• rockerface@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    High skilled jobs will just start using AI as a tool to automate routine (or have already started, in some cases). The most efficient use of AIs we have now is to pair it with a human, anyway

    • Dabundis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The worry is focused on the amount of damage that is likely to be done by the people in decision-making positions thinking they can save money by removing more paid positions.

        • Denjin@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago
          Fire all staff
          
          Receive billion dollar check
          
          Walk away before it all collapses
          
          Repeat
          

          Look, I already got the algorithm written right here!

        • Drigo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          I never understood this? How could the CEO be replaced? Who would be controlling the AI? Whould’t that person just be the new CEO? I have so many questions…

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you are trying to seriously understand how to do it… well, you can’t. Current AIs can’t fully replace anybody, and it’s an open question if they can partially replace (AKA improve the productivity) anybody to any impactful extent.

            • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Depending on how loosely you define AI, current AIs are great at replacing warehouse workers and jobs that rely heavily on routine and have little to no innovation and critical thinking involved.

    • greenskye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The problem with humans reviewing AI output is that humans are pretty shit at QA. Our brains are literally built to ignore small mistakes. Digging through the output of an AI that’s right 95% of the time is nightmare fuel for human brains. If your task needs more accuracy, it’s probably better to just have the human do it all, rather than try to review it.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Then each QA human will be paired with a second AI that will catch those mistakes the human ignores. And another human will be hired to watch that AI and that human will get an AI assistant to catch their mistakes.

        Eventually they’ll need a rule that you can only communicate with the human/AI directly above you or below you in the chain to avoid meetings with entire countries of people.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Should note that a lot of the Microsoft Recall project revolves around capturing human interactions on the computer in real time continuously, with the hope of training a GPT-5 model that can do basic office tasks automagically.

      Will it work? To some degree, maybe. It’ll definitely spit out some convincing looking gibberish.

      But the promise is to increasingly automate away office and professional labor.

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      “Take this code and give me jest tests with 100% coverage. Don’t describe, don’t scaffold, full output.”

      Saves me hours.