[onemoresoop]

> 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.

[jncfhnb]

That is precisely what you can do if your workers are 25% more efficient.

Yes just a matter of recognizing it’s 25% of various job titles, not 100% of 25% of job titles

Or alternatively, drastically lower the skill requirement for the job and replace your skilled workers with cheap unskilled workers

[onemoresoop]

> 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.

[jncfhnb]

Shrug. I’m not the one claiming 25% is a good figure. Just that it’s a huge deal, if true.