2024 UPDATE!! Altman: prepare for AI to be "uncomfortable" 33% US jobs gone..SKYNET, AI medical advances? BASIC INCOME? 1st AI MOVIE! AI MAYOR!!

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,091
Reputation
8,239
Daps
157,761




Conversational AI is finally here. Introducing Air…

Air can perform full 5-40 minute long sales & customer service calls over the phone that sound like a human. And can perform actions autonomously across 5,000 unique applications.

It’s kind of like having 100,000 sales & customer service reps at the tap of a button.

Reply “beta” if you want to be one of the first companies on the planet to deploy an AI sales or CS team. Once you receive beta access, you can create your own AI and have it on live calls in a matter of minutes - kinda like setting up a Facebook ad.

This is not just some hype twitter demo. Air is currently on live calls, talking to real people every single day, profitably producing for real businesses. And it’s not limited to any one use case… you can create an AI SDR, 24/7 CS agent, Closer, Account Executive… or prompt it for your specific use case and get creative (therapy, talk to Aristotle, etc… it’s only limited by your imagination)

Reply “beta” to this tweet and join the 50,000+ businesses that are already on the list to beta test Air - and our team will reach out asap.

(Also, if you are a developer / builder who wants to innovate on top of our existing technology for different use cases - we’d love to see you reach out as well! Builders are our favorite people haha - and we are excited to see what people create with us.)
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,091
Reputation
8,239
Daps
157,761

The AI boom is screwing over Gen Z​

ChatGPT is commandeering the mundane tasks that young employees have relied on to advance their careers.

4kxRtzj.gif

Management spent decades disconnecting themselves from the younger workers who are the backbone of their businesses — and now they're ready to replace them with ChatGPT. Chelsea Jia Feng/Insider


Ed Zitron
Jul 17, 2023, 5:25 AM EDT

The bosses are excited about ChatGPT.

The generative-AI boom has become a boon for companies that want to automate away spreadsheet building, generic copywriting, and other monotonous tasks in the name of becoming more "efficient." The technology has seized the fascination of CEOs and the workplace industrial complex, leading many companies to give AI a whirl (with mixed results). While executives and the managerial class are all in on AI, there's been less consideration for the people this new tech will actually affect.

The mundane tasks that have so far been targeted for replacement are generally handled by entry-level workers. Managers give these tasks to new hires with the expectation that they'd be done quickly, done right, and done without anyone needing to really explain how to do them. This work was portrayed as a critical part of their development — a way to "earn your stripes" in the workplace.

While tackling grunt work and hoping to learn a job via osmosis isn't a great way to start a career, corporate America has left young workers with few other options. Over the past several decades, many companies have gutted training programs, neglected mentorship, and taken no responsibility for fostering workers' development. Now, with the advent of generative AI, organizations are starting to automate many "junior" tasks — stripping away their dubious last attempt to "teach" young employees. It's no wonder that several surveys have found that members of Gen Z are particularly concerned about AI's effect on their careers; in a recent survey by the job-posting site ZipRecruiter, 76% of Gen Zers indicated they were worried about losing their jobs to ChatGPT.

America's young workers are headed toward a career calamity. They may be more comfortable using ChatGPT and other AI technology than their older coworkers, but the managerial obsession with artificial intelligence threatens to undermine their ability to launch a career. Management spent decades disconnecting themselves from the younger workers who are the backbone of their businesses. And if these executives already won't train their junior employees, it's no surprise they're ready to get rid of them altogether.

Nobody wants to teach anymore​

Even before the rise of AI, young people were facing an early-career crisis. Sure, on the surface it seems like Gen Z is entering the workforce at a great time. Finding a job is much easier than it used to be, thanks to historically low unemployment, and wages for young workers have been growing at a strong pace. But if you look deeper, a growing number of signs suggest young Americans are going to have a much tougher time actually building a career.

Gen Z is behind the eight ball even before their first day on the job. As the cost of college has soared, many of them are coming into their first job with a large student-debt burden. A 2022 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that Gen Zers were more likely than millennials were at their age to hold student debt, that Gen Zers' average debt load was 13% higher than millennials' was, and that roughly the same percentage of Gen Zers and millennials had $50,000 or more worth of outstanding student debt.

