Comment on Yes, AI will eventually replace some workers. But that day is still a long way off

• Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It almost certainly already has replaced several.

  Has it actually replaced them?

  Sure maybe some people have lost their jobs, but I don’t think they’ve really been replaced.

  It’s closer to laying someone off without replacement … because evening I’ve seen has suggested AI not only can’t do the work but it also doesn’t improve the productivity of workers using it in any meaningful way.

  Also, AI is not synonymous with LLM.

  I’d argue that’s all AI means anymore if it has any meaning left at all.

  source

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn’t refer to a single technology or a specific capability, but rather to a category of systems designed to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence. That includes everything from pattern recognition, language understanding, and problem-solving to more specific applications like recommendation engines or image generation.

    When people say something “isn’t real AI,” they’re often working from a very narrow or futuristic definition - usually something like human-level general intelligence or conscious reasoning. But that’s not how the term has been used in computer science or industry. A chess-playing algorithm, a spam filter, and a large language model can all fall under the AI umbrella. The boundaries of AI shift over time: what once seemed like cutting-edge intelligence often becomes mundane as we get used to it.

    So rather than being a misleading or purely marketing term, AI is just a broad label we’ve used for decades to describe machines that do things we associate with intelligent behavior. The key is to be specific about which kind of AI we’re talking about - like “machine learning,” “neural networks,” or “generative models” - rather than assuming there’s one single thing that AI is or isn’t.

    Image

    source
  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    A lot of people have been working tedious and repetitive “filler” jobs.

    • Computers replaced a lot of typists, drafters, copyists, calculators, filers, clerks, etc.
    • LLMs are replacing receptionists, secretaries, call center workers, translators, slop “artists”, etc.
    • AI Agents are in the process of replacing aides, intermediate administrative personnel, interns, assistants, analysts, spammers salespeople, basic customer support, HR personnel, etc.

    In the near future, AI-controlled robots are going to start replacing low skilled labor, then intermediate skilled ones.

    “AI” has the meaning of machines replacing what used to require humans to perform. It’s a moving goalpost: once one is achieved, we call it an “algorithm” and move to the next one, and again, and again.

    Right now, LLMs are at the core of most AI, but AI has already moved past that, to “AI Agents”, which is a fancy way of saying “a loop of an LLM and some other tools”. There are already talks of moving past that too, the next goalpost.

    source

    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      feddit.org/post/12430949

      and even those people can’t be replaced.

      source

      • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        One of the worst possible examples ever: Klarna is a payment processor, people don’t call their bank to get the same answer the system is already giving them, they call to negotiate something about their money. AIs are at a troubleshooting level, at best some very basic negotiation, nowhere near dealing with people actually concerned about their money.

        Seems like Klarna fell hook, line, and sinker for the hype. Tough luck, need to know the limits.

        source
• Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  AI can replace management, they are about the most least useful in a company.

  source