## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### Question Discussion Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post.
* AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot!
* Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful.
* Please provide links to back up your arguments.
* No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not.
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this your first time seeing someone on the Internet omit the period at the end of a sentence?
Edit: "Simul" is short for "simultaneous exhibition", and it's a common expression in chess, for anyone confused.
chess is a special case of AI. IT is a very well defined task, has a clear rule set, and a set space of possible choices. That does not apply to all tasks. Some tasks are infinitely complex, which makes them hard to perform with AI.
Chess is not a special case of AI. It's extremely common to have small simple isolated systems with specific rulesets that might have a (relative) large number of variations which need to be accounted for within the rules and domain space.
Did you know that the Post Office (USA) was using OCR ML models to auto-identify and auto-route mail addresses on envelopes going back all the way to the 80s? The alphabet, letter-word combinations, numbers etc also represent a kind of rules-based system. Many many such examples already existed, they only exploded in the last couple decades since internet boom of late 90s.
What I meant was that there are certain tasks which are amenable to AI. Tasks with well defined problem spaces. Not that Chess is special, just that it is well defined.
The chess board has 64 squares. Each square can only be occupied by one piece. A limited problem set.
In your post office code example, the alphabet has 26 letters. There are only 10 actual numbers to identify in a zip code (1-10). THe number of possibilities is limited.
In contrast, a vision problem is much harder. A picture can have 1080 x 764 pixels. Each pixel can have 3 (RGB) x 255 colors, so that is 765 possible values for each PIXEL.
I guess I am saying AI will only help with certain tasks. Other tasks, like rotationally invariant object recognition, will be best handled by a human, since the problem space is exponential.
I mean, the number of potential (legal) chess positions is something like 10\^40, if you count illegal positions too the exponent jumps to over 100 on that.
In OCR ML applications, typically there is a drastic reduction in dimensionality, for example a letter/num character can be processed with as small of a resolution as 20x20 pixels or something similar, and not RGB, only B&W. At least for scanning letters in OCR, other applications like detecting pictures of animals might require higher resolutions, certainly.
Rotationally invariant objects have been detectable by CV systems for many years, they just didn't become as prevalent and capable until more recently because of all the extra training data for the many possible positions, along with the necessary compute power to train and process at the greater volume. People and animals and the almost infinite number of physical positions they can "transform" into with something as simple as moving a limb is the best example, but obviously CV models capable of detecting people and animals (in motion, even) have been around quite a while now.
I for one believe that AI can't, for example, fix Earth and human civilization. They may be able to help as tools, but ultimately humans have to out-philosophize, out-solution, out-revolution and out-change all of today's problems on their own, something AI will not be able to do for them unless some fantastical level of AGI/ASI comes about eventually, which is possible, although might take a while. Some have been saying that the advent of "pseudo-consciousness-adjacent AI" (for lack of a better term) like these new LLMs is akin to the beginning of the computer industry, basically starting at the bottom and progressively increasing in quality and power and capability, sort of like following its own invisible "AI Moore's Law" of fast advancement, but even so, it took decades to get from the IBM 5150 to a Nvidia H200.
What tasks do you think AI won't be able to help with?
Rotationally invariant objects have been detectable by CV systems for many years
---
I worked in this field for many years up until 2020 or so, and I can tell you that rotationally invariant object classifiers have not been around for many years.
---
Some have been saying that the advent of "pseudo-consciousness-adjacent AI" (for lack of a better term) like these new LLMs is akin to the beginning of the computer industry, basically starting at the bottom and progressively increasing in quality and power and capability, sort of like following its own invisible "AI Moore's Law" of fast advancement, but even so, it took decades to get from the IBM 5150 to a Nvidia H200.
---
THe LLMs are far from pseudo conscious. THey are just another form of brute force methodology, with a co-occurrence algorithm used to model language.
BTW, language is another area with lots of structure, allowing for AI to operate more easily.
Also, the models today are generating information, not classifying information, which is much harder.
This is a bad example because chess is a "simple" task in the sense that it has strict rules that can never be broken and is for one game only. So, a single algorithm is run that determines the best possible move to play next. Complex tasks done by humans require lots of context and critical thinking, both of which LLMs struggle with.
its more than possible but someone with experience in the field and AI experience will destroy every time.
its like a talented guitarist who is lazy can be beaten by someone with no natural talent but a shit load of determination and practise. but theyd never beat someone with natural talent who practises and works hard.
We are at the very least, decades away from an AI that can outperform a human highly skilled and dedicated to their art. AI can provide an average guess but if you want precision you need a human
I think there really is an element of the first 90% taking 10% of the work and the last 10% taking 90% of the work. And I think we're still in the first 90%, though not sure how far along. Kinda like the roadblocks FSD has hit.
So its worst than most people think...
A recent study invovling doctors and AI showed...
They had three groups
- Doctors
- Ai
- Ai + Doctors
The group that performed the weakest was the AI+Doctor group while the group that performed the best was the AI alone.
Meh; all this proves is that many doctors suck at staying up to date in knowledge and also suck at using technology. I would need to see this tested in different professions while controlling for capability in using the tool theyâve been given.
Also: what kind of task were they performing? Diagnostics? Ok, I can see why AI could outperform residents. Specialized knowledge and practical skills? We won't see THAT happen for a few dozen years.
Yeah if the task is referencing a huge pile of data to correlate symptoms with known diagnoses then thats obviously a task primed for ai. It just sounds scary when you say "better than doctors".
Which tasks are ai better or not better at is a big question and it doesnt track with the way we divide up tasks currently ("jobs")
There's a Harvard business review study for my profession with a similar control population setup. For Management Consulting, the group enabled with AI performed the best and provided the best quality of deliverables compared to humans alone. AI alone was not tested, but that's because it would virtually suck at trying to do management consulting work independently
This probably has a lot of quirks. I know me using it in a programming setting had major changes. First, my natural talent took a nose dive. Became dependent, then over a long time, I got better, the AI got better, and now it's like an extension of my brain. It's a learning process and I'm not sure AI has been out long enough to even quantify what we're looking for in the end.
Are you referring to this study? [https://hms.harvard.edu/news/does-ai-help-or-hurt-human-radiologists-performance-depends-doctor](https://hms.harvard.edu/news/does-ai-help-or-hurt-human-radiologists-performance-depends-doctor)
almost every single one of these studies are fucking awful designed in hyper controlled environments and often comparing to junior residents. Cite the study you're referring to as I'm pretty sure I know the one already but want to see if there been more I'm unaware of. the ability of AI in those studies is often horrifically over represented just like the inability is horribly over estimated in the articles saying ai cannot perform as well as docs. I've set to see a good study from either side designed well
At what though lol. I can't go to an AI doctor rn so clearly they aren't capable of being doctors. They are passing some kind of test which is not the same at all.
What was the average age of the doctors though?
A lot of older people simply don't understand how to properly use tech. I've seen some very smart people try to play prompt engineer. It felt like watching my gran trying to use google.
At this point, AI is more like training wheels in a bicycle. It can help beginners learn and gain confidence, but it's a hindrance to someone with more experience.
I suspect AI is more useful for programming than other uses because there is just so much to learn with programming. New tools, libraries, environments, languages, paradigms... There is so much to learn that even a software developer with 20 years of experience (roughly the same here) still has tons of areas where they're still a beginner.
Exactly this. I've been at it for thirty years across many languages. There's no way I can remember all syntax, libraries etc. AI feeds me this information way way quicker than Google search / documentation
I want to figure out how to use this in my field, property management. And responding to the same email questions over and over and over again. Teaching my AI bot about PM and how I respond. Can I interface this with outlook?
Or how does the actual interface work with you and your field?
Yes you can. Google embed chatgpt outlook. There are videos. As for specific domains, you may consider providing your sample responses to sample emails in the context window and prompt it to be a property manager and to respond according to the responses in the context you've provided already. (Try that first, then work on the embedding would be my advice)
It's the opposite. I've thirty years experience programming. Using ai speeds me up 10x. There's no way a beginner could get that gain. They wouldn't know the right questions to ask. They wouldn't be able to see the mistakes. They wouldn't be able to break problems up into AI digestible problems and then hook them all up in a sensible way.
Same here. 27 years in tech. Now doing sw dev. AI is my best friend. I actually have a premium subscription to both Claude and GPT because it's so useful to me
Same - programmer and I have a subscription to GPT and to vscode's github AI plugin. I just pause typing for half a second, and AI writes the rest.
So many times now I just write the function code comment, and let it write the rest. And half the time it's better code than what I would have written.
Have you used it to replace Google and documentation? As long as the feature I need was present the documentation at the time of the ai's training I can just ask it questions about the documentation instead of having to go out there. Stack Overflow is pretty much dead to me now and it used to be a daily site. I can't remember the last time I visited.
Yes. I'd say googling and reading documentation was 90% of time spent when working with new languages or libraries and AI is so much more efficient at getting me what I need
Problem is while yr doing all those higher level skills the AI is learning from you and 100s of thousands of others simultaneously. All into the training data. Thank you for your service.
That's absolutely false. I have 27 years experience in my field and use AI daily, as does my colleague with over 10 years. AI is our partner, our assistant.