Don't want to go to college? Tough luck. Despite a recent pushback, the number of jobs requiring a college degree has been growing for decades. Even searching for a first job can leave Gen Zers scratching their heads. A LinkedIn analysis of 3.8 million job postings from 2017 to 2021 found that 35% of entry-level jobs required at least three years of experience. And if you try to go the internship route to get that experience? Good luck. A 2021 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers suggested that over 40% of internships were unpaid and that the average hourly wage for paid interns was just $20.76 in 2020 — a tight budget in many major metropolitan areas.

Once young workers do finally break into the corporate world, they face another brutal reality: Companies have no interest in helping them move up the career ladder. Many companies have shown absolutely no consideration for fostering and developing workers' abilities, leaving young workers to largely fend for themselves as they attempt to establish a career path. A 2014 study by Peter Cappelli, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, found that in 1979 "young workers received on average about 2.5 weeks of training per year" but that by 1995 it had fallen to just under 11 hours annually. Capelli also found scant evidence that things had improved in the years since.

Now, with the advent of generative AI, organizations are starting to automate many "junior" tasks — stripping away their dubious last attempt to "teach" young employees.
The US Department of Labor found in 2014 that while 70% of firms offered "some type of training to employees," it was mainly for "management and mid-level workers." This statistic is particularly worrying, partly because "some type of training" is extremely vague and could refer to something as simple as reading the HR handbook, and partly because 30% of firms didn't offer any training at all. More recently, in a survey conducted in 2020 by Paul Osterman, a professor at MIT, slightly less than 50% of employees said they'd received no formal job training from their employer over the past year. Osterman also argued in a discussion of the survey that companies were failing to provide employees with the types of training that would help boost their skills or advance their careers.

You might assume organizations would try to foster mentorship in the workforce as a way to make up for the lack of rigorous training. Not so fast. While mentorship is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, a 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that only 44% of Americans workers had one. And while formal mentorship programs exist, they're often voluntary. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that voluntary mentorship programs led to worse outcomes than mandatory ones and that those who most needed the help of a mentor were less likely to join these types of programs.

This may be because workplace cultures often alienate those who ask for help (despite the benefits of doing so), creating a pervasive feeling that organizations don't really care about their employees. In a regular Gallup poll of US workers, only 24% of workers surveyed this May strongly agreed that their organizations cared about their well-being, down from 33% in May 2021 and a remarkable 49% in May 2020. This lack of care is clearly weighing on the young workers who need career development the most. Workplace Intelligence, an HR-research firm, said that in a survey it conducted with Amazon in 2022, 74% of Gen Zers and millennials indicated they were considering leaving their job "due to subpar skills-building support or a lack of career mobility options."
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,091
Reputation
8,239
Daps
157,761

Why train when you can just plug it in?​

With no training and no real professional development, young workers in recent years have been left with only one way to learn the ropes on the job: grunt work. In theory, these small jobs were meant to allow young workers to familiarize themselves with simpler processes and prove themselves competent enough to take on more challenging work. But they often resulted in young workers feeling a lack of purpose at work because the work didn't feel like a meaningful contribution to the company or a way to actually progress to the next level. But with the advent of generative AI in the workplace, the jig is up.

Young people will find themselves cleaning up the deluge of errors these faceless AI tools will spit out, knowing they'll receive less credit because the "work" came from a machine.
AI has already begun to take jobs from workers of all ages, but corporate America's particular disdain for its young means it will hit entry-level workers hardest. It takes a lot of work to "train" a large language model, the type of AI that powers ChatGPT and other similar products. But once that work is done, it's a lot cheaper for businesses to buy some new tech tools than train a real person — consequences be damned. For a managerial class that has all but rejected any responsibility for helping foster workers' growth, all that will matter is whether something is cheap and easy.

The solace for these young workers, the managerial argument goes, is that the most tech-savvy among them will become the minders of these new machines. In reality, this means young people will find themselves cleaning up the deluge of errors these faceless AI tools will spit out, knowing they'll receive less credit because the "work" came from a machine. This has the potential to create a career crisis for young people: If even the faintest amount of freedom is wiped from their work lives, they'll have fewer ways to prove themselves capable of taking on more meaningful work. Promotions will become even more of a game of favorites, with the best "real" tasks reserved for diplomats rather than hard workers. A new AI-powered model benefits established players and empowers America's weak, disconnected management culture that doesn't evaluate actual outputs or creations.

