Artificial intelligence can already replace 11.7% of the U.S. labor market, across finance, health care and professional services, according to MIT's study.

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

  • RustyShackleford@lemmy.zipEnglish
    9·
    4 hours ago

    People often overestimate the functionality of AI. If you plan to let it make business decisions, it might be wiser to smash your genitals in your car trunk latch.

    • getoffthatchronic@lemdro.idEnglish
      3·
      4 hours ago

      This isn’t even about competency really as the cost of AI is being artificially depressed through all of these businesses running at a loss. It might be insane to stick in a blender with US labor statistics. Hopefully not the kind the WH uses?

      There are a lot of different things falling under the umbrella of AI. You’re right to be skeptical of an algorithm’s ability to estimate another algorithm’s ability in practice. They’re testing how well the buzzword tech can move the needle on numbers the fed obsesses over. Really pigeonholing the tech into profitability. Best uses of this tech will be in balancing electricity flows through the country, with inputs including population + industry usage, weather patterns & other renewable energy variables (these are very much a social good but you can already hear capital hissing at the thought). Humans already operate many cybernetic systems that turn on volition, with inputs adjusted to make them exploitative. Streamlining them is going to rip the balls right off for sure. As I often quote Michael Parenti by recently, “You’re stupid if you think they’re stupid,” it goes nicely with “the purpose of a system is what it does.”

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.comEnglish
    6·
    4 hours ago

    Let me know when they replace the overpaid C-level parasites with cheaper, faster, more efficient AI CEO/CFO et cetera.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    I say this as someone generally bullish about AI: bullshit. I use it all the time. It’s helpful when you already know what you’re doing. Anything you do with AI at scale is going to have a number of fuckups, even if it’s mostly reliable — and for most purposes I wouldn’t even go that far.

    I see it all the time. I ask Cline to have Claude do a bunch of things and create a markdown file… and it does everything, including generating the markdown, but forgets to put it in a file and then acts confused when you say to put it in a file. If that was some financial report or contract, it could tank a whole business.

    • velindora@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      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.zipEnglish
        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.

  • getoffthatchronic@lemdro.idEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    I’m sure there is plenty of chaff to cut in finance and healthcare etcetera, in my heart I want to believe in a coming Burger Decimation, but US labor statistics are absolutely cooked. Having read practically nothing about the model they’re using, I would appreciate if anyone can tell how accurate it is.