<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>research on YUNO AI Studio</title><link>https://yuno.to/tags/research/</link><description>Recent content in research on YUNO AI Studio</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://yuno.to/tags/research/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Workslop Is a Tax Organizations Levy on Themselves</title><link>https://yuno.to/blog/workslop-is-a-tax-organizations-levy-on-themselves/</link><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://yuno.to/blog/workslop-is-a-tax-organizations-levy-on-themselves/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;AI-generated junk work is now common enough to have a name. When an employee pastes unverified AI output into a deliverable and sends it on, the recipient inherits the job of figuring out what is wrong with it. Researchers at Stanford&amp;rsquo;s Social Media Lab and BetterUp Labs call this &lt;em&gt;workslop&lt;/em&gt;, and their survey of 1,150 U.S. employees found that 41 percent had received some in the past month&lt;sup id="fnref:1"&gt;&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The instinct in most executive teams is to read this as a discipline problem: people being careless with a new tool. The survey data points somewhere less comfortable. More than half of respondents admitted to sending work they knew was subpar, and the reason they gave was workload pressure combined with vague instructions to use AI more. They were complying with an incentive someone above them created.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Why AI Adoption Stalls Even When the Tools Work</title><link>https://yuno.to/blog/why-ai-adoption-stalls-even-when-the-tools-work/</link><pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://yuno.to/blog/why-ai-adoption-stalls-even-when-the-tools-work/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The CEO has signed the enterprise license. Training is rolling out. Dashboards say usage is climbing. And yet the productivity story the board was promised is not landing. New research &lt;a href="https://hbr.org/2026/05/the-psychological-costs-of-adopting-ai"&gt;published this month&lt;/a&gt; by Guy Champniss&lt;sup id="fnref:1"&gt;&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; suggests the issue may not be the tool, the rollout, or the training. It may be a category of cost most adoption strategies do not measure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Champniss surveyed more than 1,200 full-time employees across 10 sectors in the U.S. and UK. He measured how often people use AI, how complex the tasks are, and how often they avoid the tool on tasks where they know it would help. He then measured what he calls &lt;em&gt;psychological debt&lt;/em&gt;—the accumulated motivational cost of using AI inside a workflow that was not designed with the human side in mind. The results are uncomfortable for any leader treating AI rollout as a logistics problem.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>