It's no wonder CEOs and higher-ups are much more enthusiastic about integrating AI into the workplace than average employees are. The data company Qualtrics said that in a survey it conducted in May and June, 64% of executives suggested they found the "potential impact of AI" on their workplace exciting. Only 39% of frontline workers said the same, with 46% describing the tech as "scary." Another survey from Boston Consulting Group registered a similar divide: 62% of execs and leaders were enthused about the prospect of using AI at work, compared with 42% of frontline employees. While AI optimists may predict that jobs we can't imagine right now will exist in 10 years, it's hard to imagine, given the ways corporations have deployed new technology, that automation will lead to a society where more people have more economic opportunities.

Train the children — they're our only hope​

What's left for America's young workforce? What does a young person do in an office where they're not trained, mentored, or given "real" work? What happens when early-career jobs like data entry and document filing are automated by artificial intelligence?

The irony is that corporate responsibility for employees is actually better for the business. Studies suggest that companies that invest in job training and skill development are more efficient and reap higher profit margins. Despite this evidence, companies have a hard time grasping the value of the investment in their employees. As Ulrich Atz and Tensie Whelan from New York University's Stern Center for Sustainable Business wrote recently in Fortune, corporations often don't have methods to measure the value of human capital beyond simple labor costs, meaning organizations consider humans in the same way they might consider the cost of their water or electric bills. America's rot economy — one where, to quote Atz and Whelan, "companies are pressured to reduce costs in order to return more money to shareholders" — sees immediate revenue growth as the only valuable metric to consider, more important than the long-term value of growing an employee.

There's a better way to work, but I fear the only way for companies to learn the dangers of automation will be through a painful public example of a company that relied too much on AI, like Knight Capital's trading glitch that cost it $440 million. Humans can be enhanced by AI, helped by AI, but replacing them with AI is a shortsighted decision made by myopic bean counters who can't see the value in a person. It's worth considering whether investments in AI should instead be replaced with actual training and mentorship programs with financial rewards.

Young people are facing a reckoning — one where the ballooning costs of college and a lack of future opportunities will run headlong into a corporate America that doesn't recognize the value of investing in real human beings. The result will be a weaker economy with fewer people ready to take on the real challenges posed by new technology. It's a lose-lose proposition for everybody involved.
 

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,480
Reputation
2,832
Daps
47,842
Reppin
NULL
New associates at law firms cut their teeth doing legal research and writing memos etc.

Sales is one of the easiest places to start a career. People willing to do cold calls will always be in demand.

These people are going to get fukkd.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,091
Reputation
8,239
Daps
157,761

TECH

Most outsourced coders in India will be gone in 2 years due to A.I., Stability AI boss predicts​

PUBLISHED TUE, JUL 18 20231:17 AM EDTUPDATED 60 MIN AGO
thumbnail

Ryan Browne@RYAN_BROWNE_


KEY POINTS
  • Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque said that most of India’s coders will lose their jobs as the effects of AI mean that it is now possible for software to be developed with far fewer people.
  • The impact of generative AI on technical jobs will vary from country to country, Mostaque added, with programmers in France for example likely to have more protections than those in India.
  • In India, Mostaque said, “outsourced coders up to level three programmers will be gone in the next year or two, whereas in France, you’ll never fire a developer.”


Most outsourced programmers in India will see their jobs wiped out in the next year or two, Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque said.

Mostaque, on a call with UBS analysts, said that most of the country’s outsourced coders will lose their jobs as the effects of AI mean that it is now possible for software to be developed with far fewer people.

“I think that it affects different types of jobs in different ways,” Mostaque said on a call with analysts at the Swiss investment bank last week.

“If you’re doing a job in front of a computer, and no one ever sees you, then it’s massively impactful, because these models are like really talented grads.”

According to Mostaque, not everyone will be affected in the same way, however.

