ChatGPT lies then gaslights reporter with fake transcript

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is a nuanced issue. Does generative AI raise all kinds of issues and potential or actual problems? Yes! Does it also create a great many potential and actual opportunities? Also yes! I get that you are being hyperbolic, but I find it confuses the issues.

I am not being hyperbolic. A lot of people here are adamant that AI offers absolutely no value because of low quality (AI slop), because of a purported high prevalence of problems (like the one reported in the video) or because it is simply not worth using given how more effective the other solution we have are available. I don't share these views, but if I were to be convinced by them as part of the discussion, then there would be problem at all with AI, because no sane person would ever adopt it in a professional context, and absolutely no job would be threatened. No artist would ever lose a commission to an AI if it wasn't able to draw at all, or only "AI slop" without any merit, or only six-fingered disfigured persons. I was pointing out the discrepancy between the two, incompatible discourses over AI. It can bring important change to the labor market only if it is not unusable. Claiming it is only a waste of time in the office disqualifies any claim that it might have an economic impact, and therefore I was pointing out that discussing the economic consequences of it requires to drop the idea that it is totally useless.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yeah, its habit of flattering the author is lame. To me it doesn't read as insincere, since it's not sentient, but it is a dumb quirk that I wish they would fix - I just roll my eyes and ignore it.

Sometimes ChatGPT surveys with question like "Do you like this personnality ?". I didn't notice any change, but maybe at some point they'll offer several "personnalities" as part of the UI? I didn't notice big differences except in the use of formal/informal address.

 

[Kromanjon]

It's quite a wonder how every discussion about the reported problems with AI tend to end with a bunch of people just reiterating over and over again how great and useful AI really is.

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.

Nice stats. So according to these numbers the workweek has decreased from 70h to 35h. Seems quite nice. On the other hand the work load has increased thanks to industrialization and technology to the point where one person is expected to perform the work of five, or seven, or ten people in 1900. Technology of course makes this possible, but at the same time the bandwidth of the human mind remains the same which has resulted in people burning out in ways that didn't even exist as a concept in 1900.

Honestly, even if every person were expected to have the same output that a worker had in the year 1900, with todays technology, we shouldn't be asked to work more than a 6-8 hour shift per week.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Honestly, even if every person were expected to have the same output that a worker had in the year 1900, with todays technology, we shouldn't be asked to work more than a 6-8 hour shift per week.

Indeed. But since we are able to work more, we are generally electing to do so and we also got a tremendous increase in wealth. A worker who elects to work 8 hours a week would be doing better economically than a full-time factory or coal mine worker in 1870 (a tenfold increase in purchasing power vs a part-time of 25% of the typical workweek -- not exactly swimming in riches, but faring better). The sweet spot is certainly somewhere in-between the current workload and the "subsistance level" workload. Lord Keynes theorized about a 15 hours workweek in 2030. In a lot of white collar jobs, the workweek is padded with tasks defined by a term popularized by David Graeber than can't be uttered on this board and the "effective week" is probably already lower, and maybe not that far from 15 hours. Also, for a better increase in free time, see experiments of 4-days workweek.

 

[Kromanjon]

Indeed. But since we are able to work more, we are generally electing to do so and we also got a tremendous increase in wealth. A worker who elects to work 8 hours a week would be doing better economically than a full-time factory or coal mine worker in 1870 (a tenfold increase in purchasing power vs a part-time of 25% of the typical workweek -- not exactly swimming in riches, but faring better). The sweet spot is certainly somewhere in-between the current workload and the "subsistance level" workload. Lord Keynes theorized about a 15 hours workweek in 2030. In a lot of white collar jobs, the workweek is padded with tasks defined by a term popularized by David Graeber than can't be uttered on this board and the "effective week" is probably already lower, and maybe not that far from 15 hours. Also, for a better increase in free time, see experiments of 4-days workweek.

This is a very interesting discussion that could go a lot of places like mental health in the work force or distribution of wealth and class discrepancies. However that would go against the policies of this forum so I'll just end with saying there's even more digging to be made on the subject and everyone can go back to discussing AI instead.

 

[kermit4karate]

It's quite a wonder how every discussion about the reported problems with AI tend to end with a bunch of people just reiterating over and over again how great and useful AI really is.

Nice stats. So according to these numbers the workweek has decreased from 70h to 35h. Seems quite nice. On the other hand the work load has increased thanks to industrialization and technology to the point where one person is expected to perform the work of five, or seven, or ten people in 1900. Technology of course makes this possible, but at the same time the bandwidth of the human mind remains the same which has resulted in people burning out in ways that didn't even exist as a concept in 1900.

