Will generative AI take your job? Full paper

S

SC Maintenance

Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
5,587
Chart below is from Statista - however full paper its based on at the link. I tried to post there chart which is better, but it didn't show up very well.

Here is some estimates based on analysis of all 332 high level tasks the Bureau of labor and statistics uses to define different jobs. Full paper:


Statista article: https://www.statista.com/chart/30160/impact-of-ai-on-work-in-selected-industries/


1686452058436.jpg
 
Robotics took the auto industry in the 70s. If Robotics are not involved in making cars, a Toyota Corolla will cost around $70K - $100K to start with. Automation AI is not new. They're saving the whole world a lot of money, I mean a WHOLE lot. Think of it, what would you do if there are no dish washer, washer and dryer, A/C-Heater in your house which are all controlled by electronics?
 
Last edited:
The work from home people better watch out too. AI or someone overseas can do their job for far less cost.
 
I know it seems feasible, but I truly believe at my job, the decision making is too complex. Not that AI can't handle it, but imho the nature of having a relatively poor setup, leaving multiple humans to try to wade through requirements and decide with not enough information, spells doom for AI to pull it off. AND I COULD BE ALL WRONG. But if humans have to make the best decision they can, lacking information, it would seem the risk is multiplied with AI making decisions lacking information.
 
Lubener said:
The work from home people better watch out too. AI or someone overseas can do their job for far less cost.
Click to expand...
I have a friend who works in the orthopedic industry doing data control and somehow landed a work from home job. The company is just under half an hour away and they working from home.

I don’t get it. Plus, one is then competing with the world who will take a lesser wage as opposed to the region.
 
dlundblad said:
I have a friend who works in the orthopedic industry doing data control and somehow landed a work from him job. The company is just under half an hour away and they working from home.

I don’t get it. Plus, one is then competing with the world who will take a lesser wage as opposed to the region.
Click to expand...
The unofficial answer is working from home allows so many personal errands to be accomplished on the company's dime. Anyone who doesn't believe me, go to Costco in the middle of a work day. Then, go to Walmart. Costco is packed, Walmart is empty. I believe it's because the median Walmart shopper is not able to physically get to the store on a workday, whereas the Costco customer can. This is why certain CEOs have openly called remote work an aberration. Since employees won, they cut the workforce instead.

There's another reason/explanation to your specific observation--there are occupancy requirements that translate to tax breaks/abatements. By making people permanently remote, they don't screw up the numbers. Typically, a requirement is 60%, making all workers have to go in 3/5 days. Since many employees refuse, they screw up the numbers. By sending them home for good, less work is done, but they don't screw up the numbers. It's a realistic trade-off.
 
John105 said:
The unofficial answer is working from home allows so many personal errands to be accomplished on the company's dime. Anyone who doesn't believe me, go to Costco in the middle of a work day. Then, go to Walmart. Costco is packed, Walmart is empty. I believe it's because the median Walmart shopper is not able to physically get to the store on a workday, whereas the Costco customer can. This is why certain CEOs have openly called remote work an aberration. Since employees won, they cut the workforce instead.

There's another reason/explanation to your specific observation--there are occupancy requirements that translate to tax breaks/abatements. By making people permanently remote, they don't screw up the numbers. Typically, a requirement is 60%, making all workers have to go in 3/5 days. Since many employees refuse, they screw up the numbers. By sending them home for good, less work is done, but they don't screw up the numbers. It's a realistic trade-off.
Click to expand...
They have mentioned that they basically just need to be “logged on” by 8.

Seems like an easy gig. Also seems too easy to be let go.
 
