With just a few minutes of experimentation, it becomes really trivial to see how ChatGPT can accelerate some types of jobs sufficiently to justify reduction of staff.
It will likely create other jobs too, which is also mentioned in the article.
It’s almost never going to replace our jobs, because when we test it against ours we can quickly see gaps and flaws, or worse, its overconfident yet incorrect answers.
But when we apply a surface level understanding of someone else’s job to a surface level investigation of AI’s ability to do that job, we keep coming back to the same answer: it’s here! It’s ready!
Meanwhile, if you go ask those other people, they’ll show you a ton of very good reasons why AI isn’t ready to replace their jobs, things I never knew they had to do or understand. And I bet a few of them will tell me that they heard it can write code.
I would have agreed with you two years ago. But knowing what we’ve done with AI before this (grand master level chess, cars that can self drive, etc) building an ensemble from those and what these LLM are able to do, I think if you don’t see 10 years from now being on its head from today, I think you might have lost the capacity to dream.
I don’t think LLM alone are sufficient. But pointing to what they produced in beta and saying “time is static the universe is done AI is a crock” seems myopic.
In fact, if we're so convinced this particular LLM is so great, we should just be chopping it up into fit for purpose agents.