That is due in no small part to differing rules and regulations around the world. Countries with stronger labor laws, like France, will be less likely to see such an impact, for example.

In India, Mostaque said, “outsourced coders up to level three programmers will be gone in the next year or two, whereas in France, you’ll never fire a developer.”

“So it affects different models in different countries in different ways in different sectors.”

India is home to more than 5 million software programmers, who are most under threat from the impacts of advanced AI tools like ChatGPT, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Asia’s second-largest country is a prime location for companies that outsource back-office jobs and other roles overseas. Silicon Valley tech giants, Wall Street banks, airlines and retailers are all customers to India’s outsourcing firms.

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), an Indian multinational IT services and consulting firm, is the country’s largest outsourcing provider. Others include Infosys and Wipro.

TCS has bet big on generative AI, committing to train more than 25,000 engineers on the technology over Microsoft’s Azure Open AI service to “help clients accelerate their adoption of this powerful new technology.”

In an interview with CNBC Thursday, TCS’s CEO N. Ganapathy Subramaniam said that the company began taking a “machine-first” approach to project delivery about four years ago and it showed how AI will make an “enormous impact on the way that we operate and the way that we do things.”

Generative AI, Subramaniam said, “has just advanced it by a few years.”

Mostaque reiterated a previous statement he made saying that there will be “no more programmers” in five years’ time — however, he caveated this to say that he meant coders in the traditional sense.

“Why would you have to write code where the computer can write code better? When you deconstruct the programming thing from bug testing to unit testing to ideation, an AI can do that, just better,” Mostaque said.

“But it won’t be doing it automatically, it will be AI ‘co-pilots,’” Mostaque said. “That means less people are needed for classical programming, but then are they needed for other things? This is the question and this is the balance that we have to understand, because different areas are also affected differently.”
 

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,955
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,891

TECH

Most outsourced coders in India will be gone in 2 years due to A.I., Stability AI boss predicts​

PUBLISHED TUE, JUL 18 20231:17 AM EDTUPDATED 60 MIN AGO
thumbnail

Ryan Browne@RYAN_BROWNE_


KEY POINTS
  • Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque said that most of India’s coders will lose their jobs as the effects of AI mean that it is now possible for software to be developed with far fewer people.
  • The impact of generative AI on technical jobs will vary from country to country, Mostaque added, with programmers in France for example likely to have more protections than those in India.
  • In India, Mostaque said, “outsourced coders up to level three programmers will be gone in the next year or two, whereas in France, you’ll never fire a developer.”


Most outsourced programmers in India will see their jobs wiped out in the next year or two, Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque said.

Mostaque, on a call with UBS analysts, said that most of the country’s outsourced coders will lose their jobs as the effects of AI mean that it is now possible for software to be developed with far fewer people.

“I think that it affects different types of jobs in different ways,” Mostaque said on a call with analysts at the Swiss investment bank last week.

“If you’re doing a job in front of a computer, and no one ever sees you, then it’s massively impactful, because these models are like really talented grads.”

According to Mostaque, not everyone will be affected in the same way, however.

That is due in no small part to differing rules and regulations around the world. Countries with stronger labor laws, like France, will be less likely to see such an impact, for example.

In India, Mostaque said, “outsourced coders up to level three programmers will be gone in the next year or two, whereas in France, you’ll never fire a developer.”

“So it affects different models in different countries in different ways in different sectors.”

India is home to more than 5 million software programmers, who are most under threat from the impacts of advanced AI tools like ChatGPT, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Asia’s second-largest country is a prime location for companies that outsource back-office jobs and other roles overseas. Silicon Valley tech giants, Wall Street banks, airlines and retailers are all customers to India’s outsourcing firms.

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), an Indian multinational IT services and consulting firm, is the country’s largest outsourcing provider. Others include Infosys and Wipro.

TCS has bet big on generative AI, committing to train more than 25,000 engineers on the technology over Microsoft’s Azure Open AI service to “help clients accelerate their adoption of this powerful new technology.”

In an interview with CNBC Thursday, TCS’s CEO N. Ganapathy Subramaniam said that the company began taking a “machine-first” approach to project delivery about four years ago and it showed how AI will make an “enormous impact on the way that we operate and the way that we do things.”

