[a-posteriori]

This is the same group (Ayush Chopra & Ramesh Raskar) that previously published the highly circulated (clickbait) article saying that 95% of AI pilots were failing based on extremely weak study design and questions that didn't even support the takeaways.

Anything coming from Ayush and Ramesh should be highly scrutinized. Ramesh should stick to studying Camera Culture in the Media Lab.

I will believe a study from MIT when it comes out of CSAIL.

[zkmon]

Yep. Take it with some salt. Unfortunately, the quality of research is struck by sales pitch and hype mongering.

[a-posteriori]

It's been really disheartening to see the impact of media / hype mongering on groups within research institutions.

IMO, it's clear there is massive demand for any research that shows large positive or negative impacts of AI on the economy. The recent WSJ article about Aiden Toner-Rodgers is another great example of demand for AI impact outstripping the supply of AI impact. Obviously this thread's example is just shoddy research vs. the outright data fraud of Toner-Rodgers, but it's hard to not see the pattern.

I hope that MIT and other research institutions can figure this out...

[balaclava9]

fascinating story. amazing how people want to believe in the AI savior.

[sciencegeek123]

You should read the paper (or at least the abstract) before making personal attacks. It makes no claims about job disruption (quite the opposite actually).

[mistrial9]

science says rebut the sources and the thesis, not a personal attack on the authors

[gus_massa]

Science says people have reputation, journal have impact index, ...

Life is too short to read every single article, once someone cry wolf a few times, other researchers in the area will just ignore them.

[mistrial9]

> Science says people have reputation, journal have impact index

can you show me your primary reference for that, please

[mistrial9]

SAPO-NABU ?