I'd like to say that this couldn't happen, but it probably could.
The question would be one of cost savings versus incremental costs due to the lack of judgement in ambiguous and edge cases with AI.
The savings from getting rid of me and replacing me with increasingly advanced AI systems may well eventually make the switch inevitable. Also, the way we do things now need not be the way they're done in the future. I can foresee less paper and fewer actual document files going forward with most information existing in an integrated database from the start making decisions easier for an AI system. We now work in a way that suits us but it isn't the only possible way of accomplishing the work.
 
fdcg27 said:
I'd like to say that this couldn't happen, but it probably could.
The question would be one of cost savings versus incremental costs due to the lack of judgement in ambiguous and edge cases with AI.
The savings from getting rid of me and replacing me with increasingly advanced AI systems may well eventually make the switch inevitable. Also, the way we do things now need not be the way they're done in the future. I can foresee less paper and fewer actual document files going forward with most information existing in an integrated database from the start making decisions easier for an AI system. We now work in a way that suits us but it isn't the only possible way of accomplishing the work.
Click to expand...
Think about how much it costs an employer when I am on a video with 20 other people from my company, and 5 from a vendor, brainstorming something that really could be cookie cutter if anyone could get it into such a format. I mean it's easier said than done, it would be like saying let's let AI handle the Mario M Cuomo Bridge all by itself without any humans interfering. It probably could be done, never say never, but I wouldn't at this time want to be one of the motorists driving over the bridge at least for the first 50 years after construction....

Definitely worth it for a co. to investigate if highly comp'd employees can be axed by AI, esp if they are remote workers...lol
 
I think people don’t realize AI is an efficiency tool (optimally) that may reduce a team of few - 5 to one person who is extremely good at that task.

AI cannot fully replace people it nothing more than a tool to reduce repetitive tasks that still need verification.
 
Lubener said:
Other than sales positions, most work from homers are expendable.
Click to expand...
Lubener said:
The work from home people better watch out too. AI or someone overseas can do their job for far less cost.
Click to expand...

People who have to go in physically are entirely expendable too, we saw that with the entire manufacturing base moving overseas or automated via robotics.

My entire company has the ability to work remote aside from the periods they have to go to a project site and due to good planning, our work was unaffected by the lockdown. Other benefits include no time and gas wasting on commuting and a smaller/cheaper office rent and bills. Funny only people who complain about WFH are the ones are aren't.
 
Lubener said:
Other than sales positions, most work from homers are expendable.
Click to expand...
Stop with the off the cuff negativity already. You clearly don't understand knowledge based roles at all.

Unless something is physically broken, going to the office for me provides zero additional value and just adds to traffic. I usually have 15-20 meetings a week, many of which that are with outside parties that are not going to come to our office anyway. If something is physically broken that I need to address then I go right away.

We are already using AI where we can do reduce our workload, working in a information security shop with a large inflow of data, it's impossible to do all by hand. We'd have to hire 100 people, minimum, just to sift through data flows. Where the humans come in, is to handle higher order decisions where the AI is unsure, or if people are complaining about decisions the AI made (help desk ticket - my application/email/website was blocked by INFOSEC.

It's doubtful that humans will ever be completely taken out of the loop in my industry. You need humans just to tune the AI actions to begin with. The automation has a long, long way to go still before it ever can displace humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
Yep here we go again with the anti-tech and anti-wfh memes.

Guess my team that is distributed across the country should go into their closest office so we can do our virtual meetings with a real office background instead of a beach pic background. :unsure:

I'm in tech and AI / ChatGPT type tools will impact two things:
- Mediocracy will be automated. If you suck at your job, you will get replaced/displaced
- Will give a 20-30% boost in productivity for individuals that can incorporate them into their day-to-day work.
 
KrisZ said:
View attachment 161034
Click to expand...
Just trash talking really. Not cool or funny, just culture war garbage.

If you can find an AI that makes a better infosec security analyst than a human, I will go buy it on Day 1 of the next fiscal year. Heaven knows most security teams have some dead weight.

Otherwise all you haters may kindly (be quiet). You're just peeing in the breeze.
 
Brons2 said:
Just trash talking really. Not cool or funny, just culture war garbage.

If you can find an AI that makes a better infosec security analyst than a human, I will go buy it on Day 1 of the next fiscal year. Heaven knows most security teams have some dead weight.

Otherwise all you haters may kindly (be quiet). You're just peeing in the breeze.
Click to expand...
Wow. So touchy.

It was a joke. Not aimed at you, or people who really add knowledge. Even you say there is dead weight, I've worked with plenty of parroters over the years.

Hater? You don't know the definition of hate, I'm thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top