Generative AI, Subramaniam said, “has just advanced it by a few years.”

Mostaque reiterated a previous statement he made saying that there will be “no more programmers” in five years’ time — however, he caveated this to say that he meant coders in the traditional sense.

“Why would you have to write code where the computer can write code better? When you deconstruct the programming thing from bug testing to unit testing to ideation, an AI can do that, just better,” Mostaque said.

“But it won’t be doing it automatically, it will be AI ‘co-pilots,’” Mostaque said. “That means less people are needed for classical programming, but then are they needed for other things? This is the question and this is the balance that we have to understand, because different areas are also affected differently.”
War is coming. You can't have billions of people jobless
 

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,955
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,891

Why train when you can just plug it in?​

With no training and no real professional development, young workers in recent years have been left with only one way to learn the ropes on the job: grunt work. In theory, these small jobs were meant to allow young workers to familiarize themselves with simpler processes and prove themselves competent enough to take on more challenging work. But they often resulted in young workers feeling a lack of purpose at work because the work didn't feel like a meaningful contribution to the company or a way to actually progress to the next level. But with the advent of generative AI in the workplace, the jig is up.


AI has already begun to take jobs from workers of all ages, but corporate America's particular disdain for its young means it will hit entry-level workers hardest. It takes a lot of work to "train" a large language model, the type of AI that powers ChatGPT and other similar products. But once that work is done, it's a lot cheaper for businesses to buy some new tech tools than train a real person — consequences be damned. For a managerial class that has all but rejected any responsibility for helping foster workers' growth, all that will matter is whether something is cheap and easy.

The solace for these young workers, the managerial argument goes, is that the most tech-savvy among them will become the minders of these new machines. In reality, this means young people will find themselves cleaning up the deluge of errors these faceless AI tools will spit out, knowing they'll receive less credit because the "work" came from a machine. This has the potential to create a career crisis for young people: If even the faintest amount of freedom is wiped from their work lives, they'll have fewer ways to prove themselves capable of taking on more meaningful work. Promotions will become even more of a game of favorites, with the best "real" tasks reserved for diplomats rather than hard workers. A new AI-powered model benefits established players and empowers America's weak, disconnected management culture that doesn't evaluate actual outputs or creations.

It's no wonder CEOs and higher-ups are much more enthusiastic about integrating AI into the workplace than average employees are. The data company Qualtrics said that in a survey it conducted in May and June, 64% of executives suggested they found the "potential impact of AI" on their workplace exciting. Only 39% of frontline workers said the same, with 46% describing the tech as "scary." Another survey from Boston Consulting Group registered a similar divide: 62% of execs and leaders were enthused about the prospect of using AI at work, compared with 42% of frontline employees. While AI optimists may predict that jobs we can't imagine right now will exist in 10 years, it's hard to imagine, given the ways corporations have deployed new technology, that automation will lead to a society where more people have more economic opportunities.

Train the children — they're our only hope​

What's left for America's young workforce? What does a young person do in an office where they're not trained, mentored, or given "real" work? What happens when early-career jobs like data entry and document filing are automated by artificial intelligence?

The irony is that corporate responsibility for employees is actually better for the business. Studies suggest that companies that invest in job training and skill development are more efficient and reap higher profit margins. Despite this evidence, companies have a hard time grasping the value of the investment in their employees. As Ulrich Atz and Tensie Whelan from New York University's Stern Center for Sustainable Business wrote recently in Fortune, corporations often don't have methods to measure the value of human capital beyond simple labor costs, meaning organizations consider humans in the same way they might consider the cost of their water or electric bills. America's rot economy — one where, to quote Atz and Whelan, "companies are pressured to reduce costs in order to return more money to shareholders" — sees immediate revenue growth as the only valuable metric to consider, more important than the long-term value of growing an employee.

There's a better way to work, but I fear the only way for companies to learn the dangers of automation will be through a painful public example of a company that relied too much on AI, like Knight Capital's trading glitch that cost it $440 million. Humans can be enhanced by AI, helped by AI, but replacing them with AI is a shortsighted decision made by myopic bean counters who can't see the value in a person. It's worth considering whether investments in AI should instead be replaced with actual training and mentorship programs with financial rewards.

