I have always embraced the application of AI/ML technology in situations where it provides a suitable and correct solution. I worked in a very significant project in the 80s and 90s using several very well understood processes. It didn't seem magical to me, but it absolutely did solve the problem.
I agree 100%. I'm actually pro-AI but people think I'm anti-AI, because I criticize misinformation about LLM capabilities and the energy usage of LLM training and inference compared to non-LLM models. The marketing article is specifically about LLMs but uses "AI" because it's a marketing buzzword.
I didn't want to get into it this deep but here goes: "In contrast, those with higher AI literacy may have a more informed, less-emotionally-driven view of AI, which can lead to greater caution or even disinterest—not because they think AI is worse but because it feels less novel or transformative."
I am not cautious because it doesn't feel novel to me. I am cautious because GAI/LLM is not suited to the tasks that businesses are generally seeking to use them for. A study of AI history will show far more failures than successes, because of illiterate enthusiasm.
"By understanding both their own AI literacy and that of their teams, managers can better calibrate how they approach AI adoption so they avoid both over enthusiasm and underutilization." I don't get over enthusiastic nor underutilize technology because of my level of understanding. I do research.
Don't manage structural engineers into using the wrong materials in structural elements. It is bad for the bottom line. Don't manage IT professionals literate in the tech into using the wrong technology in your business, also bad for the bottom line. But there are always grifters.
The article is less about AI literate people's decision making at work and more about the contrast between the AI literate and AI illiterate. "Feels less novel and transformative" is really a statement about the AI illiterate seeing LLMs as novel and transformative, causing the FOMO and embracing.