AI expert warns artificial intelligence may eliminate jobs now

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

This is the message that has caught fire in the world of artificial intelligence (AI) media technology.

This column, for what it’s worth, is written by a fallible human being on a battered keyboard, without any technological assistance.

It’s extremely rare – once in a blue moon – that I read an article that completely changes my view on an issue.

Like most people, I have viewed the rise of AI with a mixture of concern, skepticism and bewilderment.

DEMOCRATS LOSE AI BECAUSE OF A BIG MESSAGING PROBLEM

It’s fun to conjure up images on ChatGPT, for example, and I understand that some people use it for high-speed searches. But then you hear stories about AI messing up math problems or saying things that are just plain wrong.

Of course, we’ve all heard warnings that this fast-growing technology will cost some people their jobs, but I thought that would mostly happen in Silicon Valley. The era of air travel did not erase passenger trains or buses, although it did end the horse and carriage trade.

But now here’s Matt Shuman, who works in AI, and he’s not just in the prediction contest. He tells us what is happening at the moment.

Last year, he says, “new techniques for building these models allowed a much faster rate of progress. And then it got even faster. And then even faster. Each new model wasn’t just better than the last… it was better by a wider margin, and the time between new model releases was shorter. I was using the AI more and more, moving back and forth with it less and less, watching it handle things that I previously thought would work.” required my expertise.

On February 5, two major companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, released new models that Shuman likens to “the moment you realize the water is rising around you and is now reaching your chest.”

Rough prompts made ChatGPT more precise. The more polite ones got lower scores. The tone changed the outcome. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

Bingo: “I am no longer needed for the actual technical work of my job. I describe what I want to build in plain English, and it just shows up. I just describe the result and leave.”

Wait, there’s more. The new GPT model “didn’t just carry out my instructions. It made intelligent decisions. It had something that felt, for the first time, like judgment. Like taste. The inexplicable feeling of knowing what the right choice is that people always said AI would never have. This model has it, or something close enough that the distinction starts to no longer matter.”

This goes well beyond the geeky world of techies, in case you’re feeling immune. “Law, finance, medicine, accounting, consulting, writing, design, analytics, customer service. Not ten years from now. The people who build these systems say one to five years. Some say less. And given what I’ve seen in the last couple of months, I think ‘less’ is more likely.”

AI RAISES THE CHALLENGES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. HERE’S HOW TO DO THINGS

My knee-jerk reaction is: well, everything will be fine, because no super-intelligent robot could talk about TV news or podcasts with the same attitude and verve as me. Then I remember, even as a writer, that news organizations are relying more and more on AI.

What about musicians who bring soul to their rock ‘n roll or bop to their pop? Well, the most popular AI singer is Xania Monet. Some fans were stunned to discover that it wasn’t real, although it was created by a real poet, Telisha “Nikki” Jones, and most listeners didn’t care. In fact, “Xania” now has a multi-million dollar recording contract.

Another sobering thought: “Dario Amodei, who is probably the most security-conscious CEO in the AI ​​sector, has publicly predicted that AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years. »

Sip.

Experts predict that AI will eliminate 50% of white-collar jobs within one to five years. This statistic comes as job security concerns grow around technology. (Cheng Xin/Getty Images)

This really hit the media echo chamber, reverberating from Axios to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, among others.

The fact that Matt Shuman presents this in a measured tone, and not with a giddy scream, adds to its credibility.

Anthropic, for its part, published a study defending its Claude Opus model, “against any attempt to autonomously exploit, manipulate or falsify” a company’s operations “in a manner that increases the risk of future catastrophic consequences.”

The report adds: “We do not believe that he has consistent and dangerous objectives that would increase the risk of sabotage, nor that his deception capabilities rise to the level of invalidating our evidence.”

95% OF TEACHERS Say AI MAKES STUDENTS DANGEROUSLY DEPENDENT ON TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNING: SURVEY

Meanwhile, National Review provides a counterbalance to so-called “pessimism.”

On the one hand, “most predictions predict that AI will be a top-down disruption rather than a bottom-up phenomenon.”

On the other hand, writes Noah Rothman, “there is almost no room in the discourse for undesirable outcomes that are not catastrophic. After all, modesty and caution do not go viral.”

And what about the positive impact?

Concerns around AI have led to the rise of “pessimism.” However, experts say “modesty and caution” in AI discourse “does not go viral.” (iStock)

“Rather than wiping out entire sectors, it is just as possible that workers displaced by AI will be retained in the sectors in which they are already employed.

It defies logic to assume that an industry that grows as quickly as AI predicts will not need human data scientists, research analysts, specialist engineers and, yes, even support and administrative staff. Additionally, sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, and emerging industries will need as much or more human talent than they currently employ. »

The conservative magazine is also upset that “participants in this debate assume that the only solution to AI’s disruptive potential, regardless of its scale, is big government.”

Well, take your pick.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If AI, which can now code well enough to reproduce itself, doesn’t eliminate millions of jobs, or if society finds ways to adapt, we can all breathe a very human sigh of relief.

And if artificial intelligence is as destructive as Shuman’s alarming article already says, we can’t say we weren’t warned — but maybe we can harness it to do our jobs for us while we work three days a week with three-hour lunches.

I’m agnostic at this point, except to say that it’s going to be a wild ride.