Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Wednesday released a study that found that artificial intelligence can already replace 11.7% of the U.S. labor market, or as much as $1.2 trillion in wages across finance, health care and professional services.

The study was conducted using a labor simulation tool called the Iceberg Index, which was created by MIT and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The index simulates how 151 million U.S. workers interact across the country and how they are affected by AI and corresponding policy

  • velindora@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Doesn’t that sound just like a real person though? It forgets shit and you have to correct it because you’re not paying it very much and it has pretty little training. You could always pay it 20 bucks a month or you could pay a small salary and insurance.

    I’m certainly not advocating for getting rid of people, but the way you worded it – not trying to start a fight – sounds just like a low level employee

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t agree with your premise. However, I don’t have a good argument against at hand.

      There are intangible benefits to a person, and I feel like the number of roles where AI could perform well enough and mistakes don’t cause customer satisfaction issues, regulatory compliance issues, or incur civil liability are vanishingly small. But could they be 10% of jobs? Even 5%? I don’t think so.

      I could see an argument that if you have a team of 10 people, AI could let you cut one and expect the other 9 to pick up the slack. But how many teams even have ten people on them? Because I don’t think a team of 5 can lose one person and still be capable of the same work. I guess it might depend on the industry — I do have IT blinders on here.