A pinch of AI-generated salt.
Looking for counterpoints to (my) general tech-optimism.
There is a lot of euphoria around AI, often understandably so. Some of the more shiny objects that the wider world of AI throws out to us common folk (gen-AI in particular) are very shiny indeed. The sheen sways us in ways small and big, practical and existential, prodding both ambitions and insecurities amidst organisations & individuals.
However, I -reassuringly- find counterpoints to overdone tech-optimism. These are needed, all the more amidst efforts at them being shouted down.
One of these voices is Brian Merchant’s - author, LA Times tech reporter, and newsletterer of Blood in the Machine. His recent piece 'Understanding the real threat generative AI poses to our jobs’ covers a lot of ground around:
what the real threats are to our jobs and beyond
the leverage AI can provide to employers
the historical precedent of lack of any technology-led job industrial apocalypse
the (counter-intuitve) collateral effect of *more work for some, and
the extraneous costs of managing LLMs.
Some extracts:
If history is any indicator, there’s no catastrophic, Great Depression-level mass job loss event on the horizon, BUT that won’t stop bosses from trying to use AI to replace certain jobs, keep pay lower, and demand you and your coworkers produce more work.
and
Your boss isn’t concerned with the philosophical question of whether generative AI is so good it can replace or replicate human workers, your boss is concerned with whether its output will be ‘good enough’.
This is an absolutely key point for me, especially given my larger world of creative & content. “Good enough” at scale will take us to widespread mediocrity, and I say this not from a place of creative elitism. Instead, I see this as an extension of the general ‘enshitiffication’ of the internet and my desire/hope to not have our digital (hence, our life) experiences be surrounded by more mass output, a sea of sameness, a glut of ‘good enough’.
…companies will wonder why they’re still using human art if (other companies) have this competitive advantage, and presto, we have ourselves a depressing race to the bottom in a vital artistic profession.
Another attempt at deflation comes from Peter Cappelli, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School:
While AI is hyped as a game-changing technology, "projections from the tech side are often spectacularly wrong," he pointed out. "In fact, most of the technology forecasts about work have been wrong over time." He said the imminent wave of driverless trucks and cars, predicted in 2018, is an example of rosy projections that have yet to come true. ^
It is alluring to let oneself be swept away in the tide of AI technology (though sadly what exactly comes under “AI” is already a mess) ; yet it is undeniably both an exciting and a nebulous time, where we must look to separate myth building, ambition, practicality and reality. This, from Merchant’s other fascinating piece recently:
We are at a unique juncture in the AI timeline; one in which it’s still remarkably nebulous as to what generative AI systems actually can and cannot do, or what their actual market propositions really are — and yet it’s one in which they nonetheless enjoy broad cultural and economic interest.
A combination of widespread uncertainty and dominance of the zeitgeist, for the time being, continues to serve the AI companies, who lean even more heavily on mythologizing to push their products. In other words, even now, this far into its reign over the tech sector, “AI” — a highly contested term already — is, largely, what its masters tell us it is, as well as how much we choose to believe them.
Brian’s pieces, well worth your time:
· Understanding the real threat · AI really is smoke & mirrors ·
Other reads
Have we reached Peak AI?
Evidence that LLMs are reaching diminishing returns (from Gary Marcus)
Thanks for reading! ☕️
AI is certainly resonating - Creativity, Efficiency & Convenience..