Goldman Sachs Predicts 300M Jobs Will Be Lost or Degraded by AI
forbes.com
forbes.com
Of course it does not mean they will do anything about it.
I would not at all be surprised if these large firms hired consultants from places like McKinsey to come by and analyze the work their IT staff is involved in to see how tools like GPT-4 could be leveraged to "streamline" (aka reduce the headcount of) these orgs, and then dramatically restructured them based on their findings. The only thing keeping many of these folks around is the political clout of their managers and department heads.
People love saying that, but why wouldn't an exec take a multi-$million bonus to cut that dead weight? Or Private equity buy it out to gut it and resell it?
A lot of job are at risk. Most of them no because of full automation, but because less people will be required because of productivity increases "thanks to" AI. And many more job will become boring.
The problem is this productivity gain will hurt a lot of people, and there are probably/possibly only a small minority of people that will fully benefit from it
The human with the art history background at least has some credentials, whereby the output can be trusted, to some degree and explained if necessary.
This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.
That model doesn't exist.
We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original.
But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe.
What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.
I asked 3.5 to do it for you.
> The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is:
> "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe."
It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.
If i know for sure it is 100% GPT-X generated bs, do you think I'll read it?
I acknowledged in my first post that a particular quality standard had already been met by AI. I also concede that this quality standard could be sufficient for many businesses. God help us all if it's 90% of businesses.
Even for stuff like movie making, a director or producer would hire an illustrator or team of illustrators and send off a script to get it storyboarded and probably have to wait at least a few weeks. Now they can just go to a prompt engineer and have it done in a single afternoon. There’ll be similar developments in VFX, if you have a look at the latest Unreal Engine 5.2 demo they do motion capture from a woman’s face from a mobile phone camera in a matter of minutes. The actress in the demo says that kind of thing used to take a month to get the same result. When you’ve got a bunch of competing streaming services and studios trying to churn out as much content as possible to keep subscribers, it’s going to be difficult for them to justify the slowness and cost of keeping those human workers compared to the AI.
I believe GPT-X will generate tons of ... something ...
How you would force people to READ IT ?
If you know your incoming info is 90% BS, not a guess, not a thought, just knowledge that this is all auto-generated by some multiCPU entity - why would you read it? What are going to gain or to learn?
Absent coordinated action by government to reorient economies as these new technologies take over, I fully expect wealth inequality to only get worse and for more and more white collar folks to be left behind. That's just wealth concentrating capitalism in action, which is inevitable when left to its own devices.
It’s all nonsense unless you show evidence, and the evidence points to the contrary. What we have is a move of society towards “service” jobs, but service jobs exist in two different spheres - high wage (IT) and low wage (Starbucks). Having lived in the UK under a so called post industrial society, de industrialisation did exactly what people like Vaclav Smil say it does - it creates a society with no middle class.
The interesting part is that the artistic jobs are mainly in the tier 1 cities e.g New York, LA, London etc. I'm sure there's historical precedent for tier 1 cities having their industries undermined but it'll be interesting to see what happens considering these areas tend to suck up the most government spending (or London does at least in the UK).
Personally, I think the current generation of kids have got their hearts set on being content creators and they're going to be in for a rough ride. The next generation are probably going to grow up amidst the devastation and turn to high demand, high skill blue collar jobs in droves e.g construction, plumbing, electricians, engineers, nursing etc and with a bit of luck we might actually end up fixing some of the gargantuan problems we've got as a society such as the housing crisis. Kids with construction skills probably aren't going to be daunted buying dilapidated houses and making them liveable again or developing new ones.
Same reaction, to the incredulity of the HN crowd. “Why would you quit” etc
What I'm definitely not interested in is telling a computer to make images for me.
Like I said at the time I trained to be a monk transcribing books. I'm not interested in becoming a printing press operator.
This is the problem for automation at the limit. Unless we generate an immensely powerful AI that sustains itself entirely then AI will destroy the economy and therefore itself.
>The good news is that worker displacement from automation has historically been offset by creation of new jobs, and the emergence of new occupations following technological innovations accounts for the vast majority of long-run employment growth.
This article is a misrepresentation of Goldman's analysis.
Because what I’ve seen and read does not confirm this, in fact it disproves it. I can find multiple reports showing de industrialisation of the US economy happened mostly due to automation.
This bracket has been in recent decades the enforcers of the status quo, helping widen the wealth gap all over the developed world. Maybe once they get a taste of what everyone is going through they might change sides and actually align with the general population on these issues.
What are you basing this on? Perhaps I'm missing your exact meaning of "AI cambrian explosion" but right now I think it's arguable that artists and writers are the most threatened by this wave of generative AI - neither of which are usually considered top paying positions.
Legal professionals that work on boilerplate could see simple contract generation being taken away from them for instance, and even run-of-the-mill developers could see themselves competing against much cheaper app/website generators.
Even if you can beat the AI, you might be forced to make your rates more competitive since the new baseline solution anyone can get for $10 would be a lot better than before.
I don’t think people will use AI in its current (hallucinating) state if there is money or lives on the line.
The point being that this happens all the time and is a natural consequence of progress and evolution.