What field is this? In software dev and anything that is complex but has one or a few correct answers, AI is incredibly powerful in the hands of an expert.
> but it's a hindrance to someone with more experience
I don't agree. I'm a programmer with 25 years of experience, and I work with doctors getting them to use AI.
Both programmers and doctors benefit from AI, greatly. Doctors are constantly saying that the AI caught things that they didn't. And as a programmer, the AI constantly finds better ways of doing things than what I thought of.
My tech was weak but my industry knowledge is top level. I can now build all the tools I have been waiting for the dev's to build for me by myself now. I have written more code in the last 6 months then the prior 10 years. I am loving it. The dev's just write code they think you want. I now write code that I want. Crazy times.
Iâve been a software developer for over 30 years. I work in many languages and platforms. Iâm good, very good, but AI makes me drastically faster and able to do new things much faster. Itâs like Iâve got a whole team of junior and mid level programmers at my beck and call who know every language.
Just curious, what field do you work in and what technologies are you using? For me it just replaced stack overflow and helps whenever I have to use new frameworks/libraries. But most of my time is spent on large projects where very good knowledge of the existing code base is essentially a requirement, so I find it difficult to make good use of it. Even the suggestions of github copilot are pretty horrible in those cases.
The latest models are starting to have context length's long enough that they can read your entire code base in, and help you from that. It's all going to improve very rapidly.
Not for our larger code bases (although I'm sure we'll get there). But even then the proper tooling is missing. I like the way GitHub Copilot is implemented but evaluating large models several times per minute on millions of input tokens doesn't seem viable in the near future. Maybe continuous fine tuning of models on a code base will become a thing for the companies which are comfortable with handing over their entire code to another company.
And even if your assertion that it's all going to improve very rapidly is true (which is not a given at all), then that doesn't change the fact that CURRENTLY the impact of LLMs on software development varies a lot depending on what you're working on.
Exactly. It makes me feel like I'm in god mode. But I'm also aware that my experience is helping me leverage it massively. Just like how if you give a junior a whole team of other juniors and mid level programmers and the responsibility to direct them they'd struggle massively compared to a senior
I just needed to import a flat file. I gave it the flat file, told it what I wanted. I got sql script to create the table and a console app to import the data against modify it how I needed in 30 sexonds
With how your question is worded, yes, they can. And everyone claiming otherwise is delusional or in denial of current reality.
One of the main things people also miss is that current AI models are generalized and not "domain specialists", because growth and change is fast enough that domain specialization is not freezable, because tech changes so fast. Once AI gets into stable form, optimized and with slowed down growth, you will start seeing more and more specialized domain knowledge AI's. And that's when everyone who parrots "nah, that won't happen" will get slapped in the face by the new reality.
The latest chatGPT 4o is stunningly good. But with everything the human mind can be cunning and who knows how it may be able to manipulate the prompts. And always double check any results. Be sceptical. However for someone interested in a discipline it's a good place to start enquiring.
Industries like healthcare, counseling, customer service, and education rely on our human touch. It's all about face-to-face interaction, the ability to understand the complexities of human emotions, and responding with genuine care.Â
While AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants can handle the basic stuff, they often stumble and fall flat on their faces when it comes to the nitty-gritty of human emotions or ethical dilemmas. That's where we come in with our powers of empathy, understanding, and the knack for tailoring solutions to each unique individual.
Think about it: when you're feeling down, do you want to pour your heart out to a robot or a real-life human who gets you? We humans have the power to make connections, build trust, and lend a helping hand in times of need. We're the masters of emotional support and the champions of personalized care.
So, while AI can be the ultimate sidekick, assisting with the simple stuff, we are the superheroes who swoop in when things get real. We bring the warmth, the compassion, and the ability to navigate the complexities of the human heart. Our intuition is like a secret weapon, allowing us to make ethical decisions that consider the bigger picture and the impact on people's lives.
100% agree, something I've yet to see from tech-bro's to acknowledge. A doctor, a nurse or an EMT may be assisted by AI-fuelled systems, and we may actually see an uptic in well-done documentation (as those will quite certainly be processed by smart assistant software/AI) - but everything else? Not a chance in hell for the foreseeable future.
And I've yet to see ANY kind of robot do stuff at/with the patient that is NOT supervised...
I, too, work in this field (if we both talk about healthcare) - yes it is, but still I do absolutely not see this "taking over" immediately.
Machines r.n. are too daft to even recognise for example a patient's chest movement on an electrocardiogram and give out apnoe alarms - how in the world is it supposed to help providers?
And the mythical Japanese nursing robots (TM)? without direct interaction by the nurse they are, at best, pricey scrap.
I've seen delulu tech-bro's tell me that M.D.s and also nurses are "not needed within five years".
This is coming from people who are convinced that our weak A.I. (if they are at that level yet) chatbot LLMs can do the work of an experienced medical workforce DIRECTLY at the beds ...
As of now? Utter hogwash. In 20 to 25 years? There may be some (!) useful, workable solution.
I am convinced however - as soon as especially nurses and midwives permanently lose their jobs, we have AGI androids, and then everyone is fucked job-wise, teacher, mechanic, plumber or any other sort of handyman (insert specialized self-aggrandizing job) as well as ANY other profession ever created. We will be utterly redundant as a species in that situation, possibly relegated to being biological breeding stock at best. Also we may have a Skynet-situation at hands at that point if we didn't give equal/human rights to those AGI's...
I do get that, and I do agree with you. I don't work at that level at all though. That's not how jobs will be lost.
Here's a simple example: you go in and see your doctor. Doctor spends 15 minutes with you (this is the median time per patient in the US). 5 minutes paperwork & examining your history, 5 minutes listening to you, 5 minutes talking to you. (These are pretty much real numbers)
Let's say we now use AI to reduce that 5 minutes paperwork to, say, 2 minutes.
That's 20% less time. Or 20% fewer doctors needed.
But I'm only scratching the surface. 20% of referrals are wasted. e.g. you go in with some problem, and your PCP refers you to a specialist. But you arrive without the right lab work, because your PCP didn't know. Or it's the wrong specialist. You've just wasted a very expensive specialists time. If AI catches that, there's 20% fewer specialists needed.
Honestly I can go on. You mentioned chest movement on an electrocardiogram. But what if AI catches the problem before it even gets to that stage. How many doctor hours do you save if you catch a problem early on?
I (sadly) fully understand your implications implictly - due to the fact that most of our doc's do understand that well enough and we do talk and discuss this new tech hotly these days.
This is where politics come into play and politicians have to actually do their frickin' jobs. If they don't, you get unregulated crap-shot AI-dystopia in healthcare, and (as an outsider from the EU) as far as I can see, the US is going straight to hell if there is no regulation at all. :/
Regulation cannot move fast enough, and any regulation will just hinder the country that applies it. If the EU try to regulate AI, then the US will pull ahead, and vice versa. If the EU and US both regulate, China will pull ahead.
Somehow I don't really care for China, Land of the "got away with Cheating".
If there are no regulations in place, work/human condition is going to hell, simple as that. There is a reason why unionized work in Europe is pretty strong - without it you have 7$/hour modern slavery.
And we both know that the CCP does not give a flying fuck about human lives.
> Somehow I don't really care for China
Then you really shouldn't want them to pull ahead in the AI race.
> And we both know that the CCP does not give a flying fuck about human lives.
Then you really **really** shouldn't want them to pull ahead in AI.
I don't want anyone to pull ahead, if it were my call. This kind of technology should be in the hands of all people, not singular entities.
Still, there has to be some regulations in order to prevent societal breakdown.
Also, the China thematic is a whole 'nother shitshow, with how their population pyramid is headed.
Anyhow, thanks for the interaction so far, mate.
I work in exactly that place, and I disagree while agreeing.
> It's all about face-to-face interaction, the ability to understand the complexities of human emotions, and responding with genuine care.Â
Number one complaint from doctors - they have nowhere near enough time to do that **and** the data finding and diagnosing etc.
> While AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants can handle the basic stuff, they often stumble and fall flat on their faces when it comes to the nitty-gritty of human emotions or ethical dilemmas.
It is a tiny tiny percentage of cases that have ethical dilemmas.
But even this isn't true. When output from a real doctor and an AI are compared, humans found AI doctors to be a lot more empathetic and explain it better.
> Think about it: when you're feeling down, do you want to pour your heart out to a robot or a real-life human who gets you?
The median talk time by a patient was 5.3 minutes in the US. How much heart-pouring are you going to get done in 5.3 minutes?
Fwiw, I've actually tried out the AI psychotherapists. They were pretty interesting. Not quite there, but really close tbh.
> We humans have the power to make connections, build trust, and lend a helping hand in times of need.
In 5.3 minutes?
In my experience, AI beat a human in every way. I am looking for dedicated applications where it does not have a huge advantage.
And it gets better by the day.
It depends on what you are trying to do, but if the person with access to AI is not trained in the job, the answer is probably no.
Consider design.
A designer uses techniques and learned processes that current AI is incapable of (layers, masking, etc).
If you are untrained at design, no amount of AI is going to make you a competent designer.
Now, the caveat to this is I'm talking about RIGHT NOW. Give it 5-10 years and most creative and intellectual jobs will be better performed by AI, while humans will still be responsible for the shitty, dirty, dangerous jobs.
