But what?
It's just a demonstration of how useful LLMs are. Yes it's my experience driving it is what makes it powerful, same as any tool.
The AI is taking our jerbs thread
- Thread starter mid_gen
- Start date
It's just a demonstration of how useful LLMs are. Yes it's my experience driving it is what makes it powerful, same as any tool.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,946
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
I used Claude and it helped me create two features but I ran out of tokens in my pro account..
I still had to intervene and fix things manually that a junior would have no clue about
Any study that says zero impact is clearly wrong and a flawed study.
Then you will have no problem collecting your own evidence and getting the results published.
You should also read the article in detail, because it isn't that there is zero impact, but there is very small effect on employment as some areas were impacted but that was balanced by job creation in other areas. The net effect is at macro levels you cannot detect significant changes, and instead things like post-covid effects and Trumps tarifs are having a far bigger impact.
WRT to the thread topic, it means AI has not taken your job, but made you more productive and hence more valuable and thus less likely to loose your job.
Then they likely were not good copywriters. From what I have read, genAI is increasing the need for human copywriters because now more unqualified people are generating more text using LLMs and the output is not sufficiently good, requiring human copywriters to do more work. And what you see is copywriters actually using AI to improve efficiency.
In this sense is is like software. The tools help experts the most. People who have no idea how to code are not generating much value efficiently vibe coding.
Thankfully, our company has taken a step back in terms of realising its limitations, but is still allowing it to be used. This is great news for me, as it greatly improves the efficiency of certain tasks, although others are still reluctant to use it at all.
Has AI progress stalled recently? I don't really use it myself (it's actually all blocked at my work, can be annoying as it is useful sometimes) but I haven't found it any better when I do use it recently vs when it become mainstream available?
What has progressed is it incursion into the arts.
What has progressed is it incursion into the arts.
I think there are a lot of job losses due to AI, but more as a poorly implemented cash grab from CEOs i.e. they'll likely need to hire people back.
Where there are actual valid use cases, it's far less disruptive but can be a meaningful assistant - we're still only talking 5-15% increase. I use it a lot, which is also why I know if I let it do it's own thing, regardless of how many time it iterates over itself, that it would break so many things.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,243
- Location
- Surrey
Incorrect. Some award winners and bestselling authors have seen their day-to-day body copy work (the stuff that pays the bills) disappear.
There are others in the creative industry (eg Nevan Carey, award-winning colourist on Adolescence, amongst other things) who are abandoning their careers altogether to get a head start somewhere else.
Yes the models are continually improving. Claude Sonnet 4.5 launched last week which is a solid incremental improvement on their offering. Also V2 of Claude Code which brings various tooling improvements.
Content generation is where the savings are. I was just reading an article on a formally quite reputable site and it was glaringly obvious it was written by AI.
It's probably peaked. Outside of enhancing model routing to make things more efficient, the general concept is limited and would require fundamental changes.
And yet a quick google shows loads of copywriters that are not worried at all.
I've worked in training AI at a low level for over 10 years, I've worked on a range of voice assistant and visual recognition systems.
My own work has dropped off to a level that I'm pursuing other opportunities and have taken higher AI concept AI courses such as IMBs Introduction to AI, which is free and well worth doing as an introduction course. The reason is that AI can now reliably do a lot of the more mundane tasks that I was involved in itself. I helped train it do those roles knowing it wouldn't need human input after a certain point to do them.
AI hasn't peaked at all - at least in terms of its future capabilities and utility in many roles. AI's creative capabilities will eventually be indistinguishable from human created content, along with all the little human touches that currently make it easy to tell the difference. Writers will, and already have migrated to become more like digital editors. A human mind overseeing and editing everything to make sure it still makes sense.
What has likely peaked is any hysteria about AI being used everywhere and replacing a huge amount of jobs - it will replace many more, that's for sure, but any human interaction jobs are still mostly going to be fine.
A huge hurdle to mass acceptance of AI will be its use in the medical field. AI is already being used in nursing at a much lower cost than human staff. It might take a decade or two more, but there will very likely be highly effective AI doctors and counsellors, with human doctors themselves becoming more like patient managers overseeing multiple AI assistants and making any major decisions. Another landmark will be when AI voice assistants are consistently better than the average call centre worker, something not that far off either. Crystal clear accent of your choice with instant connection versus 30 min wait and indecipherable accent that costs 99% more to run as a business. It will likely take most call centre roles at some point.
So no, AI won't take all jobs, but it will take many, and it's not stopping. It's getting better all the time.
Robotics is also seeing great advances along with them being used on production lines for more complex tasks that humans used to do, along with AI is it going to have a significant impact. Universal income will likely be a required side effect of the major loss of jobs in years and decades to come.
I do use AI for certain things but not for any writing, so this post is at least AI free. At least it won't take our posts.
My own work has dropped off to a level that I'm pursuing other opportunities and have taken higher AI concept AI courses such as IMBs Introduction to AI, which is free and well worth doing as an introduction course. The reason is that AI can now reliably do a lot of the more mundane tasks that I was involved in itself. I helped train it do those roles knowing it wouldn't need human input after a certain point to do them.
AI hasn't peaked at all - at least in terms of its future capabilities and utility in many roles. AI's creative capabilities will eventually be indistinguishable from human created content, along with all the little human touches that currently make it easy to tell the difference. Writers will, and already have migrated to become more like digital editors. A human mind overseeing and editing everything to make sure it still makes sense.
What has likely peaked is any hysteria about AI being used everywhere and replacing a huge amount of jobs - it will replace many more, that's for sure, but any human interaction jobs are still mostly going to be fine.
A huge hurdle to mass acceptance of AI will be its use in the medical field. AI is already being used in nursing at a much lower cost than human staff. It might take a decade or two more, but there will very likely be highly effective AI doctors and counsellors, with human doctors themselves becoming more like patient managers overseeing multiple AI assistants and making any major decisions. Another landmark will be when AI voice assistants are consistently better than the average call centre worker, something not that far off either. Crystal clear accent of your choice with instant connection versus 30 min wait and indecipherable accent that costs 99% more to run as a business. It will likely take most call centre roles at some point.
So no, AI won't take all jobs, but it will take many, and it's not stopping. It's getting better all the time.
Robotics is also seeing great advances along with them being used on production lines for more complex tasks that humans used to do, along with AI is it going to have a significant impact. Universal income will likely be a required side effect of the major loss of jobs in years and decades to come.
I do use AI for certain things but not for any writing, so this post is at least AI free. At least it won't take our posts.
I could do and if I did I would start with the larger Telcom companies that now sell AI receptionist subscriptions as part of their core package. With many companies now subscribed allowing them to reduce the reception team down to minimum level replaced by AI receptionists.
Along with companies that now subscribe to first line AI tech support AI assistants to replace 1st line workers. 2nd and 3rd line seem to remain untouched but 1st line have 100% been reduced in some companies.
https://www.ringcentral.com/gb/en/ai-receptionist.html are who we use and stuff like this is getting more common.
EDIT: At least in terms to prove there isn't a zero impact.
Last edited: