>Am I reading this correctly that the assumption here is that programming and writing skills aren't reliant on critical thinking? No, they're just listing some

>Am I reading this correctly that the assumption here is that programming and writing skills aren't reliant on critical thinking? No, they're just listing some skills that have both negative and positive associations with exposure. I don't think they intend to make a statement about whether the skills themselves are correlated. It's possible for them to be positively correlated with each other, even if one is positively and the other is negatively correlated with exposure (think multidimensional vectors). > There is also a table which indicates exposure to LLMs in various models and it shows Mathematicians to have 100% exposure. This bit is more puzzling to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. Right, another one that stood out to me is the listing of financial investments as the most affected industry. I'm certainly not letting GPT-4 make investment choices for me. I guess it could summarize analyst reports or something? They seem to be making some very speculative assumptions about what ML will be capable of in the future. The paper would be more useful if they didn't go off like this and stayed closer to published ML research.