate productivity gains and frames GenAI primarily as a tool for automation, the integration of GenAI into system administration may involve deeper shifts in professional practice that are not yet fully understood. Drawing on 14 semi-structured interviews with IT professionals, this paper explores the lived reality of embedding GenAI into daily routines of troubleshooting, scripting, and system verification. Through inductive thematic analysis, we uncover two unanticipated socio-technical findings. First, we describe a "compression of traditional expertise pathways" where GenAI appears to function as both a mentor-like tutor and a "ladder-shortening" tool. While the tool can support faster task performance in unfamiliar domains, our findings suggest it may also reduce a practitioner's exposure to the foundational, hands-on cycles of building, failing, and debugging that historically served as the training ground for technical expertise. Second, we describe a "performance perception shift," where the speed of AI-assisted work begins to reset organizational and self-expectations for productivity. This shift may create a "two-speed culture" within teams and introduce "productivity guilt," as necessary manual work, even when required for safety or validation, is increasingly perceived as slow or a failure of efficiency. Our results raise broader questions about how GenAI may influence expertise development, how professional value is assessed in high-stakes technical environments, and the role of human judgment in complex technical environments.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.28650 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2607.28650v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28650 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