Kind of backward if you ask me.
Feel like humans will still have "office jobs", though it may be more towards social stuff rather than technical.
Essentially bootlicking, nepotism, and favouritism would probably get increasingly important as time goes on and technical knowledge becomes redundant.
It really depends on the field. In highly bounded games like chess yes, AI is way better than people. In something like analyzing a business case I doubt it. AI doesnât have the ability to form mental models, and those models of the world are what make experienced professionals more effective than laymen.
A centaur has the potential to beat you. Centaur is a combined effort of human and AI.
Let's say there are levels. 1) Beginner 2) Intermediate 3) Advanced 4) Expert 5) Master.
Someone who is in the intermediate stage can beat an expert level using his knowledge combined with AI's help.
However, there is another issue. This is where my next point comes in.
How advanced is the AI in that domain?
In chess, AI has reached the pinnacle of evolution. No human can reach the best AIs like AlphaZero, LelaZero or Stockfish etc. This is far far beyond human capacity.
In terms of coding, AI is still quite weak.
So... Yep. It depends on how evolved the AI is in a certain domain.
It depends on the technology and the user.
I have this notion that we should reconsider and understand the importances of the conventional, holistic, and integrative technologies that are respected according to their own spectrum.
Yes, but depends on the situation too. If they are asked to submit the work via writing or prepare something outside of a meeting, it is totally possible. But in real time, the person will not have q chance to ask ai everything, say in a crucial meeting or in a live discussion.
I would say it depends on what you mean by outperform? It also depends on what kind of work we're talking about here. If it's something like coding, a total novice could crank out more code than you could in a shorter amount of time. Is that code going to be better? Probably not. In fact, there might be critical errors in the code that the total novice missed (or didn't even look at) because he expects the AI to do everything.
I'd say that if you have tons of experience and knowledge but don't have access to AI, then you should get access to AI just so that you can cover all your bases and learn exactly how AI can help. The problem with new technology is that nobody REALLY knows how much it can change their lives until they use it on a regular basis.
On purely intellectual work alone? I see it as a strong possibility. I think the new skill is going to be evaluation of work rather than performance of woke.
If your domain requires reasoning and understanding to create new data then you are safe. AI's are still dumb as worms. All they do is an advanced form of pattern matching. Here is an example that demonstrate that:
You
do you understand the nature of blank verse?
Copilot
Yes, blank verse is a type of poetry that has a specific structure but does not use rhyme. It is written in iambic pentameter, which means each line typically has ten syllables, with an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable, five times. This creates a rhythm similar to natural speech but with a musical quality due to the consistent meter. [Blank verse is often used in English dramatic poetry and long narrative poems because it allows for expressive flexibility while maintaining a formal structure](https://literarydevices.net/blank-verse/)[1](https://literarydevices.net/blank-verse/)[2](https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/blank-verse).
Hereâs a short example of blank verse, adhering to the iambic pentameter:
Upon the windswept hills we stood in thought,
The sky above us stretched, a canvas vast,
Where clouds, like ships, did sail on breezes caught,
Their fleeting shadows on the earth were cast.
No rhyming chains to bind our words were sought,
In freedom's verse, our reflections amassed.
If your domain is some sort of competitive eating, I think you'll be in the clear for a good while. So the best way to prepare for the future is to eat as many pies as you can.
Itâs really not an âif/orâ but an âandâ. Take the spreadsheets as an example. A manager with experience still had to learn how to use them to stay relevant. The question is an academic one. Future requirements will likely judge candidates on both.
Right now I'd say that someone with experience and no AI will out perform someone with no experience and the best available in most fields. By a lot. But those with both are often doing 3 to 5x the work those with only one can do. So yeah, right now AI is a buff, it augments you. In the future? Who knows, but my bet is noone is REALLY safe.
Depends what your domain is. If you work with your hands, you have access to a modality, "touch", that AI won't have for a while.
If you can do your job with a laptop, a human + AI will probably be able to do a lot of what you can do very quickly.
What I find interesting and very much related to your question is that so far it seems the trend is to teach the business side to the technical side. To me this indicates they know early versions will need someone who understands software, data, technology and etc. id assume this would go away as AI learns from the manual corrections
Depends on the context, depth of work and time consideration.
If someone were to spin something up in a decent amount of time, involving not so straight forward solutions, person with experience will win.
Just speaking from my experience. (Coding)
Yes. The person would need to know a bit about the domain, the person would need to be good in commanding the AI. AI is not yet in the position to just solve most problems autonomously, but someone that's maybe 80% as good as you and knows how to prompt an LLM can probably reach your level and if they are good and organized, it's conceivable that they can surpass you. What to do? Use AI as well.
Someone with experience has an edge, but if you donât adapt and utilize AI your edge will be lost quickly.
Someone without experience will not know how to apply Ai to perform a new job. However, someone who knows how to use AI will be able to learn quicker and gain the experience in less time.
However the wisdom gained from experience is very hard to replace by learning alone. You need to apply the knowledge, make mistakes and learn what works to be competitive
I like to think of this like sports. Can someone with no skill but better gear outperform a naturally skilled or experienced player with basic gears. đ€·ââïž
Is someone from the same domain? Does he has resonable amount of experience?
- If are right behind domain expert, I would say yes, AI can help you beat too notch expert.
- if you are not from that domain, hell no.
If you are junior in domain field: quick and easy task, you can outperform exert pretty easily. But once yout got into real issues, where domain expertise is important, even AI can't help you. You don't where to look, what to ask.
AI is not so far, at least not yet. It can point you a direction, but it's still slow and painful for non-domain expert.
If I see how big gigs from pharma, banking are willing to implement AI, i am not afraid of skynet. At least not yet.
Its not as much about outperforming you as it is about having role which would tender you obsolete or redundant(no offense meant). The corporates and businesses which are making use of AI are doing so with the objective of cutting cost with resources where things can be automated or human resources are employed for repetitive tasks which could then be transferred to AI. However the work done by AI would have to have a human authenticator/validator who not only has the domain knowledge but also knows how to make the AI work in a way which is the need of the hour and has enough acumen to understand whether the work done is of desirable quality or not. So someone like you with the extensive experience and domain knowledge should try their hands at the AI tools and explore how it can be effective in your field in increasing productivity coz yes someone with access to AI can indeed then have a better growth trajectory once AI starts settling into the automating of things role in near future.
No, not really. A experienced person can solve a problem even it doesnt find a solution on the internet. Current AI can only spill knowledge that already exists, so no, not yet.
The problem is that people forget that most of the knowledge that we have today, came before the internet even existed and this means we formulate knowledge that is different or even some times against what is the common knowledge, and AI today is a sophisticated parrot that mimics and mixes what we know.
Imagine this scenario. Its the middle ages and all the information there was that earth was flat and that it was the center of planetary system and the universe revolved around us, the creation of god.
Now imagine you feed a LLM with all those books describing and stating with certainty what we know its false today.
Would that LLM be capable of questioning the knowledge it had? Discover gravity, that we lived on a sphere, the astronomy and how it works?
No, it couldnt because it can only repeat known concepts and cannot have ideas, etc.
An expert is not just a bag of knowledge, its a person that has seen so much that is expert in solving new problems and come up with creative solutions, sometime competely out of the box, and AI cant do that (yet)
When I graduated from college I was trained in knowing camera art, paste up and lithography. In less than six months later there was no such thing as camera art, wax paste ups, overlays, rubylith or amberlith. The fact probably .01% here even knows those words tell you something. And even though computers did that to a select industry I can see the light of the train headed your way. If you donât⊠well maybe thatâs for the best.
Yes but no it depends on the calculation speed of the ai and the actual know-how & database/knowledge base it has put into it and how to formulate it in a way people can understand and put that information to use on their end so no you good until we see ai outright replacing everything digitally youâre safe đ (for now) people who use ai to help them with stuff will be better in ways then you as long as they know what their putting into the bot will be better as long as it knows what your inputting
Not necessarily.
The person has to AT LEAST have an idea of what the "the big picture" task is. From there, Ai can teach them the details on how to get specifics done.
So without some background knowledge, the person with Ai won't know certain unknowns that they'd need to know to verify if the info Ai is giving them is correct or not
Just because Ai CAN do the work. Doesn't mean it'll be correct. Some subject matter review of its work is needed SOMETIMES, depending on the model and the info you're talking about.
so it's not as black/white as this post suggests. There are shades of grey here.
AI will replace those that can't use AI. AI isn't replacing engineers. Managers fitting engineers banking in AI are going to have that blow up in their face.
Good luck beating someone with experience in both the problem domain and AI enhancements.
All that means is you're safe, as long as you lean into AI now.
It is even worse, in some field, A.I is so vastly superior, you can't do without. Trading has been overtaken years ago., Molecule research, areospace ingenering ect...
Depends on your field. An ai developer needs the field expert to create the best model. If you are an expert in your field look research on how ai can help you make your job better. Ai wonât replace people but only people who work with ai will make it. đ«Łđ
It depends on the circumstances. For instance, at the moment, I have a pile of work on my desk; I'm a video producer. I have 33 completely uninteresting videos I need to produce that are made of VO and stock footage. An older colleague with 15 years more experience than I have wants to record the voiceovers and then use out library of stock footage and photos to produce the videos.