Honestly, even if every person were expected to have the same output that a worker had in the year 1900, with todays technology, we shouldn't be asked to work more than a 6-8 hour shift per week.

I think the problem people have consistently had in this discussion is a failure to understand how something can be both good and bad at the same time.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the problem people have consistently had in this discussion is a failure to understand how something can be both good and bad at the same time.

That's crazy; next you'll be saying there are no black-and-white binary options and things just exist on gradients of gray.

 

[Umbran]

Here's why I don't think it will though:

• AI tools are being widely deployed and widely adopted in white-color workspaces. It is not vaporware.

Fine. Junkware. It does not seem to be generating significant value when it gets there. We'll talk about that more in a bit...

• AI is about more than simply replacing people with AI versions. In many corporate workplaces it's about augmenting the productivity of the remaining staff.

"Remaining staff". So, staff has been let go. You then replace their productivity with that supposedly produced by AI. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

• The topline growth IMO isn't coming from AI replacing most workers with AI.

That is actually where the topline is - in supposedly reducing costs by reducing headcount. Doing the same job with fewer people.

• 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.

Yes! Exactly! How is this not "replacing workers with AI?

Except....

• 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.

No, it is growing because corporate suits are being told that, and sold a product, not because the value is actually realized. Hype and marketing.

Sales of enterprise AI generally focuses on two use-cases:

1) replacing low-level employees with AI - like, say, removing humans from call centers, so that customers never speak to humans on the phone.

2) supposedly increasing productivity through employees using AI in their work.

#2 is generally demonstrated by showing how quickly an individual can complete an atomic task with AI, and assuming that you do that across many tasks, and thus increase productivity.

It is not demonstrated by comparing entire teams on large efforts, so downstream effects of AI use are hidden.

It is all well and good if a coding task is completed quickly, but if the AI-using team winds up spending more time fixing bugs the AI introduces that humans don't, or the resulting code is not performant or is fragile, overall productivity doesn't go up!

Your lawyer spends less time creating a brief, but either they spend more time reviewing and editing out hallucinated case references, or get their licenced yanked - no increased productivity!

This is the general pattern seen - AI tools increase the need for editing and correction enough to eliminate their supposed increase in productivity.

 

[kermit4karate]

Fine. Junkware. It does not seem to be generating significant value when it gets there. We'll talk about that more in a bit...



"Remaining staff". So, staff has been let go. You then replace their productivity with that supposedly produced by AI. To-may-to, to-mah-to.


That is actually where the topline is - in supposedly reducing costs by reducing headcount. Doing the same job with fewer people.



Yes! Exactly! How is this not "replacing workers with AI?

Except....



No, it is growing because corporate suits are being told that, and sold a product, not because the value is actually realized. Hype and marketing.

Sales of enterprise AI generally focuses on two use-cases:

1) replacing low-level employees with AI - like, say, removing humans from call centers, so that customers never speak to humans on the phone.

2) supposedly increasing productivity through employees using AI in their work.

#2 is generally demonstrated by showing how quickly an individual can complete an atomic task with AI, and assuming that you do that across many tasks, and thus increase productivity.

It is not demonstrated by comparing entire teams on large efforts, so downstream effects of AI use are hidden.

It is all well and good if a coding task is completed quickly, but if the AI-using team winds up spending more time fixing bugs the AI introduces that humans don't, or the resulting code is not performance or is fragile, overall productivity doesn't go up!

Your lawyer spends less time creating a brief, but either they spend more time reviewing and editing out hallucinated case references, or get their licenced yanked - no increased productivity!

This is the general pattern seen - AI tools increase the need for editing and correction enough to eliminate their supposed increase in productivity.

How did it come about where I'm being made to feel like I have to defend AI?? Where do I say that I think AI won't result in widespread job losses, because I've said that it will repeatedly in this thread. I've even said I believe I have a MORE negative outlook on society as a result of AI than most of the readers of this thread. I even used the word "apocalyptic."

Again, a thing can be both good and bad at the same time, and I feel like I have to reiterate that I did not invent AI. I use it because it's a valuable, useful tool in my personal and professional life. Why does my saying that I think it's great for me lead to me being treated like I'm the spokesperson for the pro-AI lobby?

 

[trappedslider]

It's quite a wonder how every discussion about the reported problems with AI tend to end with a bunch of people just reiterating over and over again how great and useful AI really is.

same as "look see how AI has screwed up this time"