ChatGPT lies then gaslights reporter with fake transcript

[Jfdlsjfd]

I really can't understand why people care about AI stock valuations, most of which aren't even publicly traded?

One might think venture capitalists are idiots to spend their money this way, and there are certainly venture capitalists who think we're really stupid spending our money on RPG books. But each can spend their money how they want.

I could understand taxpayers being concerned by public investment made by the country they pay taxes in as well, but honestly, if OpenAI closes down tomorrow, it won't affect (AI, them, me) in absolutely no way.

If non-AI companies are stupid enough to fire needed workers without noticing they have no backup plan to have their job done, they will... not have the job done and will have to hire them back, or stop being able to get money from their customers, who will turn to other companies who didn't make the same mistake and who will hire people to face the increased customer load, the same way capitalistic economy has worked since its installment.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"pivot to video,"

flinches

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really can't understand why people care about AI stock valuations, most of which aren't even publicly traded?

Because the whole game in Silicon Valley is about getting acquired by a bigger company. My brother bought his first house that way.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

AI tools are being widely deployed and widely adopted in white-color workspaces.

Outside of tech, it's being "adopted" in short term experiments that almost universally end with "why did we spend money on this?"

The topline growth IMO isn't coming from AI replacing most workers with AI. That's the way it keeps being characterized, but I think that's actually an unintentional red herring. Companies are eliminating roles because the remaining staff can be more productive thanks to AI tools.

"Companies aren't eliminating workers in favor of AI, they're just eliminating workers and replacing them with AI?"

AI cannot do your job, yet. I agree with that. But it makes it so a human using AI can do a job that would have been performed by two people. That's why it's actually growing. Not because anyone's about to literally replace a human with an AI.

If you had two people and zero AI, and now have one person and one AI, one person's role has been replaced with AI, no matter what color lipstick is on the pig.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If you had two people and zero AI, and now have one person and one AI, one person's role has been replaced with AI, no matter what color lipstick is on the pig.

Except the linked article explains that since AI can't do anyone's job, the companies fires one people, and now has one people and one AI that does nothing. It ensues that it is short one people, and the company must proceed to hiring one people, possibly another one, not the exact same people it ha just fired, to keep operating.

So the net effect might only be that AI will make people... change employers as all companies are doing the fire-and-rehire cycle.

In order for one person to be replaced by AI, then AI should necessarily be able to replace some part of the job, which the article says is not possible (on the basis that he thinks AI is crap).

What would be terrible is if AI wasn't only capable of producing AI slop, and was not hallucinating 99.97% of the time, and was not much less efficient than the current solutions we have, as I was explained on enworld.

 

[kermit4karate]

I really can't understand why people care about AI stock valuations, most of which aren't even publicly traded?

One might think venture capitalists are idiots to spend their money this way, and there are certainly venture capitalists who think we're really stupid spending our money on RPG books. But each can spend their money how they want.

I could understand taxpayers being concerned by public investment made by the country they pay taxes in as well, but honestly, if OpenAI closes down tomorrow, it won't affect (AI, them, me) in absolutely no way.

If non-AI companies are stupid enough to fire needed workers without noticing they have no backup plan to have their job done, they will... not have the job done and will have to hire them back, or stop being able to get money from their customers, who will turn to other companies who didn't make the same mistake and who will hire people to face the increased customer load, the same way capitalistic economy has worked since its installment.

I'm pretty sure I work in a completely different reality than many of the members here, because where I work, and with the companies we work with, AI is everywhere. I hop on Teams meetings 2-3 times per day, and there's a virtual AI assistant on every call, and people are summarizing meeting notes and emailing out the summaries to leadership. Every developer and engineer is using AI to create their deployment step-action plans for system upgrades and implementations in a fraction the time it took them a year ago.

Teams who work with ERP systems (Oracle) and BI (Business Intelligence), whose job it is to analyze data from sourcing and make adjustments across production are using AI to help them analyze the huge amounts of data they work with.

