Is AI actually saving you time?

The Charity Digital Skills Report 2025 showed that 76% of charities are using Artificial Intelligence (AI), however almost two-thirds (64%) struggle with AI tools or are not using them at all.

 

For those who are using AI in their day-to-day work, the common include drafting and structuring reports, completing admin tasks, developing online content, idea generation, and information gathering and research.

 

Whilst the Charity Digital Skills Report doesn’t measure time saved, the usage of AI appears to indicate increased levels of efficiency. It’s easy to assume that the adoption of AI means productivity is automatically increased, but is this true? 

 

 

What the data shows around AI and productivity

 

Whilst charities are embracing AI to help drive efficiency and productivity, is it really saving them time? New studies seem to suggest otherwise. A research study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, published in February 2026, surveyed 6,000 executives in companies from the US, UK, Germany, and Australia. Nine in ten executives reported there was little impact on employment or productivity over the last three years of having adopted AI.

 

A 2026 study found a major disparity between workers and their managers when it came to productivity and AI: while 19% of C-suite managers said they were saving more than 12 hours a week with AI, 40% of workers said it didn’t save them any time at all.

 

 

How AI can actually make you less efficient

 

It’s a common claim that AI can save us time and make us more productive, but did you know that it can waste time too? Here are some examples of ways that AI is costing you in time.

 

 

Checking and correcting generative AI outputs

 

Whilst AI can answer your question in mere seconds, just how accurate is the answer? New research by software company Workday found that 40% of AI time savings are actually lost to rework. This includes correcting errors, checking and verifying sources, and rewriting content. Only 14% of respondents say they get clear, positive outcomes from AI.

 

And it’s not only your own work it’s affecting. This wastes time for colleagues who need to correct or even rewrite other’s work when they’ve used generative AI.

 

 

Fixing AI formatting

 

Whilst AI can help you to ideate or even generate content for a presentation, it won’t produce a perfectly formatted deck. You might spend way longer trying to fix the formatting than if you’d just created the presentation from scratch.

 

 

Disguising the use of AI

 

AI copy tends to have a recognisable tone and structure. If you’re using generative AI to write a blog post, come up with a landing page for your website, or create a document, it’s likely you’ll want to edit it to make it sound “less like AI”.

 

You’ll want to rephrase sentences in your charity’s brand tone of voice and change the structure (not just the vocabulary). AI copy loves lists, emojis, and symmetrical paragraphs so you’d need to combine or shorten sections, turn lists into copy, and vary the sentence length. However, when all of the editing is done, it probably would’ve taken less time to just write the copy yourself from scratch.  

 

 

Recovering from AI-related reputational risks

 

Sourcing images for use on social media, your website, or in reports can be challenging for charities — particularly for charities who support vulnerable groups or children.

 

According to the CharityComms Salary and Organisational Culture Survey 2024 6% of charity communicators are using AI to create images, which is up 1% from the previous year. Using AI to create images sounds like the perfect solution when it’s difficult to source authentic images. But is it ethical?

 

In 2021, Amnesty International was criticised for using fake AI-generated images of the protests in Columbia in social media posts that were reporting on the protests. In one of the images used, the Columbian flag had the colours in the wrong order and the police uniform was outdated. 

 

Whilst creating the images using AI would’ve saved time and money as opposed to sourcing real images from the protests taken by photojournalists, it cost the charity time in responding to the criticism — as well as diminishing trust in them.

 

A report from the University of East Anglia (UEA) analysed 171 AI-generated images from 17 charities and found that when AI images are used, the cause essentially disappears from the conversation. Co-author of the report, David Girling from UEA’s School of Global Development said, “The debate about the ethics of AI is increasingly polarised. AI is not inherently wrong, but if it begins to overshadow the human story at the heart of charitable work, organisations could lose far more in trust than they gain in efficiency.”

 

The study found that while 85% of images were disclosed and labelled as AI-generated, this didn’t protect the charity from backlash from their supporters and the public. 

 

AI may offer speed and flexibility when it comes to creative output and cost efficiencies in creating AI-generated images, but it comes at a bigger cost — reputational damage and a loss of trust.