MIT study finds AI can already replace 11.7% of U.S. workforce : usa

[-] RustyShackleford@lemmy.zip 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] getoffthatchronic@lemdro.id 4 points 10 months ago

This isn't even about competency really as the cost of AI is being artificially depressed through all of these businesses running at a loss. It might be insane to stick in a blender with US labor statistics. Hopefully not the kind the WH uses?

There are a lot of different things falling under the umbrella of AI. You're right to be skeptical of an algorithm's ability to estimate another algorithm's ability in practice. They're testing how well the buzzword tech can move the needle on numbers the fed obsesses over. Really pigeonholing the tech into profitability. Best uses of this tech will be in balancing electricity flows through the country, with inputs including population + industry usage, weather patterns & other renewable energy variables (these are very much a social good but you can already hear capital hissing at the thought). Humans already operate many cybernetic systems that turn on volition, with inputs adjusted to make them exploitative. Streamlining them is going to rip the balls right off for sure. As I often quote Michael Parenti by recently, "You're stupid if you think they're stupid," it goes nicely with "the purpose of a system is what it does."

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 17 points 10 months ago

Let me know when they replace the overpaid C-level parasites with cheaper, faster, more efficient AI CEO/CFO et cetera.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

As much as I agree, do you really want to have an AI manager looking over your shoulder all day every day.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Wouldn’t it be out playing golf if it was replacing them?

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Even with the hallucinations I'm pretty sure AI can already do many CEO's job better than they can. The only thing they seem to take into account is line go up. That's pretty easy to replicate.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 months ago

I say this as someone generally bullish about AI: bullshit. I use it all the time. It's helpful when you already know what you're doing. Anything you do with AI at scale is going to have a number of fuckups, even if it's mostly reliable — and for most purposes I wouldn't even go that far.

I see it all the time. I ask Cline to have Claude do a bunch of things and create a markdown file... and it does everything, including generating the markdown, but forgets to put it in a file and then acts confused when you say to put it in a file. If that was some financial report or contract, it could tank a whole business.

[-] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 10 months ago

Doesn’t that sound just like a real person though? It forgets shit and you have to correct it because you’re not paying it very much and it has pretty little training. You could always pay it 20 bucks a month or you could pay a small salary and insurance.

I’m certainly not advocating for getting rid of people, but the way you worded it – not trying to start a fight – sounds just like a low level employee

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago

I don't agree with your premise. However, I don't have a good argument against at hand.

There are intangible benefits to a person, and I feel like the number of roles where AI could perform well enough and mistakes don't cause customer satisfaction issues, regulatory compliance issues, or incur civil liability are vanishingly small. But could they be 10% of jobs? Even 5%? I don't think so.

I could see an argument that if you have a team of 10 people, AI could let you cut one and expect the other 9 to pick up the slack. But how many teams even have ten people on them? Because I don't think a team of 5 can lose one person and still be capable of the same work. I guess it might depend on the industry — I do have IT blinders on here.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Breaking news 11.7% of the work force are doing useless work, work that leadership has no idea how essential it is, and some that a normalized response of text or semantic searching can be replaced with.

[-] Ascrod@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

[-] getoffthatchronic@lemdro.id 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm sure there is plenty of chaff to cut in finance and healthcare etcetera, in my heart I want to believe in a coming Burger Decimation, but US labor statistics are absolutely cooked. Having read practically nothing about the model they're using, I would appreciate if anyone can tell how accurate it is.

United States | News & Politics