We split them; I took 17 and he took 16. He has much more experience than I have, but I got all of mine done by an AI generator in two days. At the end of the 2nd day, he had half of the VOs recorded and had done zero editing.
So in this instance, yes, I outperformed him. But I would not do that so easily in an environment in which we are producing high quality, bespoke work, like we normally do.
With certain rote tasks, but when novelty is required, no. Definitely not with anything publically accessible. I imagine another 1 to 1000 years required. The modern AI / LLM OS' are very powerful when there are tasks that have already been completed or modeled / mapped out, and the AI needs only to extract an answer or strategy from it's black box. And even at this, there is a level of uncertainty that inevitably needs to be checked if it can't be directly asserted on as "correct" (ex: a script or module with unit tests etc.)
It depends, the person with years of experience saves time by not having to prompt, they just know. Its like batman fighting any other hero. He can do it, its just gonna take longer to access the tools
Extremely dependent on the field, the experience gap between the people being compared, and also, the definition of "outperform"
So sometimes yes, sometimes no
Outperform? probably not. Perform well enough to make a correctible stab at a solution and also learn basic terminology and have a path forward? Absolutely.
I used to never touch CSS in any performative way because so much of it seemed black magic, but now I can tackle it with confidence that I will get *something* to look like I intended, but still I would never profess to be as good as a professional.
In performing tasks maybe...but AI can only perform tasks how you tell it to, and it may still get it wrong, and if you don't have experience to know that it is wrong, then, well, you fucked up. Also, if you don't know what to do with the information that you ask of AI, then AI is useless to you. AI is also useless to you if you don't have experience to know what to actually ask of AI. It's so funny watching Computer Science students have to explain their code even though they are allowed to use AI. It really weeds out a lot of those that think they can just breeze through by just using AI. If you don't know how to use the AI effectively, you are wasting your and everyone else's time.
Not right now, or at least I canât.
Tell me to create our company logo following certain ideas and Iâm out.
Tell me to create a fully fledged app or fix our broken api integration at work and even with ai right now Iâm out.
But itâs been very helpful for my personal job.
Personal story here: a friend was in a spot of trouble because a product line was due for a second round of concept testing and the stuff his product team ( a dozen or so people with years of experience) had scored really poorly on the first round, the new concepts werenât promising.
Weâre talking about it, heâs stressing out and I go âI donât know nothing about {companyâs product} but I can get the a mix bag of AIs to whip up some conceptsâ
The stuff it spit out outperformed the professionally trained business-school humans
Obviously it depends on the situation, but someone without experience may not even know what question to ask, let alone be able to use or understand the answers, so itâs likely that experience wins.
In simple games and operations yes. We havenât yet found a way to code âwisdomâ most concerningly is that most of the âAI computer scientistsâ are too young to have much life experience so any AI they create is going to be lacking that.
The question is vague. It would depend on how you define outperform. By degree of education or by degree of intelligence? And after that, in which field or skill or in which combination. I mean, if you hypothetically let an LLM compete against a seasoned teacher of a certain field for example, human will at one point make a mistake or better said, will statistically make more mistakes than the AI, depending if both are trained in the same field. I heard an interesting quote some time ago that in tests, AI models have bet human psychotherapists, because they are not affected by human bias and emotions, like even the seasoned therapist still is, as he is a human. But also this is a vague statement. So in general, we are somehow already there, if I get you right: in my own experience I have learned so many fascinating things on so many topics on the last few month, by using perplexity and some other apps. I love it, I fear it. It is an interesting time.
Without experience, hard to say, it might be true in some areas (chess like someone mentioned), but someone with some experience under their belt + good prompts in a good LLM should be able to outperform experts in some domains, yeah. Hard to quantify how much tho
Ask any woman if a guy that looks at a lot of porn is a better lover. The answer will almost certainly be no correlation for experience. There is a difference between knowing the path and having walked the path. Re: Matrix
Knowledge in your domain is what makes the difference between a master craftsman that can build without power tools, and a child with no experience given state of the art tools. You have to understand domain specific concepts to leverage AI meaningfully if what you are trying to do isnât surface level. A inexperienced person with AI is still an inexperienced person. Itâs the nuance of understanding the domain that will make a difference in how successfully you leverage the available tools.
Yes. Next question?
The next question should be, âWhat are we going to do about that as a society?â Iâm personally not OK with tech bros eliminating all of the jobs of the rest of us. Thatâs not going to make society better â itâs going to cause horrible damages for most people. And an even smaller slice of the super wealthy will become God level wealthy. Is that the world we want?
It's an incredible tool but cannot yet take into account the human condition in complex decision making. I might need something done by an exec team. I could just 'order them' but I need to take into account workloads, other priorities, one of them has a sick child at home, these two work better together than those two.. and on and on. It's often more art than science.
im outperforming my self without AI by about 5 times, but ... sometimes it takes more time for AI to get it right, meaning i have to tell it whats wrong, what rules to respect and where it failed.
All in all i'm comfortbly getting lazy in a sense i dont write much code, i just complain about generated one. Its scary it can do that already, tomorow it will tell me code i wrote and provided in my question is utter shite. (fact is it isnt) but i cant wait to start arguing and recognizing my patterns in its answers. AI will definetlu speed up getting ppl to an average standards point, in terms of quality, at least.
Depends on the task. Someone without experience may need to waste time/resources figuring out how to prompt AI correctly because they donât know the right questions to ask/right way to prompt
I do think experienced professionals need to be open to learning and adapting to new AI tools rather than relying solely on AI or experience alone, like e.g., AI can automate customer service responses, but when it comes to complex inquiries, experience does come into play. So yeah they both work hand in hand
I spent three months of college on a unit learning Excel, now I type a sentence in Copilot and get given the exact formula I need. I know it's not the most groundbreaking example but it was the first sense I had of something I learned becoming effectively obsolete.
The only thing is that having the years of experience means I know exactly what to ask Copilot.
This question needs more context about what the job is and what sort of ai you are talking about. For some contexts ai doesnât even need a human operator. For others itâs hard to imagine ai displacing them anytime soon.
It depends. Our marketing director recently asked me if we could use this new stuff to improve the quality of our organization's PowerPoint templates. Well, it turns out that those were already some pretty awesome templates and there isn't really a product on the market right now that can do better or even get half as good (though I am sure I am about to be corrected 90 seconds after this is posted). However, if we are talking about technical work, say debugging a small program in Python then for two people with equivalent experience the person with access to something like GPT4 will absolutely outperform the person who does not have access to it. That said, I still believe that there is some threshold where you need at least some basic level of experience and a complete novice with GPT4 would still not outperform someone with years of experience.
So to me the bottom line is - if it is feasible, learn how to integrate AI into your workflow because as someone with years of experience you will know how to do that much better than someone without years of experience. What's even more important: You will recognize when the model you are interacting with is making a mistake much sooner than someone lacking your experience which can be crucial.
I think someone who has enough experience and knowledge vs someone who has both experience + AI access have both their pros and cons when it comes to doing a specific task.
Anw, we should look at AI as a tool to make us more productive and do stuff faster rather than as a threat. It wouldn't harm to learn how to utilize AI for our advantage if we already have the necessary knowledge to perform a task
AI can is indeed a powerful tool that can augment human experience, but it likely won't replace it entirely in most fields.
An experienced doctor might use AI to analyze patient data and identify potential diagnoses. However, the doctor would use their experience and judgment to interpret the data, make a final diagnosis, and communicate with the patient.
AI is great at pattern recognition and prediction. It is literally using statistics to make decisions. If the task is to guess the next chess move, or the weather, or the next word in a sentence, yes. If the task is to rely on facts, for example, a lawyer arguing a case or a documentary writer, then the person with access to AI will fail horribly, unless they understand the above limitation.
Hey there, that's a great point! AI is certainly making a splash these days, but we humans still have a major edge. While AI can devour mountains of data, it's like having a giant cookbook full of amazing recipes â it doesn't have the experience we do in the kitchen. We've got that gut feeling, that sixth sense for what works, what doesn't, and how to make something truly special. AI might be a whiz with the numbers, but we're the master chefs, using our experience and intuition to turn data into something truly delicious.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### Question Discussion Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post. * AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot! * Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful. * Please provide links to back up your arguments. * No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not. ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In chess, all you need is a smart phone to beat the top 100 human players in a simul
Did your tokens ran out mid phrase? đ
Is this your first time seeing someone on the Internet omit the period at the end of a sentence? Edit: "Simul" is short for "simultaneous exhibition", and it's a common expression in chess, for anyone confused.
I've never seen "simul" before. It totally looked like someone just stopped mid sentence. Kinda like when I
Your edit explains it, thanks. I was just joking a bit đ
A joke for the age literally. Awesome!
Still funny tho
Totally would have assumed simul is short for simulation
ooh this is a good replacement to r/redditsniper
What if... Just hear me out... What if they *all* ran out of tokens?
Maybe he died mid sentence.
Maybe candlejack got a hold of h
chess is a special case of AI. IT is a very well defined task, has a clear rule set, and a set space of possible choices. That does not apply to all tasks. Some tasks are infinitely complex, which makes them hard to perform with AI.
