• @BeardedGingerWonder
    link
    English
    135 months ago

    People are touting this like it’s a good thing or something, presumably this means a 30% reduction compared to the previous staffing this would have require. 30% is a lot.

    • ElTacoEsMiPastor
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      I don’t think it’s perceived as good? (curious, why would it be?) Just that it’s disingenuous to market it as AI. Everyone and their mother now has “”“AI”“” 🤷‍♂️

      • @BeardedGingerWonder
        link
        English
        25 months ago

        Yeah, good is probably the wrong word, I mean “positive in the sense it shows AI can’t replace humans”.

        • ElTacoEsMiPastor
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Oh, i get it! Yeah, 30% is a considerable percentage.

          Where I work (text-based customer support), a few weeks ago I stumbled upon a spreadsheet analysing that they could “save” 25% in wages by implementing GPT-4.

          It may still be mostly humans on the line, but 1 out 4 of us may get the boot.

    • DroneRights [it/its]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      This is a tool for the bourgeoisie to minimise the contributions of human workers so that their political power, which draws on public perceptions, is reduced. If everyone thinks it’s all run by AI, they’re going to be confused by the idea of giving more pay to the workers. What workers? This makes it harder for workers to advocate for themselves and make demands.

      • @BeardedGingerWonder
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        It may be that, but a lot of people seem to be interpreting it as “oh look AI is shit, it’ll never replace humans” when in actual fact its a headline that’s saying “30% of the human workers have been replaced by AI for this use case”