• BeardedGingerWonder
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 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
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • ElTacoEsMiPastor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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AI is shit, it’ll never replace humans” when in actual fact its a headline that’s saying “30% of the human workers have been replaced by AI for this use case”