Capital Economics analysts warned that some firms use AI as cover for cuts driven by poor financial performance. “For some firms, AI is a way to spin job losses driven by poor financial performance in a more positive light,” they wrote.
The AI job apocalypse narrative serves multiple purposes: it justifies hiring freezes, explains away poor financial performance, and creates urgency around AI adoption.
I suspected as much too: that the people in-charge are using AI as a scapegoat so that the anger that would have been directed at them gets turned towards AI instead.
Given that there's a vocal minority of Lemmings who blindly hate AI, I'd say their propaganda has definitely found at least some success.
I appreciate your effort. I was more of a lurker on Reddit, but realised we all got to actively participate here if we want Lemmy (and the Fediverse at large) to succeed.
Unfortunately, content marketing is a long-term ROI strategy. IMO other marketing means (e.g. ads, influencers) would do a better job of bringing new users onboard in the short term, helping us to tap into the network effect.
The field of artificial general intelligence has been around for something like 70 years, and has made a really modest amount of progress in that time, on the scale of what they're trying to do.
I daresay it would stay this way until we figure out what intelligence is.
Artificial Intelligent is supposed to be intelligent.
For the record, AI is not supposed to be intelligent.
It just has to appear intelligent. It can be all smoke-and-mirrors, giving the impression that it's smart enough - provided it can perform the task at hand.
That's why it's termed artificial intelligence.
The subfield of Artificial General Intelligence is another story.
In the ‘Medium’ difficulty category, OpenAI’s o4-mini-high model scored the highest at 53.5%.
This fits my observation of such models. o4-mini-high is able to help me with 80-90% of the problems at work. For the remaining problems, it would come up with a nonsensical solution and no matter how much I prompt it, it would tunnel-vision on that specific approach. It could never second guess itself and realise that its initial solution is completely off the mark, and try an entirely differently approach. That's where I usually step in and do the work myself.
It still saves me time with the trivial stuff though.
I can't say the same for the rest of the LLMs. They are simply no good at coding and just waste my time.
happysad dev noises