Because some other people are operating under the assumption that this wave of AI models will automate all labor on the planet, instead of making the average desk jockey 10-25 percent more efficient.
An impact on what? Most desk jockey labor hasn't been optimizing for efficiency for decades. I'd say the amount of "work" will simply go up by 25%, and the position of the human-based processing nodes will shift a little bit. But it's a Schelling point attractor that mutually-antagonistic companies will be pushed into adopting. You certainly won't want to hire 25% more human employees at your own company to handle your counterparties' increased paperwork generation from their use of AI.
> A 25 percent efficiency boost to desk jockey labor is a profound impact.
In terms of 25 productivity, yeah, I think that is a good thing and could be true. However, the problem is that it is sold under the pretense that you can fire a large chunk of workers and rely in large part on AI, which makes it a whole lot more attractive to investors.
> That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient.
If AI is just a tool that improves performance by 25% it changes what investors believe. It is a lot more expensive than 25% increase in productivity as investors were sold a different reality.
> Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers
With the error rate of GenAI I'm curious to see how this plays out in the long run. It seems that only more skilled workers can pick up on the wrong answers.
