Anonymous wrote:Good morning, AI Doomsday poster. You are very creative!
Most jobs that require a college education cannot be replaced by AI. Obviously tech and digital work are the exceptions, but others need education to execute.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In its current state, AI is terrible. It would need so much improvement to be a functional replacement for the human brain. Ask the series of lawyers getting sanctioned for using AI and committing malpractice. It’s junk in and junk out. I don’t see how that will ever change.
You’re right about everything except the last sentence. It is getting better every day, and will soon match, and then surpass, human intelligence.
I don’t think so. AI scans a bunch of info and spits out an answer. If AI is using the internet, we have no way of limiting false information. The analysis will not be correct if the underlying data is incorrect. The resources scanned would need to be verified. In today’s society, we have no facts. Everything is subject to interpretation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In its current state, AI is terrible. It would need so much improvement to be a functional replacement for the human brain. Ask the series of lawyers getting sanctioned for using AI and committing malpractice. It’s junk in and junk out. I don’t see how that will ever change.
You’re right about everything except the last sentence. It is getting better every day, and will soon match, and then surpass, human intelligence.
Anonymous wrote:AI is crap and using it a lot makes your brain mush.
Either our country becomes even more stupid and sedentary, or we vote for politicians who will regulate AI.
I hope the latter. Please rush the enlightenment.
Anonymous wrote:Its value is yet unclear. Ezra Klein speaks with an expert about this very subject in this podcast episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000708298931
Anonymous wrote:In its current state, AI is terrible. It would need so much improvement to be a functional replacement for the human brain. Ask the series of lawyers getting sanctioned for using AI and committing malpractice. It’s junk in and junk out. I don’t see how that will ever change.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 the people who will be employable are the ones who know how to use AI well to do their jobs. It's not like you just hire one person to do all the stuff that needs to be done within an organization. You just need 5 vs when maybe 25. You also have to verify the AI output.
So if you just need 5 vs 25, what happens to the 20 college-educated kids?
I know that no MD at an investment bank or PE firm is going to learn to use it…so they will still need analysts to churn shit out.
Then those people will be replaced by cheaper workers who can use AI to do that job.
You clearly don't understand what it means to be an MD/principal at one of these firms. The job at this point is to be a sales person bringing in business or convincing a company to sell to you...having enough experience to know which people/company you should bet on...having understanding of complex financing structures and some tax/legal/accounting issues, etc.
This is why senior people won't be replaced. Much of their jobs isn't completing specific, easily defined tasks. That is the job of the most junior people (analysts and associates). If anything, the senior people will make that much more $$$s.
Which isn't to say they will sit back and be luddites. It's just that they won't be experts in using AI in the sausage-making.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-95-salespeople-replaced-ai-within-20-years-microsoft-matthew-king
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 the people who will be employable are the ones who know how to use AI well to do their jobs. It's not like you just hire one person to do all the stuff that needs to be done within an organization. You just need 5 vs when maybe 25. You also have to verify the AI output.
So if you just need 5 vs 25, what happens to the 20 college-educated kids?
I know that no MD at an investment bank or PE firm is going to learn to use it…so they will still need analysts to churn shit out.
Then those people will be replaced by cheaper workers who can use AI to do that job.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 the people who will be employable are the ones who know how to use AI well to do their jobs. It's not like you just hire one person to do all the stuff that needs to be done within an organization. You just need 5 vs when maybe 25. You also have to verify the AI output.
So if you just need 5 vs 25, what happens to the 20 college-educated kids?
I know that no MD at an investment bank or PE firm is going to learn to use it…so they will still need analysts to churn shit out.
Then those people will be replaced by cheaper workers who can use AI to do that job.
You clearly don't understand what it means to be an MD/principal at one of these firms. The job at this point is to be a sales person bringing in business or convincing a company to sell to you...having enough experience to know which people/company you should bet on...having understanding of complex financing structures and some tax/legal/accounting issues, etc.
This is why senior people won't be replaced. Much of their jobs isn't completing specific, easily defined tasks. That is the job of the most junior people (analysts and associates). If anything, the senior people will make that much more $$$s.
Which isn't to say they will sit back and be luddites. It's just that they won't be experts in using AI in the sausage-making.
Anonymous wrote:
I know that no MD at an investment bank or PE firm is going to learn to use it…so they will still need analysts to churn shit out.