7 ms·

How Will Language Modelers Like ChatGPT Affect Occupations and Industries?

29 points by yenniejun111 3y ago

vouaobrasil 3y ago
From the paper: > We also find a positive correlation between wages and exposure to AI language modeling. That is only intermediary. There will be a slight increase in wages for those who can operate with AI, but soon it will be able to operate without humans in most domains and then wages will drop to zero.
- version_five 3y ago
  s/ai/loom/ the sentiment is always the same and it doesn't work that way. Worry about concentration of wealth and power, sure, but automation never net removed jobs from the economy it makes more.
  - stemlord 3y ago
    Can we define automation then because my understanding was that it quite literally means sans human labor. Are you saying it's merely a political buzzword?
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Here is the problem with your argument: our planet is finite, and growth will eventually plateau. It cannot go on forever. Automation does remove jobs, but so far it's done so on a small scale compared to what AI will do. On the other hand, AI will remove jobs on a large scale on an order of MAGNITUDE more than other automations. The argument of drawing an analogy with the loom is weak. As technology progresses, the power of it in its scope increases, and computer technology is much more wide-reaching than the loom. Unfortunately, analogy only goes so far. At some point, there may indeed be more jobs. But even then, they will be (to the human mind) quite meaningless, such as the maintenance of AI machines and of such speciality that people will lose all hope in life by doing them.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      We don't know at all what additional jobs will spring up from AI or will be removed - we already see the hype cycle ending on genAI. For example, I expect an explosion in bureaucracy with associated jobs from AI.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Exactly, which is why I recommend caution and ethical investigations, instead of hoping that this new stuff will just be hype and burn itself out. Caution is a lot better a strategy than guess and check.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        Going to be too bad if no new ones pop up?
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        There is already a whole compliance industry springing up around AI use.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        If — and it will remain "if" right up until we have actually made it — if we get an AI which is as general as a human mind, then every job can be automated, including the new ones. What that means depends how much the AI costs to run. Assuming the hardware stays working long enough to amortise to a rounding error, $100,000 per year at $0.05/kWh is 228 kW (and by extension $10k/year is about 23 kW), so a "good enough" AI can "afford" to draw a lot of electricity while still being cheaper than many experts, or to draw more electricity than most households while still being cheaper than per-capita income in 15 of the G20 countries. On the other hand, if the best we can figure out how to do while giving it human-level generality is an IQ of 85, and it's a thing that runs on 1 kW, that makes 16% of humans uncompetitive even at the UN "abject poverty" threshold, while smarter people can still be gainfully employed. Current AI is neither, as it's a combination of absurd training costs, low inference costs, and being very good at specifically and (IMO) exclusivity at the things we use to define "intelligent", but also without the stuff we don't count as "intelligence" because approximately every human has it and it's not a differentiator.
  - somesortofthing 3y ago
    I think a more appropriate conclusion to draw is that big leaps in automation required huge, costly reorganizations of society to ensure enough people have jobs to avoid civil unrest, increasingly in ways that were dubiously productive compared to, say, directly providing for the people whose labor had suddenly become worthless. Whether the next big leap(or, for that matter, the next two or five big leaps) will finally require a retool whose cost we can't afford is very much an open question.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      That's an interesting viewpoint, and I think it's one way to look at it. But, we have to go back and ask: let's suppose we CAN make sure that enough people get jobs to avoid civil unrest, to use your terminology. What will those jobs be? They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule. Thus, the only jobs left will be the kind that is already increasing today: some small cog in a massive corporate scheme that somehow has not yet been automated yet. I believe there are at least some alternatives, such as: we could form a new conglomeration (perhaps a union or cartel of sorts) of people who refuse to use AI in their business, and who refuse to do business with anyone using AI. Obviously, it would take some effort, but maybe it's possible. In this union, we would operate society normally, but with a code of ethics that prevents the use of advanced AI and maybe other dangerous technologies, and we would develop a more sustainable way of living that involves sustainable farming and being more reliant on each other instead of letting massive, soulless tech companies control us. I am formulating a more detailed proposal but that's the gist of one of my ideas.
      - JimtheCoder 3y ago
        "They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule" This doesn't make sense to me. If AI eliminates most creative jobs, yet there are still humans who can do better (modern Dostoyevskys) would it not make sense for businesses to hire creative people to "out creative" their competitors, who just use the AI?
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Isn't the absolute entire point of AI to remove jobs, I mean why on earth would we create AI otherwise ? It's the other half of the industrial revolution ?
    - version_five 3y ago
      Do you feel the same about any technology that can help someone do their job better? Calculators, typewriters, card catalogs, tool use? What's the minimum level of technological sophistication that's acceptable to you as no being about removing jobs?
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        It's quite different, a calculator isn't supposed to work autonomously.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        BarryMilo 3y ago
        Well, before they were machines, they were jobs. We can no more imagine what AI will bring than people from the 1800s could imagine the changes computers woould bring. That is to say: everything changed.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        The only way I can imagine humans stay relevant in the job market, is if we can someone augment our intelligence to the point where we can basically keep up with AIs progress. I don't actually think this is impossible as in some ways, mobile phones and other wearable devices are probably the first steps to get there. Who knows?
  - booleandilemma 3y ago
    This isn't like the loom though. If you have a loom you obsolete all weavers, but only the weavers. This is more like a magical typewriter, and it's coming for all white collar jobs.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    > but automation never net removed jobs from the economy it makes more. That’s true for more limited forms of automation - e.g. the loom, heavy industrial machinery, even computers - as people just move on to other jobs and society gains a net improvement in productivity. AI, specially AGI (which is the endgame for AI), is a different matter. It’s not specialised. “General” is literal in its name. It could do nigh every job. There will be no jobs for everyone being displaced to move on to.
