Why does the text argue that technology adoption models like TAM and UTAUT are insufficient for understanding human-AI interaction in hospitality?

The text argues that TAM and UTAUT are insufficient because they only capture early adoption and acceptance of AI, not the long-term, sustained effects of human-AI interaction on workers. These models fail to explain how ongoing collaboration with AI transforms job identity, emotional labor, professional autonomy, and the meaning of service over time.

The text criticizes TAM and UTAUT for being technology-focused and oriented toward initial acceptance and usage of tools like self-service technologies, chatbots, and robotics. While these models can explain early adoption, they provide little insight into how sustained human-AI interaction reshapes the workforce in hospitality. Specifically, they do not address changes in job identity, emotional labor, professional autonomy, or service meaning as employees work alongside AI over time. The text also notes a lack of longitudinal studies that would reveal workforce adjustment at different stages of AI adoption, which is necessary because the deeper psychosocial and human consequences of hybrid human-AI work are not captured by adoption-focused models.