and Funny how he accurately describes the mechanics of AI-driven job loss, and then ridicules people worried about AI-driven job loss, in the same article. Or perhaps he's implying that there will...
we're well past the point where your boss can be suckered into firing you and replacing you with a bot that fails at doing your job
and
AI critics are all running around with their hair on fire, shouting about the coming AI jobpocalypse
Funny how he accurately describes the mechanics of AI-driven job loss, and then ridicules people worried about AI-driven job loss, in the same article. Or perhaps he's implying that there will be a swingback/correction sometime after those bosses realize that AI can't do the job after all? I wouldn't hold my breath since "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", and the damage will be done by then.
The way I read it, the author isn't describing AI driven job loss at all, the AI he refers to can't do the job. The job loss is caused by greedy or inept management, which precedes and will...
The way I read it, the author isn't describing AI driven job loss at all, the AI he refers to can't do the job. The job loss is caused by greedy or inept management, which precedes and will outlive the current round of AI hype.
Well, of course it's rooted in human greed and incompetence, lots of problems are-- pollution, crime, inequity, etc. But we'd be getting nowhere if we refuse to identify and examine specifics,...
Well, of course it's rooted in human greed and incompetence, lots of problems are-- pollution, crime, inequity, etc. But we'd be getting nowhere if we refuse to identify and examine specifics, like how certain technologies or infrastructures can exacerbate the problem. I'm generally not a fan of the "it's just a tool, humans are the problem" argument because it implies that a tool or tech is some kind of magic perfectly neutral thing that exists in a vacuum, untouched by sociopolitical context.
Wow, I did not expect to enjoy and agree with this article as much as I did. Surrounded by both hype and (as he calls it) "criti-hype", it was really refreshing to see a perspective that's...
Wow, I did not expect to enjoy and agree with this article as much as I did. Surrounded by both hype and (as he calls it) "criti-hype", it was really refreshing to see a perspective that's grounded in the more realistic capabilities (and flaws) of these models.
and
Funny how he accurately describes the mechanics of AI-driven job loss, and then ridicules people worried about AI-driven job loss, in the same article. Or perhaps he's implying that there will be a swingback/correction sometime after those bosses realize that AI can't do the job after all? I wouldn't hold my breath since "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", and the damage will be done by then.
The way I read it, the author isn't describing AI driven job loss at all, the AI he refers to can't do the job. The job loss is caused by greedy or inept management, which precedes and will outlive the current round of AI hype.
Well, of course it's rooted in human greed and incompetence, lots of problems are-- pollution, crime, inequity, etc. But we'd be getting nowhere if we refuse to identify and examine specifics, like how certain technologies or infrastructures can exacerbate the problem. I'm generally not a fan of the "it's just a tool, humans are the problem" argument because it implies that a tool or tech is some kind of magic perfectly neutral thing that exists in a vacuum, untouched by sociopolitical context.
Wow, I did not expect to enjoy and agree with this article as much as I did. Surrounded by both hype and (as he calls it) "criti-hype", it was really refreshing to see a perspective that's grounded in the more realistic capabilities (and flaws) of these models.