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    Yes, the nobility always will need their serfs doing something.
  - taneq 3y ago
    Maybe it hasn't yet removed a net number of jobs, but it's definitely removed jobs at the skill level that's being automated. You upgrade your weaving business from manual looms to automatic looms, maybe you create more jobs for automatic loom engineers but you certainly also remove jobs for weavers. Maybe the additional productivity means that society as a whole now has more jobs but ultimately none of those jobs are going to be easier to do than weaving. Also, looms are a deceptive example because weaving is still skilled labour. Chances are if you can learn to weave good quality cloth you'll be capable of retraining into another skilled trade. The same can't be said for "unskilled" labour, your 50-year-old factory line workers displaced by automation aren't going to be re-training as graphic designers and web devs. Now apply that not to a specialized machine that screws lids on water bottles really fast, but to a machine that can do any desk job a moderately competent white collar worker can do, and you'll see we have a problem.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  This is not saying that wages will increase with AI. It is saying that people with higher wages are (statistically) more likely to lose their job to AI.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  This doesn't really make any logical sense if you think about it. The reason jobs exist is not because the person hiring can't do them, but because they have other things they'd rather focus their time and energy on. You don't hire a janitor because you can't clean the floors, toilets, and other areas - but because you have different priorities for your own time. To consider this more intuitively, take a field you probably less skilled in - art. There are some really quite amazing "AI" based generative systems for art, far more domain competent than e.g. ChatGPT is at coding. Now imagine you're setting out to make a video game. Do you suddenly feel like taking on the entire art load would be a good way to spend your time and energy, let alone if we compare that to what an artist using the same tools would accomplish in the same time? If anything "AI" will probably just be a skill multiplier.
gessha 3y ago
From the most recent issue of Logic magazine, talking about Charles Babbage: “Babbage’s Difference engines were designed to automate the work of the “least skilled” mathematicians…
JimtheCoder 3y ago
One of the occupations listed in the appendix that will be affected are political scientists. (1.687) My first degree is in political science. I spend four years trying to figure out what a political scientist actually does. I never figured it out. How are we going to lose these jobs to automation, if we can barely figure out what they do or what their actual use is? ----- On a more serious note, studies like this that take a whole swath of careers and make pronouncement about how they will be affected by AI seem relatively useless to me. There is no way the researchers (or the consultants in the case of the Mckinsey study) can have a deep understanding of each of these careers and all the activities that are involved, what makes a good "worker" in that career, and all of that. Just a bunch of academic bloviating on a hot topic, and using data to draw conclusions that data alone cannot fulfill... Just my opinion...
- aiisjustanif 3y ago
  Not to be rude, but the purposes of political sciences is easy to grasp and important. From structuring aid and refugee program, to making policies that affect our every day lives, to researching and working on issues related to economic competitiveness, treaties, and resources. you can read latest articles to get some ideas. [1] Plus Economics, Law, and Political Science are strictly separate sciences just like chemistry and physics are not strictly separated sciences. I think the figuring out what a mathematician does is more difficult, but also still understandable and important. [1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-re https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-re...
  - gremlinsinc 3y ago
    Yeah, and creating specialized "agents" in an AI "lab" discussing solutions could solve most of the problems in a day that take actual political scientists a year to just end up at a stalemate, or impasse because of no concensus.
01100011 3y ago
Drive-by, low-quality comment. Please ignore. I applaud Hollywood, including Sarah Silverman and the unions currently on strike, for trying to fight AI. I think they're doomed, but good for them. I don't see a scenario where Hollywood exists in anything like it's current form in 10-15 years. In the next 5 years, AI will be a huge help, allowing wonderful new content produced with much less work. Beyond that? I fully expect that in 10-15 years time the value of the content owned by companies like Disney will approach zero. Mickey Mouse(ok, not the biggest asset they have now, but an example) will be replaced by Ricky the Raccoon or thousands of other characters generated by AI. They will all act out stories influenced by, but nothing like, much of modern storytelling. They will weave stories out of the lives of their viewers, producing a new form of media capable of dynamically interaction. The fusion of modern gaming and cinema, but personal and streaming endlessly, in an immersive format such as VR. This future holds no appeal to me, and I find it repulsive, but I suspect the next generation will find it beautiful and irresistible.
- robotnikman 3y ago
  I find it funny how 'AI Ethicists' worry about AI says. And yet, they see no problem with AI possibly displacing millions of jobs and leaving people without income. That is what should be focused on, not nitpicking what the AI should say. I know this is a low quality comment, I'm just angry at the current situation regarding AI.
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    Because most 'AI ethicists' are overeducated well off urbanite upper-middle class landed gentry-adjacents who believe they will never be replaced by AI because the touchstones of their distributed cognitive-emotional load are too complex for even far off SOTA models to ever grasp. The fate of the poor simple proles and their millions destitute are a non-issue to them. AI bots saying mean things on Twitter is a far greater crisis because it pertains to what they actually care about, not the lives of millions of people less fortunate than them.
    - 3y ago
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The thing I find very fascinating about the rise of generative AI is that it's one of the first tech advancements in a long time that puts more highly paid jobs at risk, while actually raising the value of more manual jobs that are harder to automate. This article from the Washington Post [1] says it well: > In March, Goldman Sachs predicted that 18 percent of work worldwide could be automated by AI, with white-collar workers such as lawyers at more risk than those in trades such as construction or maintenance. “Occupations for which a significant share of workers’ time is spent outdoors or performing physical labor cannot be automated by AI,” the report said. While I really feel for people who have lost their job due to AI, I also can't help but feel that the "non-automatable" jobs that they're going into actually have a lot more value to society. E.g. the article talks about a copywriter who loses his copywriting work and decides to go become an HVAC technician and go into plumbing. I value the work of having working A/C and hot water a lot more than yet another creative blurb trying to sell me something. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taking-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taki...

