“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
People tell stories about employees at big companies whose entire job is to send a small report to someone once a week.
Even in cases like that, it's illogical to fear AI, because if it really was so simple to automate, it would've been done already.
Either the storytellers are clueless about the true nature of the job, or else there are defenses against redundancy that aren't obvious.
This hasn't been my experience. There is a TON of low hanging fruit for automating workloads which exist in almost every large company. While not all automations are easy, there's no shortage of easy work in automation. Almost every financial organization I've worked at has had some amount of manual processing of overnight batch jobs.
What you mean by "experience" is unclear to me.
I agree with you insofar as everyone with even a little experience at a large company knows there are a lot of apparently low hanging fruit possibilities for automation.
But do you mean you have seen things that seem simple to automate, or have you tried to do so and found out what happens?
There is a lot going on below the surface.
Extremely basic and low hanging fruit is all over the place.
The most technically trivial change has a litany of obstacles involving people.
Off the top of my head:
1) Finding out a process exists
2) Finding out who knows about a process
3) Being able to communicate with such a person
4) Motivating them or other stakeholders to make a change
5) Making the new process independent of specific employees
"That don't make no sense!"
If you believe in the potential of chatbots to replace programmers, then the salary of every programmer depends on them not not understanding it.
Here's why they seem like a waste of time to me, even for writing bland emails and comments; what say you?