In the manufacturing realm where actual products are being made, AI systems are being deployed on production lines at a blistering pace and sadly humans are already losing their jobs. Articulating robotic arms that mimic human dexterity to perform complex tasks are being deployed differently than they were before. Where before a robotic assembly arm had dozens of sensors to capture x, y, z, coordinates of each joint and flood telemetry to an external system, where a human would then manually adjust the performance of the robot, now those same production lines will have a dozen robotic arms on them and a single eye (IP camera) watching the line. The camera constantly uploads high-def video of the arms working along the line out to a server in a vendor's private cloud where AI analyzes the footage and sends back instructions to the arms to make minute adjustments on the fly to improve their efficiency. It's constantly adapting in real time. No more human involved.

Everyone is using AI in my sphere, and yet I just keep seeing people here talk about how no one is using it? Different worlds, I guess.

 

[kermit4karate]

Outside of tech, it's being "adopted" in short term experiments that almost universally end with "why did we spend money on this?"

That hasn't been my experience. I'm seeing adoption increasing across tech and manufacturing every day. Now, does that mean that there isn't a huge amount of fluff, hyperbole and marketing out there surrounding AI? No. There is a ton of that nonsense out there too, but this isn't one of those "Where's the beef?" things. AI is catching on, touching more and more parts of the economy. It isn't just the house of cards folks are making it out to be.

"Companies aren't eliminating workers in favor of AI, they're just eliminating workers and replacing them with AI?"

If you had two people and zero AI, and now have one person and one AI, one person's role has been replaced with AI, no matter what color lipstick is on the pig.

I know that. I'm just struggling to communicate with folks who frame the debate as one of human (≠) AI. Yes, of course the AI doesn't literally replace the human, but they sure are augmenting human capabilities, which is impacting employment decisions just the same.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Everyone is using AI in my sphere, and yet I just keep seeing people here talk about how no one is using it? Different worlds, I guess.

Same here, everyone is using AI around me in some capacity. It doesn't translate as job replacement, but as an efficiency multiplier for people doing their job and as a time saver: instead of doing chore-tasks, less time overall is spend on them, only correcting the AI errors instead of doing everything by hand. And they don't seem to have a problem using this tool, even if it fails sometimes. Years ago, Windows crashed and you had a blue screen of death and you had to restart spending 2 hours on your presentation, and we didn't ditch computers in my job environment either, we lived with the flaw of the technology because we felt it was overall a timesaver, and there is the same approach toward AI.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I know that. I'm just struggling to communicate with folks who frame the debate as one of human (≠) AI. Yes, of course the AI doesn't literally replace the human, but they sure are augmenting human capabilities, which is impacting employment decisions just the same.

Job replacement isn't the only way to deal with increase in productivity. The added collective wealth created can be used to lower the work burden from all.

In France:

In 1900, the workweek was set to 10 hours a day.
In 1906, mandatory rest on Sunday was imposed.
In 1919, the workweek was set to 48h.
In 1936, the workweek was set 40h and two week of paid leave per year.
In 1956, a third week was granted.
In 1963, a fourth week was granted.
In 1982, a fifth week was granted, and the workweek was lowered to 39h.
In 2000, the workweek was lowered to 35h.

I feel we're (long over)due another reduction, and maybe it can come from the increased productivity coming from AI. Productivity gains don't have to result mechanically in less jobs.

 

[kermit4karate]

Job replacement isn't the only way to deal with increase in productivity. The added collective wealth created can be used to lower the work burden from all.

In France:

In 1900, the workweek was set to 10 hours a day.
In 1906, mandatory rest on Sunday was imposed.
In 1919, the workweek was set to 48h.
In 1936, the workweek was set 40h and two week of paid leave per year.
In 1956, a third week was granted.
In 1963, a fourth week was granted.
In 1982, a fifth week was granted, and the workweek was lowered to 39h.
In 2000, the workweek was lowered to 35h.

I feel we're (long over)due another reduction, and maybe it can come from the increased productivity coming from AI.

I'll take it. Wouldn't that be nice? Now we just need corporate leaders to funnel the cost savings from this increased productivity into people who have titles that don't begin with "C."

I wouldn't hold my breath on that...and I'm a frog.