Young people are facing a reckoning — one where the ballooning costs of college and a lack of future opportunities will run headlong into a corporate America that doesn't recognize the value of investing in real human beings. The result will be a weaker economy with fewer people ready to take on the real challenges posed by new technology. It's a lose-lose proposition for everybody involved.
Let these companies learn the hard way when AI can't fix their problems and no workers are trained to.
 

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,480
Reputation
2,832
Daps
47,842
Reppin
NULL

Remember this below?

I agree that ChatGPT will be used to replace shytty web/influencer content and bad office copy. I'm only responding to the parts I disagree with.


How does this fit with the fact that ChatGPT can't produce new information and is inaccurate as hell on old information unless you feed it the exact thing you already know? It's not like local news is bloated with too many employees, they've all slashed already and part of the reason the writing is mediocre is because the same people are doing everything now. ChatGPT might improve their writing but it can't do their investigative reporting.


I haven't seen any evidence that it's trustworthy outside of topics that are either opinion-based or very general and bland. When forced to get into specifics of any particular niche it starts making things up.


You're hyping the technology but then saying to co-sign this particular brand. Don't several corporations have the same tech already? So how do you know this is the one that will last and not just, say, the equivalent of Commodore or Myspace?

So we're flooded with letters containing made-up statutes.

Just over a month ago. It almost doesn’t even make sense to respond bc the tech moves so quickly the answers will be in your face within days.

AI will end up replacing local news. The only part that will remain dominated by people will be “human interest” stories. Johnnie the 7 yr old tee ball star that beat cancer.

Everything else will be an amalgamation of data from multiple sources. Social media posts by the guy stuck in traffic who happens to see the accident at the intersection. Publicly available cameras/livestreams. Google data. Pod cameras. Ring camera networks. Publicly available government documents, databases, meetings. Every document at your local courthouse, every pleading, recorded documents. Everything that is being reported by legacy media institutions. There will be portals for people to “communicate” with the AI that is curating the “news.”

Did you happen to see XYZ incident? Tell it what happened, send pics/vids. You’ll have to accept some level of disclosure to the system so using your phones GPS it can tell if you’re lying about your whereabouts etc. It won’t “publish” the incident unless it’s received multiple reports and details are similar.

shyt is going to be crazzzzyyyyy
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,847
Reppin
the ether

Remember this below?

Breh, you've quoted that statement from mine multiple times now, while ignoring that what I said is EXACTLY what is happening. It can't "replace" journalists, it's just augmenting them.

Here's the part you didn't quote from the article:

"One of the three people familiar with the product said that Google believed it could serve as a kind of personal assistant for journalists, automating some tasks to free up time for others, and that the company saw it as responsible technology that could help steer the publishing industry away from the pitfalls of generative A.I."


And here's what I said:

"It's not like local news is bloated with too many employees, they've all slashed already and part of the reason the writing is mediocre is because the same people are doing everything now. ChatGPT might improve their writing but it can't do their investigative reporting."


They want to use it exactly the way I said - save journalists time on writing so that they can spend more time on the investigative reporting that underlies the writing, which currently is being neglected.
 

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,480
Reputation
2,832
Daps
47,842
Reppin
NULL
Breh, you've quoted that statement from mine multiple times now, while ignoring that what I said is EXACTLY what is happening. It can't "replace" journalists, it's just augmenting them.

Here's the part you didn't quote from the article:

"One of the three people familiar with the product said that Google believed it could serve as a kind of personal assistant for journalists, automating some tasks to free up time for others, and that the company saw it as responsible technology that could help steer the publishing industry away from the pitfalls of generative A.I."


And here's what I said:

"It's not like local news is bloated with too many employees, they've all slashed already and part of the reason the writing is mediocre is because the same people are doing everything now. ChatGPT might improve their writing but it can't do their investigative reporting."

They want to use it exactly the way I said - save journalists time on writing so that they can spend more time on the investigative reporting that underlies the writing, which currently is being neglected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


C'mon breh you should know better than assuming this is the full story.