29 points by yenniejun111 3y ago

From the paper: > We also find a positive correlation between wages and exposure to AI language modeling. That is only intermediary. There will be a slight increase in wages for those who can operate with AI, but soon it will be able to operate without humans in most domains and then wages will drop to zero.

version_five 3y ago
s/ai/loom/ the sentiment is always the same and it doesn't work that way. Worry about concentration of wealth and power, sure, but automation never net removed jobs from the economy it makes more.
- stemlord 3y ago
  Can we define automation then because my understanding was that it quite literally means sans human labor. Are you saying it's merely a political buzzword?
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Here is the problem with your argument: our planet is finite, and growth will eventually plateau. It cannot go on forever. Automation does remove jobs, but so far it's done so on a small scale compared to what AI will do. On the other hand, AI will remove jobs on a large scale on an order of MAGNITUDE more than other automations. The argument of drawing an analogy with the loom is weak. As technology progresses, the power of it in its scope increases, and computer technology is much more wide-reaching than the loom. Unfortunately, analogy only goes so far. At some point, there may indeed be more jobs. But even then, they will be (to the human mind) quite meaningless, such as the maintenance of AI machines and of such speciality that people will lose all hope in life by doing them.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    We don't know at all what additional jobs will spring up from AI or will be removed - we already see the hype cycle ending on genAI. For example, I expect an explosion in bureaucracy with associated jobs from AI.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Exactly, which is why I recommend caution and ethical investigations, instead of hoping that this new stuff will just be hype and burn itself out. Caution is a lot better a strategy than guess and check.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      Going to be too bad if no new ones pop up?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        There is already a whole compliance industry springing up around AI use.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      If — and it will remain "if" right up until we have actually made it — if we get an AI which is as general as a human mind, then every job can be automated, including the new ones. What that means depends how much the AI costs to run. Assuming the hardware stays working long enough to amortise to a rounding error, $100,000 per year at $0.05/kWh is 228 kW (and by extension $10k/year is about 23 kW), so a "good enough" AI can "afford" to draw a lot of electricity while still being cheaper than many experts, or to draw more electricity than most households while still being cheaper than per-capita income in 15 of the G20 countries. On the other hand, if the best we can figure out how to do while giving it human-level generality is an IQ of 85, and it's a thing that runs on 1 kW, that makes 16% of humans uncompetitive even at the UN "abject poverty" threshold, while smarter people can still be gainfully employed. Current AI is neither, as it's a combination of absurd training costs, low inference costs, and being very good at specifically and (IMO) exclusivity at the things we use to define "intelligent", but also without the stuff we don't count as "intelligence" because approximately every human has it and it's not a differentiator.
- somesortofthing 3y ago
  I think a more appropriate conclusion to draw is that big leaps in automation required huge, costly reorganizations of society to ensure enough people have jobs to avoid civil unrest, increasingly in ways that were dubiously productive compared to, say, directly providing for the people whose labor had suddenly become worthless. Whether the next big leap(or, for that matter, the next two or five big leaps) will finally require a retool whose cost we can't afford is very much an open question.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    That's an interesting viewpoint, and I think it's one way to look at it. But, we have to go back and ask: let's suppose we CAN make sure that enough people get jobs to avoid civil unrest, to use your terminology. What will those jobs be? They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule. Thus, the only jobs left will be the kind that is already increasing today: some small cog in a massive corporate scheme that somehow has not yet been automated yet. I believe there are at least some alternatives, such as: we could form a new conglomeration (perhaps a union or cartel of sorts) of people who refuse to use AI in their business, and who refuse to do business with anyone using AI. Obviously, it would take some effort, but maybe it's possible. In this union, we would operate society normally, but with a code of ethics that prevents the use of advanced AI and maybe other dangerous technologies, and we would develop a more sustainable way of living that involves sustainable farming and being more reliant on each other instead of letting massive, soulless tech companies control us. I am formulating a more detailed proposal but that's the gist of one of my ideas.
