Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all
Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all
www.theregister.com
Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all
11 comments
-
-
An entire department in my company was closed because "AI can do it". Honestly, I wouldn't say anything if AI could replace them, but it's doing such a shit job the rest of us (including people it replaced) have to correct it.
-
Facts:
DXC fired ALL of their IT technicians servicing the Redmond Microsoft campus and replaced them with "Phoenix", an AI chatbot that would guide users into troubleshooting their own IT problems.
The Phoenix chatbot was immediately rejected by users and completely useless at executing its intended purpose.
DXC then scrambled to rehire the technicians they fired with no success, as they quickly moved on to new jobs. New hires struggled to understand the building layouts and room devices because there was no one to pass on that knowledge.
Soon thereafter, DXC lost their multi-million dollar contract and all the new hires who worked really hard to try to were summarily dismissed.
-
Sadly the AI will devalue the whole tech sector jobs. I have a colleague who isn't very bright and their code is mostly AI generated and they don't even understand what they are copying.
-
Only if their PRs are accepted. I don't even care if your code is AI generated but you'd better be able to explain it and you'd better fix the fucking mistakes.
-
-
-
https://www.theverge.com/news/657594/duolingo-ai-first-replace-contract-workers
Fuck off with this Ai apologist bullshit.
-
If the author had looked at the quality of generative AI chatbots in 2023, it wouldn't have come as a surprise to them that they didn't really replace a lot of humans. Big question is: What's going to happen today and in the near future?
11 comments
Call centers have been axed or trimmed at many places, including IKEA, Duolingo, Best Buy, etc. Who wrote this, the Wizard of Oz?
Edit: The research stems from Chicago School of Business and not in an economic or rigorously scientific field. Funding came in part from a "Center for Applied Artificial Intelligence" and a "Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation".
Take those as you may.
Looks like the research was only looking at Denmark:
"Research" in want of a conclusion, at least from the article's perspective. Card stacking fallacy at work.
Oh the chicago school you say, as in the people who were happy to slash and burn south american economies just to see what human rights abuses they could get away with in the pursuit of cheaper labour?
Why wouldn't you hear them out on this labour issue?