That first quote is clearly from the Google camp and designed to appear non threatening to the industry. This product/service is probably far from perfect and they don't want to be fighting an all out war against the media/journalists. This claim that it's "responsible technology" meant to address "pitfalls of generative A.I." is probably referring to a specific capability. Sounds like software or apps that can quickly identify when you're watching video or content that is AI created.


The more important quote, which you left out is below:

Some executives who saw Google’s pitch described it as unsettling, asking not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. Two people said it seemed to take for granted the effort that went into producing accurate and artful news stories.

There's no way a Google exec is going to call its own product "unsettling." This is coming from the people who feel threatened.

"Take for granted" = "Using AI means Google doesn't value the time and effort we humans put into our work!"

"Artful news stories" = "AI language isn't beautiful!"

They used the word "unsettling" because it was probably relatively impressive, but they can't say that bc it undermines their underlying message.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,091
Reputation
8,239
Daps
157,761


‘Training My Replacement’: Inside a Call Center Worker’s Battle With A.I.​



To many people, chatbots and other technology feel like a ticking time bomb, sure to explode their work. But to some, the threat is already here.


19AI-Customer-Service-Jobs-wjvm-superJumbo.jpg


In late May, Ylonda Sherrod and dozens of others met with the White House’s Office of Public Engagement to share their experience with A.I.Credit...Bryan Tarnowski for The New York Times



By Emma Goldberg
Reporting from Pascagoula, Miss.

Published July 19, 2023
Updated July 22, 2023


“This A.I. stuff is getting really crazy.”


The voices of Charlamagne tha God, host of the nationally syndicated radio show “The Breakfast Club,” and his guests Mandii B and WeezyWTF filled Ylonda Sherrod’s car as she sped down Interstate 10 in Mississippi during her daily commute. Her favorite radio show was discussing artificial intelligence, specifically an A.I.-generated sample of Biggie.


“Sonically, it sounds cool,” Charlamagne tha God said. “But it lacks soul.”

WeezyWTF replied: “I’ve had people ask me like, ‘Oh, would you replace people that work for you with A.I.?’ I’m like, ‘No, dude.’”

Ms. Sherrod nodded along emphatically, as she drove past low-slung brick homes and strip malls dotted with Waffle Houses. She arrived at the AT&T call center where she works, feeling unsettled. She played the radio exchange about A.I. for a colleague.


“Yeah, that’s crazy,” Ms. Sherrod’s friend replied. “What do you think about us?”

Like so many millions of American workers, across so many thousands of workplaces, the roughly 230 customer service representatives at AT&T’s call center in Ocean Springs, Miss., watched artificial intelligence arrive over the past year both rapidly and assuredly, like a new manager settling in and kicking up its feet.

Suddenly, the customer service workers weren’t taking their own notes during calls with customers. Instead, an A.I. tool generated a transcript, which their managers could later consult. A.I. technology was providing suggestions of what to tell customers. Customers were also spending time on phone lines with automated systems, which solved simple questions and passed on the complicated ones to human representatives.

Ms. Sherrod, 38, who exudes quiet confidence at 5-foot-11, regarded the new technology with a combination of irritation and fear. “I always had a question in the back of my mind,” she said. “Am I training my replacement?”

Ms. Sherrod, a vice president of the call center’s local union chapter, part of the Communications Workers of America, started asking AT&T managers questions. “If we don’t talk about this, it could jeopardize my family,” she said. “Will I be jobless?”

In recent months, the A.I. chatbot ChatGPT has made its way into courtrooms, classrooms, hospitals and everywhere in between. With it has come speculation about A.I.’s impact on jobs. To many people, A.I. feels like a ticking time bomb, sure to explode their work. But to some, like Ms. Sherrod, the threat of A.I. isn’t abstract. They can already feel its effects.


When automation swallows up jobs, it often comes for customer service roles first, which make up about three million jobs in America. Automation tends to overtake tasks that repeat themselves; customer service, already a major site for outsourcing of jobs abroad, can be a prime candidate.


Image

In front of a building with AT&T’s name and logo on it, cars fill the parking spaces.


The AT&T call center where Ms. Sherrod works, in Ocean Springs, Miss. The company has increasingly been integrating A.I. into many parts of its customer service work.Credit...Bryan Tarnowski for The New York Times


In front of a building with AT&T’s name and logo on it, cars fill the parking spaces.