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      "They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule" This doesn't make sense to me. If AI eliminates most creative jobs, yet there are still humans who can do better (modern Dostoyevskys) would it not make sense for businesses to hire creative people to "out creative" their competitors, who just use the AI?
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Isn't the absolute entire point of AI to remove jobs, I mean why on earth would we create AI otherwise ? It's the other half of the industrial revolution ?
  - version_five 3y ago
    Do you feel the same about any technology that can help someone do their job better? Calculators, typewriters, card catalogs, tool use? What's the minimum level of technological sophistication that's acceptable to you as no being about removing jobs?
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      It's quite different, a calculator isn't supposed to work autonomously.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - BarryMilo 3y ago
        Well, before they were machines, they were jobs. We can no more imagine what AI will bring than people from the 1800s could imagine the changes computers woould bring. That is to say: everything changed.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        The only way I can imagine humans stay relevant in the job market, is if we can someone augment our intelligence to the point where we can basically keep up with AIs progress. I don't actually think this is impossible as in some ways, mobile phones and other wearable devices are probably the first steps to get there. Who knows?
- booleandilemma 3y ago
  This isn't like the loom though. If you have a loom you obsolete all weavers, but only the weavers. This is more like a magical typewriter, and it's coming for all white collar jobs.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > but automation never net removed jobs from the economy it makes more. That’s true for more limited forms of automation - e.g. the loom, heavy industrial machinery, even computers - as people just move on to other jobs and society gains a net improvement in productivity. AI, specially AGI (which is the endgame for AI), is a different matter. It’s not specialised. “General” is literal in its name. It could do nigh every job. There will be no jobs for everyone being displaced to move on to.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Yes, the nobility always will need their serfs doing something.
- taneq 3y ago
  Maybe it hasn't yet removed a net number of jobs, but it's definitely removed jobs at the skill level that's being automated. You upgrade your weaving business from manual looms to automatic looms, maybe you create more jobs for automatic loom engineers but you certainly also remove jobs for weavers. Maybe the additional productivity means that society as a whole now has more jobs but ultimately none of those jobs are going to be easier to do than weaving. Also, looms are a deceptive example because weaving is still skilled labour. Chances are if you can learn to weave good quality cloth you'll be capable of retraining into another skilled trade. The same can't be said for "unskilled" labour, your 50-year-old factory line workers displaced by automation aren't going to be re-training as graphic designers and web devs. Now apply that not to a specialized machine that screws lids on water bottles really fast, but to a machine that can do any desk job a moderately competent white collar worker can do, and you'll see we have a problem.
zarzavat 3y ago
This is not saying that wages will increase with AI. It is saying that people with higher wages are (statistically) more likely to lose their job to AI.
somenameforme 3y ago
This doesn't really make any logical sense if you think about it. The reason jobs exist is not because the person hiring can't do them, but because they have other things they'd rather focus their time and energy on. You don't hire a janitor because you can't clean the floors, toilets, and other areas - but because you have different priorities for your own time. To consider this more intuitively, take a field you probably less skilled in - art. There are some really quite amazing "AI" based generative systems for art, far more domain competent than e.g. ChatGPT is at coding. Now imagine you're setting out to make a video game. Do you suddenly feel like taking on the entire art load would be a good way to spend your time and energy, let alone if we compare that to what an artist using the same tools would accomplish in the same time? If anything "AI" will probably just be a skill multiplier.

