3 ms·
The most interesting part of this article isn’t its assertion that AI innovation is about to slow, but rather that current LLMs can only produce “so-so automati
by wildermuthn 3y ago
The most interesting part of this article isn’t its assertion that AI innovation is about to slow, but rather that current LLMs can only produce “so-so automation” — that although LLMs can replace many jobs, LLMs aren’t good enough to offset the cost of people losing such jobs.
True as of today, but the article is overlooking multi-modal LLMs. Once AI can see, we’ll go from “wow, GPT4 is pretty good at helping me to my job” to “uh oh, GPT4-Vision can do my job better than I can”.
This is especially true if the model can read text off a screen. At that point, it’s likely to replace many workers who stare at screens for a few hours a day and pretend to work the remainder. The model won’t take coffee breaks, or long lunches, or take the afternoon off to drive their kid to the dentist. If you’re a worker whose work depends upon looking at a screen, and mostly involves moving data from one place to another with light transformations and interpretations, you’re going to be in trouble by the end of the decade.
- tempodox 3y agoAnd since everyone who has been writing has been replaced by machines as well, most of those texts will be machine-generated by then. Machines reading and processing texts written by machines would be the logical consequence in this scenario, but I can't help finding the whole idea deeply absurd.