Because some other people are operating under the assumption that this wave of AI models will automate all labor on the planet, instead of making the average desk jockey 10-25 percent more efficient.
In terms of 25 productivity, yeah, I think that is a good thing and could be true. However, the problem is that it is sold under the pretense that you can fire a large chunk of workers and rely in large part on AI, which makes it a whole lot more attractive to investors.
Yes just a matter of recognizing it’s 25% of various job titles, not 100% of 25% of job titles
Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers
If AI is just a tool that improves performance by 25% it changes what investors believe. It is a lot more expensive than 25% increase in productivity as investors were sold a different reality.
> Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers
With the error rate of GenAI I'm curious to see how this plays out in the long run. It seems that only more skilled workers can pick up on the wrong answers.
Nearly all the wealth generated by productivity gains of the last 50 years has been pocketed by business owners and investors
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...