gessha 3y ago

From the most recent issue of Logic magazine, talking about Charles Babbage: “Babbage’s Difference engines were designed to automate the work of the “least skilled” mathematicians…

JimtheCoder 3y ago

One of the occupations listed in the appendix that will be affected are political scientists. (1.687) My first degree is in political science. I spend four years trying to figure out what a political scientist actually does. I never figured it out. How are we going to lose these jobs to automation, if we can barely figure out what they do or what their actual use is? ----- On a more serious note, studies like this that take a whole swath of careers and make pronouncement about how they will be affected by AI seem relatively useless to me. There is no way the researchers (or the consultants in the case of the Mckinsey study) can have a deep understanding of each of these careers and all the activities that are involved, what makes a good "worker" in that career, and all of that. Just a bunch of academic bloviating on a hot topic, and using data to draw conclusions that data alone cannot fulfill... Just my opinion...

aiisjustanif 3y ago
Not to be rude, but the purposes of political sciences is easy to grasp and important. From structuring aid and refugee program, to making policies that affect our every day lives, to researching and working on issues related to economic competitiveness, treaties, and resources. you can read latest articles to get some ideas. [1] Plus Economics, Law, and Political Science are strictly separate sciences just like chemistry and physics are not strictly separated sciences. I think the figuring out what a mathematician does is more difficult, but also still understandable and important. [1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-re https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-re...
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  Yeah, and creating specialized "agents" in an AI "lab" discussing solutions could solve most of the problems in a day that take actual political scientists a year to just end up at a stalemate, or impasse because of no concensus.

01100011 3y ago

Drive-by, low-quality comment. Please ignore. I applaud Hollywood, including Sarah Silverman and the unions currently on strike, for trying to fight AI. I think they're doomed, but good for them. I don't see a scenario where Hollywood exists in anything like it's current form in 10-15 years. In the next 5 years, AI will be a huge help, allowing wonderful new content produced with much less work. Beyond that? I fully expect that in 10-15 years time the value of the content owned by companies like Disney will approach zero. Mickey Mouse(ok, not the biggest asset they have now, but an example) will be replaced by Ricky the Raccoon or thousands of other characters generated by AI. They will all act out stories influenced by, but nothing like, much of modern storytelling. They will weave stories out of the lives of their viewers, producing a new form of media capable of dynamically interaction. The fusion of modern gaming and cinema, but personal and streaming endlessly, in an immersive format such as VR. This future holds no appeal to me, and I find it repulsive, but I suspect the next generation will find it beautiful and irresistible.

robotnikman 3y ago
I find it funny how 'AI Ethicists' worry about AI says. And yet, they see no problem with AI possibly displacing millions of jobs and leaving people without income. That is what should be focused on, not nitpicking what the AI should say. I know this is a low quality comment, I'm just angry at the current situation regarding AI.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Because most 'AI ethicists' are overeducated well off urbanite upper-middle class landed gentry-adjacents who believe they will never be replaced by AI because the touchstones of their distributed cognitive-emotional load are too complex for even far off SOTA models to ever grasp. The fate of the poor simple proles and their millions destitute are a non-issue to them. AI bots saying mean things on Twitter is a far greater crisis because it pertains to what they actually care about, not the lives of millions of people less fortunate than them.
  - 3y ago

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

The thing I find very fascinating about the rise of generative AI is that it's one of the first tech advancements in a long time that puts more highly paid jobs at risk, while actually raising the value of more manual jobs that are harder to automate. This article from the Washington Post [1] says it well: > In March, Goldman Sachs predicted that 18 percent of work worldwide could be automated by AI, with white-collar workers such as lawyers at more risk than those in trades such as construction or maintenance. “Occupations for which a significant share of workers’ time is spent outdoors or performing physical labor cannot be automated by AI,” the report said. While I really feel for people who have lost their job due to AI, I also can't help but feel that the "non-automatable" jobs that they're going into actually have a lot more value to society. E.g. the article talks about a copywriter who loses his copywriting work and decides to go become an HVAC technician and go into plumbing. I value the work of having working A/C and hot water a lot more than yet another creative blurb trying to sell me something. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taking-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taki...