4 ms·

>Can you elaborate? Because it's not immediately clear to me the distinction. Replacing a task with AI that otherwise will be done chemically with environmenta

>Can you elaborate? Because it's not immediately clear to me the distinction. Replacing a task with AI that otherwise will be done chemically with environmental degradation or not done at all because people won't or can't-- AI in that context makes things better. As for attempts to deploy AI as a replacement for sophisticated human work like "automating knowledge work", the output will be worse and it's a race to the bottom on quality. As we see from our algorithmic-driven tech industry friends, robot-led workstreams benefit society only in the short run. In the long run, people come to miss-- and their lives are diminished by-- an absence of quality, humanity, agency, caring, fairness, all the things algorithms cannot and will not ever be or do. Anyone who is serious about this topic only discusses in terms of AI + humans (as a combination) and not AI as a replacement for sophisticated work. Statements beyond that reflect a lack of appreciation for either the complexity of the topic or for what society actually expects out of a "knowledge" workstream.

bumby 3y ago
I would consider myself in the AI+humans camp. However, I do not see the distinction between automating knowledge work and manual work in what you describe. Somehow, knowledge workers seem to think what they do has some magic special sauce. I tend to think this is the result of human bias and not clear, first-principled thinking. You make a bold claim that automating knowledge work will be worse but don't show any data to confirm it. Even trivial cases can disprove it, however. Do you think knowledge work is worse when it is "automated" using an Excel spreadsheet vs a pencil and paper? >an absence of quality, humanity, agency, caring, fairness, all the things algorithms cannot and will not ever be or do. I would argue that automation can be quite better than humans on many of these domains. When they do fall short, it's often because they are reflecting (and in worse cases, amplifying) the shortcomings of humans in these same areas.

bumby 3y ago

I would consider myself in the AI+humans camp. However, I do not see the distinction between automating knowledge work and manual work in what you describe. Somehow, knowledge workers seem to think what they do has some magic special sauce. I tend to think this is the result of human bias and not clear, first-principled thinking. You make a bold claim that automating knowledge work will be worse but don't show any data to confirm it. Even trivial cases can disprove it, however. Do you think knowledge work is worse when it is "automated" using an Excel spreadsheet vs a pencil and paper? >an absence of quality, humanity, agency, caring, fairness, all the things algorithms cannot and will not ever be or do. I would argue that automation can be quite better than humans on many of these domains. When they do fall short, it's often because they are reflecting (and in worse cases, amplifying) the shortcomings of humans in these same areas.