It seems most people are on board with the idea that AI will change the world. While I agree it having some impact, I also think it is overinflated by marketing. Operating an AI takes huge computing power, which costs heaps of money and energy. So how are people suggesting that exponential improvement is feasible? I do not get it.

Further, aren’t we supposed to reduce energy usage? Why are we trying to overspend what little is left? I hate how this is taking priority over the environment.

Creating this post mainly to rant, I thought OpenAI firing Sam Altman was a signal for a reality check. It seems they are wrapping it up and trying to rehire him though… What a drama.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    113·
    1 year ago

    So most people are assuming AI will do all the work of a job. Maybe it will someday, but my experience today with it appears to be able to do 80% of the work with only 20% human effort put in. So no, its not doing 100% of the work, it doing 80%, but it does that 80% in seconds for what used to take me hours or days.

    That is a huge improvement over no AI use at all.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      1 year ago

      it appears to be able to do 80% of the work with only 20% human effort put in. So no, its not doing 100% of the work, it doing 80%,

      I think that’s the calculation most organizations will make. If AI can do 80% of a job, they can fire 80-90% of their employees in that task, and use the remainder as AI wranglers.

      That’s a pretty significant workforce reduction, and it means the folks who remain employed spend less of their time doing what they trained for, and more time in an IT/management role.