A majority of U.S. call center workers surveyed this year reported that their employers were automating some of their work, according to a 2,000-person survey from researchers at Cornell. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they felt it was somewhat or very likely that increased use of bots would lead to layoffs within the next two years.

Technology executives point out that fears of automation are centuries old — stretching back to the Luddites, who smashed and burned textile machines — but have historically been undercut by a reality in which automation creates more jobs than it eliminates.

A New Generation of Chatbots​


Card 1 of 5

A brave new world. A new crop of chatbots powered by artificial intelligence has ignited a scramble to determine whether the technology could upend the economics of the internet, turning today’s powerhouses into has-beens and creating the industry’s next giants. Here are the bots to know:

ChatGPT. ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence language model from a research lab, OpenAI, has been making headlines since November for its ability to respond to complex questions, write poetry, generate code, plan vacations and translate languages. GPT-4, the latest version introduced in mid-March, can even respond to images (and ace the Uniform Bar Exam).

Bing. Two months after ChatGPT’s debut, Microsoft, OpenAI’s primary investor and partner, added a similar chatbot, capable of having open-ended text conversations on virtually any topic, to its Bing internet search engine. But it was the bot’s occasionally inaccurate, misleading and weird responses that drew much of the attention after its release.

Bard. Google’s chatbot, called Bard, was released in March to a limited number of users in the United States and Britain. Originally conceived as a creative tool designed to draft emails and poems, it can generate ideas, write blog posts and answer questions with facts or opinions.

Ernie. The search giant Baidu unveiled China’s first major rival to ChatGPT in March. The debut of Ernie, short for Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration, turned out to be a flop after a promised “live” demonstration of the bot was revealed to have been recorded.


But that job creation happens gradually. The new jobs that technology creates, like engineering roles, often demand complex skills. That can create a gap for workers like Ms. Sherrod, who found what seemed like a golden ticket at AT&T: a job that pays $21.87 an hour and up to $3,000 in commissions a month, she said, and provides health care and five weeks of vacation — all without the requirement of a college degree. (Less than 5 percent of AT&T’s roles require a college education.)


Customer service, to Ms. Sherrod, meant that someone like her — a young Black woman raised by her grandmother in small-town Mississippi — could make “a really good living.”

“We’re breaking generational curses,” Ms. Sherrod said. “That’s for sure.”

In Ms. Sherrod’s childhood home, a one-story, brick A-frame in Pascagoula, money was tight. Her mother died when she was 5. Her grandmother, who took her in, didn’t work, but Ms. Sherrod remembers getting food stamps to take to the corner bakery whenever the family could spare them. Ms. Sherrod cries recalling how Christmas used to be. The family had a plastic tree and tried to make it festive with ornaments, but there was typically no money for presents.

To students at Pascagoula High School, she recalled, job opportunities seemed limited. Many went to Ingalls Shipbuilding, a shipyard where work meant blistering days under the Mississippi sun. Others went to the local Chevron refinery.


“It felt like I was going to always have to do hard labor in order to make a living,” Ms. Sherrod said. “It seemed like my lifestyle would never be something with ease, something I enjoyed.”

When Ms. Sherrod was 16, she worked at KFC, making $6.50 an hour. After graduating from high school, and dropping out of community college, she moved to Biloxi, Miss., to work as a maid at IP Casino, a 32-story hotel, where her sister still works.


Within months of working at the casino, Ms. Sherrod felt the toll of the job on her body. Her knees ached, and her back thrummed with pain. She had to clean at least 16 rooms a day, fishing hair out of bathroom drains and rolling up dirty sheets.

When a friend told her about the jobs at AT&T, the opportunity seemed, to Ms. Sherrod, impossibly good. The call center was air-conditioned. She could sit all day and rest her knees. She took the call center’s application test twice, and on her second time she got an offer, in 2006, starting out making $9.41 an hour, up from around $7.75 at the casino.

“That $9 meant so much to me,” she recalled.

So did AT&T, a place where she kept growing more comfortable: “Out of 17 years, my check hasn’t ever been wrong,” she said. “AT&T, by far, is the best job in the area.”
 
Top