Chess is not a special case of AI. It's extremely common to have small simple isolated systems with specific rulesets that might have a (relative) large number of variations which need to be accounted for within the rules and domain space. Did you know that the Post Office (USA) was using OCR ML models to auto-identify and auto-route mail addresses on envelopes going back all the way to the 80s? The alphabet, letter-word combinations, numbers etc also represent a kind of rules-based system. Many many such examples already existed, they only exploded in the last couple decades since internet boom of late 90s.
What I meant was that there are certain tasks which are amenable to AI. Tasks with well defined problem spaces. Not that Chess is special, just that it is well defined. The chess board has 64 squares. Each square can only be occupied by one piece. A limited problem set. In your post office code example, the alphabet has 26 letters. There are only 10 actual numbers to identify in a zip code (1-10). THe number of possibilities is limited. In contrast, a vision problem is much harder. A picture can have 1080 x 764 pixels. Each pixel can have 3 (RGB) x 255 colors, so that is 765 possible values for each PIXEL. I guess I am saying AI will only help with certain tasks. Other tasks, like rotationally invariant object recognition, will be best handled by a human, since the problem space is exponential.
I mean, the number of potential (legal) chess positions is something like 10\^40, if you count illegal positions too the exponent jumps to over 100 on that. In OCR ML applications, typically there is a drastic reduction in dimensionality, for example a letter/num character can be processed with as small of a resolution as 20x20 pixels or something similar, and not RGB, only B&W. At least for scanning letters in OCR, other applications like detecting pictures of animals might require higher resolutions, certainly. Rotationally invariant objects have been detectable by CV systems for many years, they just didn't become as prevalent and capable until more recently because of all the extra training data for the many possible positions, along with the necessary compute power to train and process at the greater volume. People and animals and the almost infinite number of physical positions they can "transform" into with something as simple as moving a limb is the best example, but obviously CV models capable of detecting people and animals (in motion, even) have been around quite a while now. I for one believe that AI can't, for example, fix Earth and human civilization. They may be able to help as tools, but ultimately humans have to out-philosophize, out-solution, out-revolution and out-change all of today's problems on their own, something AI will not be able to do for them unless some fantastical level of AGI/ASI comes about eventually, which is possible, although might take a while. Some have been saying that the advent of "pseudo-consciousness-adjacent AI" (for lack of a better term) like these new LLMs is akin to the beginning of the computer industry, basically starting at the bottom and progressively increasing in quality and power and capability, sort of like following its own invisible "AI Moore's Law" of fast advancement, but even so, it took decades to get from the IBM 5150 to a Nvidia H200. What tasks do you think AI won't be able to help with?
Rotationally invariant objects have been detectable by CV systems for many years --- I worked in this field for many years up until 2020 or so, and I can tell you that rotationally invariant object classifiers have not been around for many years. --- Some have been saying that the advent of "pseudo-consciousness-adjacent AI" (for lack of a better term) like these new LLMs is akin to the beginning of the computer industry, basically starting at the bottom and progressively increasing in quality and power and capability, sort of like following its own invisible "AI Moore's Law" of fast advancement, but even so, it took decades to get from the IBM 5150 to a Nvidia H200. --- THe LLMs are far from pseudo conscious. THey are just another form of brute force methodology, with a co-occurrence algorithm used to model language. BTW, language is another area with lots of structure, allowing for AI to operate more easily. Also, the models today are generating information, not classifying information, which is much harder.
Yeah but you don't need AI for that. The older versions of stockfish didn't use neural nets and were still better than top human players.
This is a bad example because chess is a "simple" task in the sense that it has strict rules that can never be broken and is for one game only. So, a single algorithm is run that determines the best possible move to play next. Complex tasks done by humans require lots of context and critical thinking, both of which LLMs struggle with.
That was true before AI.
its more than possible but someone with experience in the field and AI experience will destroy every time. its like a talented guitarist who is lazy can be beaten by someone with no natural talent but a shit load of determination and practise. but theyd never beat someone with natural talent who practises and works hard.
The competition is ice hockey
what is that erven meant to mean?
Can someone with access to AI beat the maple leaves
You donât need a.i to beat leafs
Someone with AI would at least be able to spell the team name correctlyâŠ
riiiiiight. \*whoosh\* im not sure what youre talking about, and i really dont care.
Average redditor on this sub
get fucked and spout riddles to someone else then if you cant be arsed explaining yourself
> experience in the field and AI experience I was gonna say this. OP is asking the wrong question.
Seemed implied they were curious just about no Ai + experience vs Ai + less experience
We are at the very least, decades away from an AI that can outperform a human highly skilled and dedicated to their art. AI can provide an average guess but if you want precision you need a human
I think there really is an element of the first 90% taking 10% of the work and the last 10% taking 90% of the work. And I think we're still in the first 90%, though not sure how far along. Kinda like the roadblocks FSD has hit.
We are still at the stage where it is more cost effective to have a bunch of dudes remotely controlling the car from India
I think latency could be a problem then.
Yup
Decades is way overestimating it unless you are talking about autonomous robots being at human like level.
It isnât magic
đ
So its worst than most people think... A recent study invovling doctors and AI showed... They had three groups - Doctors - Ai - Ai + Doctors The group that performed the weakest was the AI+Doctor group while the group that performed the best was the AI alone.
Meh; all this proves is that many doctors suck at staying up to date in knowledge and also suck at using technology. I would need to see this tested in different professions while controlling for capability in using the tool theyâve been given.
Basically this, but don't expect people to grasp the nuance.
Also: what kind of task were they performing? Diagnostics? Ok, I can see why AI could outperform residents. Specialized knowledge and practical skills? We won't see THAT happen for a few dozen years.
Yeah if the task is referencing a huge pile of data to correlate symptoms with known diagnoses then thats obviously a task primed for ai. It just sounds scary when you say "better than doctors". Which tasks are ai better or not better at is a big question and it doesnt track with the way we divide up tasks currently ("jobs")
people are people and most people are lazy.
There's a Harvard business review study for my profession with a similar control population setup. For Management Consulting, the group enabled with AI performed the best and provided the best quality of deliverables compared to humans alone. AI alone was not tested, but that's because it would virtually suck at trying to do management consulting work independently
I was just having that debate at work; but can't find the link. Would you happen to know what it was?
Link?
Link: A referecence to the source of the data. ; )
âBut thatâs not important right nowâ - Leslie Neilson.
Link to the study?
Can we get some source on this ?
This probably has a lot of quirks. I know me using it in a programming setting had major changes. First, my natural talent took a nose dive. Became dependent, then over a long time, I got better, the AI got better, and now it's like an extension of my brain. It's a learning process and I'm not sure AI has been out long enough to even quantify what we're looking for in the end.
I want a link to the study please
Are you referring to this study? [https://hms.harvard.edu/news/does-ai-help-or-hurt-human-radiologists-performance-depends-doctor](https://hms.harvard.edu/news/does-ai-help-or-hurt-human-radiologists-performance-depends-doctor)
On Tuesday I take out a brain tumor. Or perhaps I don't have to. Good luck, AI.
almost every single one of these studies are fucking awful designed in hyper controlled environments and often comparing to junior residents. Cite the study you're referring to as I'm pretty sure I know the one already but want to see if there been more I'm unaware of. the ability of AI in those studies is often horrifically over represented just like the inability is horribly over estimated in the articles saying ai cannot perform as well as docs. I've set to see a good study from either side designed well
At what though lol. I can't go to an AI doctor rn so clearly they aren't capable of being doctors. They are passing some kind of test which is not the same at all.
What was the average age of the doctors though? A lot of older people simply don't understand how to properly use tech. I've seen some very smart people try to play prompt engineer. It felt like watching my gran trying to use google.
Probably, but only if the person with experience also doesn't use an AI.
At this point, AI is more like training wheels in a bicycle. It can help beginners learn and gain confidence, but it's a hindrance to someone with more experience.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I suspect AI is more useful for programming than other uses because there is just so much to learn with programming. New tools, libraries, environments, languages, paradigms... There is so much to learn that even a software developer with 20 years of experience (roughly the same here) still has tons of areas where they're still a beginner.
Exactly this. I've been at it for thirty years across many languages. There's no way I can remember all syntax, libraries etc. AI feeds me this information way way quicker than Google search / documentation
I want to figure out how to use this in my field, property management. And responding to the same email questions over and over and over again. Teaching my AI bot about PM and how I respond. Can I interface this with outlook? Or how does the actual interface work with you and your field?
Yes you can. Google embed chatgpt outlook. There are videos. As for specific domains, you may consider providing your sample responses to sample emails in the context window and prompt it to be a property manager and to respond according to the responses in the context you've provided already. (Try that first, then work on the embedding would be my advice)
It's the opposite. I've thirty years experience programming. Using ai speeds me up 10x. There's no way a beginner could get that gain. They wouldn't know the right questions to ask. They wouldn't be able to see the mistakes. They wouldn't be able to break problems up into AI digestible problems and then hook them all up in a sensible way.
Same here. 27 years in tech. Now doing sw dev. AI is my best friend. I actually have a premium subscription to both Claude and GPT because it's so useful to me
Same - programmer and I have a subscription to GPT and to vscode's github AI plugin. I just pause typing for half a second, and AI writes the rest. So many times now I just write the function code comment, and let it write the rest. And half the time it's better code than what I would have written.
