[waffletower]

This is a useful message to the investor audience, but I think the focus on 'hype' is missing the utility of Generative AI and only hovering near the confusion that people express regarding the technology. AI currently is decidedly an extension or tool, it does not have agency. I think this is the main confusion at play. AI cannot displace single workers directly, but it can now be used to great effect to create efficiencies which could in turn displace a percentage of a class of service workers. I think the distinction is important, particularly to those who are concerned that AI may obsolete their jobs.

[JohnFen]

> I think the distinction is important, particularly to those who are concerned that AI may obsolete their jobs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I am one of those concerned about AI putting lots of people out of work, but I don't see how that distinction affects (or should affect) my concerns.

[waffletower]

It indicates that workers who excel at adapting to AI integrations which directly impact their work may have an opportunity to thrive. If AI could replace you wholesale, then it wouldn't matter how well you interoperated with it.

[JohnFen]

But AI means that fewer of those workers will be needed. I'm not concerned about my own personal employment, I'm concerned about the loss of a significant chunk of jobs.