• littlecolt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    The answer to question 1, to me, seems to be that it is promising to replace workforce acrossamy fields. This idea makes investors and Capitalists (capital C, the people who have and want to keep the money) drool. AI promises to do jobs without needing a paycheck.

    I’m not saying I believe it will deliver. I’m saying it is being promised, or at least implied. Therefore, I agree, there’s a lot of grift happening. Just like crypto and NFTs, grift grift grift.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a familiar con.

      It’s just that this time they’re firing people first, then failing to make it work.

    • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, that seems to be the end goal, but Goldman Sachs themselves tried using AI for a task and found it cost six times as much as paying a human.

      That cost isn’t going down–by any measure, AI is just getting more expensive as our only strategy for improving it seems to be “throw more compute, data, and electricity at the problem.” Even new AI chips are promising increased performance but with more power draw, and everybody developing AI models seem to be taking the stance of just maximizing performance and damn everything else. So even if AI somehow delivers on its promises and replaces every white collar job, it’s not going to save any actual money for corporations.

      Granted, companies may be willing to eat that cost at least temporarily in order to suppress labor costs (read: pay us less), but it’s not a long term solution