Yeah, now even if I write a function myself I send it to AI and ask how they might improve it. I pretty much always learn something
Have you used it to replace Google and documentation? As long as the feature I need was present the documentation at the time of the ai's training I can just ask it questions about the documentation instead of having to go out there. Stack Overflow is pretty much dead to me now and it used to be a daily site. I can't remember the last time I visited.
Yes. I'd say googling and reading documentation was 90% of time spent when working with new languages or libraries and AI is so much more efficient at getting me what I need
Problem is while yr doing all those higher level skills the AI is learning from you and 100s of thousands of others simultaneously. All into the training data. Thank you for your service.
Haha oh no!! The AI will be able to help me more efficiently in future.. Whatever will I do???
That's absolutely false. I have 27 years experience in my field and use AI daily, as does my colleague with over 10 years. AI is our partner, our assistant.
Maybe for someone who doesn't know how to utilize it.. It's like glasses for those who do.
What field is this? In software dev and anything that is complex but has one or a few correct answers, AI is incredibly powerful in the hands of an expert.
> but it's a hindrance to someone with more experience I don't agree. I'm a programmer with 25 years of experience, and I work with doctors getting them to use AI. Both programmers and doctors benefit from AI, greatly. Doctors are constantly saying that the AI caught things that they didn't. And as a programmer, the AI constantly finds better ways of doing things than what I thought of.
Novices with AI probably won't beat you. However someone with say 80% of your skills using AI could beat you.
20% skills but intellectual who knows how to use technology, it's gameover
My tech was weak but my industry knowledge is top level. I can now build all the tools I have been waiting for the dev's to build for me by myself now. I have written more code in the last 6 months then the prior 10 years. I am loving it. The dev's just write code they think you want. I now write code that I want. Crazy times.
I need to learn how to do this, and incorporate with my field. What avenues did you use to build your AI model for your field?
[Youtube.com](http://Youtube.com)
In total -no in some specific instance for example involving memory -yes
Iâve been a software developer for over 30 years. I work in many languages and platforms. Iâm good, very good, but AI makes me drastically faster and able to do new things much faster. Itâs like Iâve got a whole team of junior and mid level programmers at my beck and call who know every language.
Just curious, what field do you work in and what technologies are you using? For me it just replaced stack overflow and helps whenever I have to use new frameworks/libraries. But most of my time is spent on large projects where very good knowledge of the existing code base is essentially a requirement, so I find it difficult to make good use of it. Even the suggestions of github copilot are pretty horrible in those cases.
The latest models are starting to have context length's long enough that they can read your entire code base in, and help you from that. It's all going to improve very rapidly.
Not for our larger code bases (although I'm sure we'll get there). But even then the proper tooling is missing. I like the way GitHub Copilot is implemented but evaluating large models several times per minute on millions of input tokens doesn't seem viable in the near future. Maybe continuous fine tuning of models on a code base will become a thing for the companies which are comfortable with handing over their entire code to another company. And even if your assertion that it's all going to improve very rapidly is true (which is not a given at all), then that doesn't change the fact that CURRENTLY the impact of LLMs on software development varies a lot depending on what you're working on.
Exactly. It makes me feel like I'm in god mode. But I'm also aware that my experience is helping me leverage it massively. Just like how if you give a junior a whole team of other juniors and mid level programmers and the responsibility to direct them they'd struggle massively compared to a senior
I just needed to import a flat file. I gave it the flat file, told it what I wanted. I got sql script to create the table and a console app to import the data against modify it how I needed in 30 sexonds
In short: Depends on the domain...
With how your question is worded, yes, they can. And everyone claiming otherwise is delusional or in denial of current reality. One of the main things people also miss is that current AI models are generalized and not "domain specialists", because growth and change is fast enough that domain specialization is not freezable, because tech changes so fast. Once AI gets into stable form, optimized and with slowed down growth, you will start seeing more and more specialized domain knowledge AI's. And that's when everyone who parrots "nah, that won't happen" will get slapped in the face by the new reality.
The latest chatGPT 4o is stunningly good. But with everything the human mind can be cunning and who knows how it may be able to manipulate the prompts. And always double check any results. Be sceptical. However for someone interested in a discipline it's a good place to start enquiring.
Do you have enough experience to know what AI gets wrong?
Industries like healthcare, counseling, customer service, and education rely on our human touch. It's all about face-to-face interaction, the ability to understand the complexities of human emotions, and responding with genuine care. While AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants can handle the basic stuff, they often stumble and fall flat on their faces when it comes to the nitty-gritty of human emotions or ethical dilemmas. That's where we come in with our powers of empathy, understanding, and the knack for tailoring solutions to each unique individual. Think about it: when you're feeling down, do you want to pour your heart out to a robot or a real-life human who gets you? We humans have the power to make connections, build trust, and lend a helping hand in times of need. We're the masters of emotional support and the champions of personalized care. So, while AI can be the ultimate sidekick, assisting with the simple stuff, we are the superheroes who swoop in when things get real. We bring the warmth, the compassion, and the ability to navigate the complexities of the human heart. Our intuition is like a secret weapon, allowing us to make ethical decisions that consider the bigger picture and the impact on people's lives.
100% agree, something I've yet to see from tech-bro's to acknowledge. A doctor, a nurse or an EMT may be assisted by AI-fuelled systems, and we may actually see an uptic in well-done documentation (as those will quite certainly be processed by smart assistant software/AI) - but everything else? Not a chance in hell for the foreseeable future. And I've yet to see ANY kind of robot do stuff at/with the patient that is NOT supervised...
I work in this field, and AI is absolutely going to explode. The financial pressure is unbelievable.
I, too, work in this field (if we both talk about healthcare) - yes it is, but still I do absolutely not see this "taking over" immediately. Machines r.n. are too daft to even recognise for example a patient's chest movement on an electrocardiogram and give out apnoe alarms - how in the world is it supposed to help providers? And the mythical Japanese nursing robots (TM)? without direct interaction by the nurse they are, at best, pricey scrap. I've seen delulu tech-bro's tell me that M.D.s and also nurses are "not needed within five years". This is coming from people who are convinced that our weak A.I. (if they are at that level yet) chatbot LLMs can do the work of an experienced medical workforce DIRECTLY at the beds ... As of now? Utter hogwash. In 20 to 25 years? There may be some (!) useful, workable solution. I am convinced however - as soon as especially nurses and midwives permanently lose their jobs, we have AGI androids, and then everyone is fucked job-wise, teacher, mechanic, plumber or any other sort of handyman (insert specialized self-aggrandizing job) as well as ANY other profession ever created. We will be utterly redundant as a species in that situation, possibly relegated to being biological breeding stock at best. Also we may have a Skynet-situation at hands at that point if we didn't give equal/human rights to those AGI's...
I do get that, and I do agree with you. I don't work at that level at all though. That's not how jobs will be lost. Here's a simple example: you go in and see your doctor. Doctor spends 15 minutes with you (this is the median time per patient in the US). 5 minutes paperwork & examining your history, 5 minutes listening to you, 5 minutes talking to you. (These are pretty much real numbers) Let's say we now use AI to reduce that 5 minutes paperwork to, say, 2 minutes. That's 20% less time. Or 20% fewer doctors needed. But I'm only scratching the surface. 20% of referrals are wasted. e.g. you go in with some problem, and your PCP refers you to a specialist. But you arrive without the right lab work, because your PCP didn't know. Or it's the wrong specialist. You've just wasted a very expensive specialists time. If AI catches that, there's 20% fewer specialists needed. Honestly I can go on. You mentioned chest movement on an electrocardiogram. But what if AI catches the problem before it even gets to that stage. How many doctor hours do you save if you catch a problem early on?
I (sadly) fully understand your implications implictly - due to the fact that most of our doc's do understand that well enough and we do talk and discuss this new tech hotly these days. This is where politics come into play and politicians have to actually do their frickin' jobs. If they don't, you get unregulated crap-shot AI-dystopia in healthcare, and (as an outsider from the EU) as far as I can see, the US is going straight to hell if there is no regulation at all. :/
Regulation cannot move fast enough, and any regulation will just hinder the country that applies it. If the EU try to regulate AI, then the US will pull ahead, and vice versa. If the EU and US both regulate, China will pull ahead.
Somehow I don't really care for China, Land of the "got away with Cheating". If there are no regulations in place, work/human condition is going to hell, simple as that. There is a reason why unionized work in Europe is pretty strong - without it you have 7$/hour modern slavery. And we both know that the CCP does not give a flying fuck about human lives.
> Somehow I don't really care for China Then you really shouldn't want them to pull ahead in the AI race. > And we both know that the CCP does not give a flying fuck about human lives. Then you really **really** shouldn't want them to pull ahead in AI.
I don't want anyone to pull ahead, if it were my call. This kind of technology should be in the hands of all people, not singular entities. Still, there has to be some regulations in order to prevent societal breakdown. Also, the China thematic is a whole 'nother shitshow, with how their population pyramid is headed. Anyhow, thanks for the interaction so far, mate.
