3 ms·

Because some other people are operating under the assumption that this wave of AI models will automate all labor on the planet, instead of making the average de

Because some other people are operating under the assumption that this wave of AI models will automate all labor on the planet, instead of making the average desk jockey 10-25 percent more efficient.

jncfhnb 2y ago
A 25 percent efficiency boost to desk jockey labor is a profound impact.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  > A 25 percent efficiency boost to desk jockey labor is a profound impact. In terms of 25 productivity, yeah, I think that is a good thing and could be true. However, the problem is that it is sold under the pretense that you can fire a large chunk of workers and rely in large part on AI, which makes it a whole lot more attractive to investors.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient. Yes just a matter of recognizing it’s 25% of various job titles, not 100% of 25% of job titles Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers
    - onemoresoop 2y ago
      > That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient. If AI is just a tool that improves performance by 25% it changes what investors believe. It is a lot more expensive than 25% increase in productivity as investors were sold a different reality. > Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers With the error rate of GenAI I'm curious to see how this plays out in the long run. It seems that only more skilled workers can pick up on the wrong answers.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Shrug. I’m not the one claiming 25% is a good figure. Just that it’s a huge deal, if true.
- mindslight 2y ago
  An impact on what? Most desk jockey labor hasn't been optimizing for efficiency for decades. I'd say the amount of "work" will simply go up by 25%, and the position of the human-based processing nodes will shift a little bit. But it's a Schelling point attractor that mutually-antagonistic companies will be pushed into adopting. You certainly won't want to hire 25% more human employees at your own company to handle your counterparties' increased paperwork generation from their use of AI.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 2y ago
  For who ? Nearly all the wealth generated by productivity gains of the last 50 years has been pocketed by business owners and investors https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcXp-6EsuSBkSyHpSbm0.png https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Feel like you’re answering your own question here

Because some other people are operating under the assumption that this wave of AI models will automate all labor on the planet, instead of making the average desk jockey 10-25 percent more efficient.

jncfhnb 2y ago

A 25 percent efficiency boost to desk jockey labor is a profound impact.

onemoresoop 2y ago
> A 25 percent efficiency boost to desk jockey labor is a profound impact. In terms of 25 productivity, yeah, I think that is a good thing and could be true. However, the problem is that it is sold under the pretense that you can fire a large chunk of workers and rely in large part on AI, which makes it a whole lot more attractive to investors.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient. Yes just a matter of recognizing it’s 25% of various job titles, not 100% of 25% of job titles Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers
  - onemoresoop 2y ago
    > That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient. If AI is just a tool that improves performance by 25% it changes what investors believe. It is a lot more expensive than 25% increase in productivity as investors were sold a different reality. > Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers With the error rate of GenAI I'm curious to see how this plays out in the long run. It seems that only more skilled workers can pick up on the wrong answers.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Shrug. I’m not the one claiming 25% is a good figure. Just that it’s a huge deal, if true.
mindslight 2y ago
An impact on what? Most desk jockey labor hasn't been optimizing for efficiency for decades. I'd say the amount of "work" will simply go up by 25%, and the position of the human-based processing nodes will shift a little bit. But it's a Schelling point attractor that mutually-antagonistic companies will be pushed into adopting. You certainly won't want to hire 25% more human employees at your own company to handle your counterparties' increased paperwork generation from their use of AI.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 2y ago
For who ? Nearly all the wealth generated by productivity gains of the last 50 years has been pocketed by business owners and investors https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcXp-6EsuSBkSyHpSbm0.png https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Feel like you’re answering your own question here