New research suggests AI is about to create 'haves' and 'have nots' among knowledge workers. Those who adopt AI, and avoid some pitfalls, will start pulling far ahead of those that do not.
New research suggests AI is about to create 'haves' and 'have nots' among knowledge workers. Those who adopt AI, and avoid some pitfalls, will start pulling far ahead of those that do not.
I think we have an answer on whether AIs will reshape work....
Am I some old fuck at ripe age of 30 that haven't needed to use AI so far? The whole field seems like an astroturfing campaign, insisting that you definitely need to incorporate AI tools in your day to day work.
The time it takes for me to prompt AI tools is longer than the time it takes for me to do the work myself.
Meh, there are already whole classes of jobs decimated by AI a decade ago. This isn't new, just gaining attention now, and the ball is continuing to pick up speed. AI improves a lot faster than people do, unless it hits some kind of fundamental wall of development then it's just a matter of time before it comes for us all.
Depends on the work you're doing.
This was a fascinating article and I enjoyed seeing their summary of their research into how even current AI can impact the way people work, for the better. However, I can almost guarantee that most companies, especially the highly wealthy ones, won't be using AI in the way the author suggests.
I'm going to speculate that we'll start to see a bell curve, where small startups use AI to replace workers due to the cost of bringing on new team members, medium sized companies use it to augment their employees output, and large companies will layoff workers and replace them with AI; the latter of which is already happening.
Why?
Because the same pattern seems to be present when talking about company morality and ethics. While many smaller companies and startups tend to pledge to improving worker's rights, shrinking the company's carbon footprint, improving customer relations and/or increasing the quality of their products, they typically don't have the capital to truly commit to these values.
Medium sized companies tend to have the capital to fully commit to the values laid out when they were smaller, while not yet being large enough to experience the full force of capitalistic greed.
Finally, large companies have the capital to maintain their stated values, but often discover that said values run contrary to those held by their shareholders and board of directors (that being that greed is good and seeking infinite growth). Additionally, many of those companies are reaching full market saturation (if they haven't already achieved it) and find that they have to begin sacrificing their values in exchange for those dictated to them by their board of directors. The result is that they tend to be all talk, little action.
Oh yeah baby. Let's cram this absolute speedrun of enshittification up the arse of everything possible!
It's not AI.
Not that I disagree but just to understand where you're coming from, what definition are you using for AI? And Intelligence for that matter?
Coming at this from a compsci/comp e viewpoint I think of it simply as "the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making,..."
By that definition it absolutely exists. On our smart phones even.
Of course in each of these areas it isn't on par with human intelligence by any stretch. Often it's far more limited. But it can also be better at certain specific tasks. Most of my limited familiarity is with computer vision but I think that illustrates how far off the mark it is from human intelligence. It is insanely difficult for MV to identify a thing. You can train it to identify one or a few or maybe a small set of things.
But it is easily confused by different ambient lighting intensity or hue, shadows, objects partially obscuring the thing, and myriad other conditions.
Meanwhile humans can identify an enormous number of objects in all sorts of conditions, easy-peasy. By a young age even. I hadn't fully appreciated how sophisticated our abilities were until I started looking at the artificial side of it.
Anyway, all that said, to me the real issue is what new developments in AI (as I defined) mean to society at large. How do jobs change, how does it affect quality of life, quality of products and services, does it change how we as a society value those things (art, writing) that can be partly replaced?
Let me introduce you to Dr Angela Collier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE
And have very nice day.
Pretty interesting. I didn't know Dr Collier, quite similar speech from a former Samsung VP (also Co creator of Siri)
Mr Luc Julia
I really gotta hop on this AI train so I can increase my quality by about 2, whatever the fuck that means.
Permanently Deleted
Yawn.
Wake me when any of this AI nonsense actually does anything useful.
I have been able to create proof of concept and prototype code for several projects at work, while barely having any knowledge.
This has helped speed up prjects by a fair amount, because we don't need to bog down our DEVs with this sort of work and van focus on building solutions once they have proven viable like that.
Not to mention the ability for me to automate a certain amount of my work, freeing me up for other tasks.
I also find it very useful for overcoming writers block or organizing my thoughts to untie some mental knots. All this can be done without giving it too much information as well. I have found it to be tremendously useful but I see why people don't feel the same way. Especially the free version of chatgpt 3.5 is far worse than 4 and 4 had a huge dip in quality as they implemented safe guards and slowed it down to handle computing costs. But it is picking back up now.