I work in exactly that place, and I disagree while agreeing. > It's all about face-to-face interaction, the ability to understand the complexities of human emotions, and responding with genuine care. Number one complaint from doctors - they have nowhere near enough time to do that **and** the data finding and diagnosing etc. > While AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants can handle the basic stuff, they often stumble and fall flat on their faces when it comes to the nitty-gritty of human emotions or ethical dilemmas. It is a tiny tiny percentage of cases that have ethical dilemmas. But even this isn't true. When output from a real doctor and an AI are compared, humans found AI doctors to be a lot more empathetic and explain it better. > Think about it: when you're feeling down, do you want to pour your heart out to a robot or a real-life human who gets you? The median talk time by a patient was 5.3 minutes in the US. How much heart-pouring are you going to get done in 5.3 minutes? Fwiw, I've actually tried out the AI psychotherapists. They were pretty interesting. Not quite there, but really close tbh. > We humans have the power to make connections, build trust, and lend a helping hand in times of need. In 5.3 minutes?
In my experience, AI beat a human in every way. I am looking for dedicated applications where it does not have a huge advantage. And it gets better by the day.
Novices with AI probably won't beat you. However someone with say 80% of your skills using AI could beat you.
It depends on what you are trying to do, but if the person with access to AI is not trained in the job, the answer is probably no. Consider design. A designer uses techniques and learned processes that current AI is incapable of (layers, masking, etc). If you are untrained at design, no amount of AI is going to make you a competent designer. Now, the caveat to this is I'm talking about RIGHT NOW. Give it 5-10 years and most creative and intellectual jobs will be better performed by AI, while humans will still be responsible for the shitty, dirty, dangerous jobs. Kind of backward if you ask me.
Feel like humans will still have "office jobs", though it may be more towards social stuff rather than technical. Essentially bootlicking, nepotism, and favouritism would probably get increasingly important as time goes on and technical knowledge becomes redundant.
Upvote because you're probably right, not because I like it.
It really depends on the field. In highly bounded games like chess yes, AI is way better than people. In something like analyzing a business case I doubt it. AI doesnât have the ability to form mental models, and those models of the world are what make experienced professionals more effective than laymen.
A centaur has the potential to beat you. Centaur is a combined effort of human and AI. Let's say there are levels. 1) Beginner 2) Intermediate 3) Advanced 4) Expert 5) Master. Someone who is in the intermediate stage can beat an expert level using his knowledge combined with AI's help. However, there is another issue. This is where my next point comes in. How advanced is the AI in that domain? In chess, AI has reached the pinnacle of evolution. No human can reach the best AIs like AlphaZero, LelaZero or Stockfish etc. This is far far beyond human capacity. In terms of coding, AI is still quite weak. So... Yep. It depends on how evolved the AI is in a certain domain.
It depends on the technology and the user. I have this notion that we should reconsider and understand the importances of the conventional, holistic, and integrative technologies that are respected according to their own spectrum.
Yes, but depends on the situation too. If they are asked to submit the work via writing or prepare something outside of a meeting, it is totally possible. But in real time, the person will not have q chance to ask ai everything, say in a crucial meeting or in a live discussion.
Honestly iv gotten better answers from chatgpt about technical issues then iv ever gotten from any support number
I would say it depends on what you mean by outperform? It also depends on what kind of work we're talking about here. If it's something like coding, a total novice could crank out more code than you could in a shorter amount of time. Is that code going to be better? Probably not. In fact, there might be critical errors in the code that the total novice missed (or didn't even look at) because he expects the AI to do everything. I'd say that if you have tons of experience and knowledge but don't have access to AI, then you should get access to AI just so that you can cover all your bases and learn exactly how AI can help. The problem with new technology is that nobody REALLY knows how much it can change their lives until they use it on a regular basis.
On purely intellectual work alone? I see it as a strong possibility. I think the new skill is going to be evaluation of work rather than performance of woke.
âYears of experienceâ, an interesting time line for an AI system.
If your domain requires reasoning and understanding to create new data then you are safe. AI's are still dumb as worms. All they do is an advanced form of pattern matching. Here is an example that demonstrate that: You do you understand the nature of blank verse? Copilot Yes, blank verse is a type of poetry that has a specific structure but does not use rhyme. It is written in iambic pentameter, which means each line typically has ten syllables, with an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable, five times. This creates a rhythm similar to natural speech but with a musical quality due to the consistent meter. [Blank verse is often used in English dramatic poetry and long narrative poems because it allows for expressive flexibility while maintaining a formal structure](https://literarydevices.net/blank-verse/)[1](https://literarydevices.net/blank-verse/)[2](https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/blank-verse). Hereâs a short example of blank verse, adhering to the iambic pentameter: Upon the windswept hills we stood in thought, The sky above us stretched, a canvas vast, Where clouds, like ships, did sail on breezes caught, Their fleeting shadows on the earth were cast. No rhyming chains to bind our words were sought, In freedom's verse, our reflections amassed.
I boxed for several years, Iâd like to test this theory.
If your domain is some sort of competitive eating, I think you'll be in the clear for a good while. So the best way to prepare for the future is to eat as many pies as you can.
Itâs really not an âif/orâ but an âandâ. Take the spreadsheets as an example. A manager with experience still had to learn how to use them to stay relevant. The question is an academic one. Future requirements will likely judge candidates on both.
Essentially, yes, but it depends on the subject.
Right now I'd say that someone with experience and no AI will out perform someone with no experience and the best available in most fields. By a lot. But those with both are often doing 3 to 5x the work those with only one can do. So yeah, right now AI is a buff, it augments you. In the future? Who knows, but my bet is noone is REALLY safe.
Depends what your domain is. If you work with your hands, you have access to a modality, "touch", that AI won't have for a while. If you can do your job with a laptop, a human + AI will probably be able to do a lot of what you can do very quickly.
What I find interesting and very much related to your question is that so far it seems the trend is to teach the business side to the technical side. To me this indicates they know early versions will need someone who understands software, data, technology and etc. id assume this would go away as AI learns from the manual corrections
Whats your domain? It depends
It's management consulting
Depends on the context, depth of work and time consideration. If someone were to spin something up in a decent amount of time, involving not so straight forward solutions, person with experience will win. Just speaking from my experience. (Coding)
Yes. The person would need to know a bit about the domain, the person would need to be good in commanding the AI. AI is not yet in the position to just solve most problems autonomously, but someone that's maybe 80% as good as you and knows how to prompt an LLM can probably reach your level and if they are good and organized, it's conceivable that they can surpass you. What to do? Use AI as well.
Depends on what the task is
Someone with experience has an edge, but if you donât adapt and utilize AI your edge will be lost quickly. Someone without experience will not know how to apply Ai to perform a new job. However, someone who knows how to use AI will be able to learn quicker and gain the experience in less time. However the wisdom gained from experience is very hard to replace by learning alone. You need to apply the knowledge, make mistakes and learn what works to be competitive
I like to think of this like sports. Can someone with no skill but better gear outperform a naturally skilled or experienced player with basic gears. đ€·ââïž
to make this work, the gear is a superlight, super strong exosuit with muscle enhancements. and it's legal.
Is someone from the same domain? Does he has resonable amount of experience? - If are right behind domain expert, I would say yes, AI can help you beat too notch expert. - if you are not from that domain, hell no. If you are junior in domain field: quick and easy task, you can outperform exert pretty easily. But once yout got into real issues, where domain expertise is important, even AI can't help you. You don't where to look, what to ask. AI is not so far, at least not yet. It can point you a direction, but it's still slow and painful for non-domain expert. If I see how big gigs from pharma, banking are willing to implement AI, i am not afraid of skynet. At least not yet.
Its not as much about outperforming you as it is about having role which would tender you obsolete or redundant(no offense meant). The corporates and businesses which are making use of AI are doing so with the objective of cutting cost with resources where things can be automated or human resources are employed for repetitive tasks which could then be transferred to AI. However the work done by AI would have to have a human authenticator/validator who not only has the domain knowledge but also knows how to make the AI work in a way which is the need of the hour and has enough acumen to understand whether the work done is of desirable quality or not. So someone like you with the extensive experience and domain knowledge should try their hands at the AI tools and explore how it can be effective in your field in increasing productivity coz yes someone with access to AI can indeed then have a better growth trajectory once AI starts settling into the automating of things role in near future.
No, not really. A experienced person can solve a problem even it doesnt find a solution on the internet. Current AI can only spill knowledge that already exists, so no, not yet. The problem is that people forget that most of the knowledge that we have today, came before the internet even existed and this means we formulate knowledge that is different or even some times against what is the common knowledge, and AI today is a sophisticated parrot that mimics and mixes what we know. Imagine this scenario. Its the middle ages and all the information there was that earth was flat and that it was the center of planetary system and the universe revolved around us, the creation of god. Now imagine you feed a LLM with all those books describing and stating with certainty what we know its false today. Would that LLM be capable of questioning the knowledge it had? Discover gravity, that we lived on a sphere, the astronomy and how it works? No, it couldnt because it can only repeat known concepts and cannot have ideas, etc. An expert is not just a bag of knowledge, its a person that has seen so much that is expert in solving new problems and come up with creative solutions, sometime competely out of the box, and AI cant do that (yet)
When I graduated from college I was trained in knowing camera art, paste up and lithography. In less than six months later there was no such thing as camera art, wax paste ups, overlays, rubylith or amberlith. The fact probably .01% here even knows those words tell you something. And even though computers did that to a select industry I can see the light of the train headed your way. If you donât⊠well maybe thatâs for the best.
Yes but no it depends on the calculation speed of the ai and the actual know-how & database/knowledge base it has put into it and how to formulate it in a way people can understand and put that information to use on their end so no you good until we see ai outright replacing everything digitally youâre safe đ (for now) people who use ai to help them with stuff will be better in ways then you as long as they know what their putting into the bot will be better as long as it knows what your inputting
Not necessarily. The person has to AT LEAST have an idea of what the "the big picture" task is. From there, Ai can teach them the details on how to get specifics done. So without some background knowledge, the person with Ai won't know certain unknowns that they'd need to know to verify if the info Ai is giving them is correct or not Just because Ai CAN do the work. Doesn't mean it'll be correct. Some subject matter review of its work is needed SOMETIMES, depending on the model and the info you're talking about. so it's not as black/white as this post suggests. There are shades of grey here.
Yes.
AI will replace those that can't use AI. AI isn't replacing engineers. Managers fitting engineers banking in AI are going to have that blow up in their face.
What about someone with years of experience using the help of AI? Thatâs a real possibility.
It depends on so many factors it's impossible to say more than yes, in some cases.
Good luck beating someone with experience in both the problem domain and AI enhancements. All that means is you're safe, as long as you lean into AI now.
No.
It is even worse, in some field, A.I is so vastly superior, you can't do without. Trading has been overtaken years ago., Molecule research, areospace ingenering ect...
Depends on your field. An ai developer needs the field expert to create the best model. If you are an expert in your field look research on how ai can help you make your job better. Ai wonât replace people but only people who work with ai will make it. đ«Łđ
It depends on the circumstances. For instance, at the moment, I have a pile of work on my desk; I'm a video producer. I have 33 completely uninteresting videos I need to produce that are made of VO and stock footage. An older colleague with 15 years more experience than I have wants to record the voiceovers and then use out library of stock footage and photos to produce the videos. We split them; I took 17 and he took 16. He has much more experience than I have, but I got all of mine done by an AI generator in two days. At the end of the 2nd day, he had half of the VOs recorded and had done zero editing. So in this instance, yes, I outperformed him. But I would not do that so easily in an environment in which we are producing high quality, bespoke work, like we normally do.
With certain rote tasks, but when novelty is required, no. Definitely not with anything publically accessible. I imagine another 1 to 1000 years required. The modern AI / LLM OS' are very powerful when there are tasks that have already been completed or modeled / mapped out, and the AI needs only to extract an answer or strategy from it's black box. And even at this, there is a level of uncertainty that inevitably needs to be checked if it can't be directly asserted on as "correct" (ex: a script or module with unit tests etc.)
It depends, the person with years of experience saves time by not having to prompt, they just know. Its like batman fighting any other hero. He can do it, its just gonna take longer to access the tools
Extremely dependent on the field, the experience gap between the people being compared, and also, the definition of "outperform" So sometimes yes, sometimes no
Outperform? probably not. Perform well enough to make a correctible stab at a solution and also learn basic terminology and have a path forward? Absolutely. I used to never touch CSS in any performative way because so much of it seemed black magic, but now I can tackle it with confidence that I will get *something* to look like I intended, but still I would never profess to be as good as a professional.
In performing tasks maybe...but AI can only perform tasks how you tell it to, and it may still get it wrong, and if you don't have experience to know that it is wrong, then, well, you fucked up. Also, if you don't know what to do with the information that you ask of AI, then AI is useless to you. AI is also useless to you if you don't have experience to know what to actually ask of AI. It's so funny watching Computer Science students have to explain their code even though they are allowed to use AI. It really weeds out a lot of those that think they can just breeze through by just using AI. If you don't know how to use the AI effectively, you are wasting your and everyone else's time.
Bill Hwang might agree.
Not right now, or at least I canât. Tell me to create our company logo following certain ideas and Iâm out. Tell me to create a fully fledged app or fix our broken api integration at work and even with ai right now Iâm out. But itâs been very helpful for my personal job.
Personal story here: a friend was in a spot of trouble because a product line was due for a second round of concept testing and the stuff his product team ( a dozen or so people with years of experience) had scored really poorly on the first round, the new concepts werenât promising. Weâre talking about it, heâs stressing out and I go âI donât know nothing about {companyâs product} but I can get the a mix bag of AIs to whip up some conceptsâ The stuff it spit out outperformed the professionally trained business-school humans
Obviously it depends on the situation, but someone without experience may not even know what question to ask, let alone be able to use or understand the answers, so itâs likely that experience wins.
People give AI too much credit because itâs just Automated Intelligence at this point and anyone worried about being replaced sucks at their job
potentially, depending on the field. Keep in mind though, years of experience does not necessarily mean good.
Yes.
In simple games and operations yes. We havenât yet found a way to code âwisdomâ most concerningly is that most of the âAI computer scientistsâ are too young to have much life experience so any AI they create is going to be lacking that.
[login.theineedagnet.ai](http://login.theineedagnet.ai) make your own :)
The question is vague. It would depend on how you define outperform. By degree of education or by degree of intelligence? And after that, in which field or skill or in which combination. I mean, if you hypothetically let an LLM compete against a seasoned teacher of a certain field for example, human will at one point make a mistake or better said, will statistically make more mistakes than the AI, depending if both are trained in the same field. I heard an interesting quote some time ago that in tests, AI models have bet human psychotherapists, because they are not affected by human bias and emotions, like even the seasoned therapist still is, as he is a human. But also this is a vague statement. So in general, we are somehow already there, if I get you right: in my own experience I have learned so many fascinating things on so many topics on the last few month, by using perplexity and some other apps. I love it, I fear it. It is an interesting time.
A professional < person with ai < professional with ai. Learn about how to add ai to your skillet and you'll be fine.
Without experience, hard to say, it might be true in some areas (chess like someone mentioned), but someone with some experience under their belt + good prompts in a good LLM should be able to outperform experts in some domains, yeah. Hard to quantify how much tho
Ask any woman if a guy that looks at a lot of porn is a better lover. The answer will almost certainly be no correlation for experience. There is a difference between knowing the path and having walked the path. Re: Matrix
I honestly think AI will outperform every human in the next 10 years.
Knowledge in your domain is what makes the difference between a master craftsman that can build without power tools, and a child with no experience given state of the art tools. You have to understand domain specific concepts to leverage AI meaningfully if what you are trying to do isnât surface level. A inexperienced person with AI is still an inexperienced person. Itâs the nuance of understanding the domain that will make a difference in how successfully you leverage the available tools.
Yes. Next question? The next question should be, âWhat are we going to do about that as a society?â Iâm personally not OK with tech bros eliminating all of the jobs of the rest of us. Thatâs not going to make society better â itâs going to cause horrible damages for most people. And an even smaller slice of the super wealthy will become God level wealthy. Is that the world we want?
Sure as long as the people scoring the performance also donât understand the subject.
It's an incredible tool but cannot yet take into account the human condition in complex decision making. I might need something done by an exec team. I could just 'order them' but I need to take into account workloads, other priorities, one of them has a sick child at home, these two work better together than those two.. and on and on. It's often more art than science.
Absolutely with unwatered down versions of AI(that already exist but won't be released to the public)
im outperforming my self without AI by about 5 times, but ... sometimes it takes more time for AI to get it right, meaning i have to tell it whats wrong, what rules to respect and where it failed. All in all i'm comfortbly getting lazy in a sense i dont write much code, i just complain about generated one. Its scary it can do that already, tomorow it will tell me code i wrote and provided in my question is utter shite. (fact is it isnt) but i cant wait to start arguing and recognizing my patterns in its answers. AI will definetlu speed up getting ppl to an average standards point, in terms of quality, at least.
Depends on the field or task
Depends on the task. Someone without experience may need to waste time/resources figuring out how to prompt AI correctly because they donât know the right questions to ask/right way to prompt
I do think experienced professionals need to be open to learning and adapting to new AI tools rather than relying solely on AI or experience alone, like e.g., AI can automate customer service responses, but when it comes to complex inquiries, experience does come into play. So yeah they both work hand in hand
Yes, especially lawyers with the ai database.Â
I spent three months of college on a unit learning Excel, now I type a sentence in Copilot and get given the exact formula I need. I know it's not the most groundbreaking example but it was the first sense I had of something I learned becoming effectively obsolete. The only thing is that having the years of experience means I know exactly what to ask Copilot.
Yes. I think you don't need a master degree anymore. Give it maybe 5 years and ai will replace managers and scrum master
This question needs more context about what the job is and what sort of ai you are talking about. For some contexts ai doesnât even need a human operator. For others itâs hard to imagine ai displacing them anytime soon.
It depends. Our marketing director recently asked me if we could use this new stuff to improve the quality of our organization's PowerPoint templates. Well, it turns out that those were already some pretty awesome templates and there isn't really a product on the market right now that can do better or even get half as good (though I am sure I am about to be corrected 90 seconds after this is posted). However, if we are talking about technical work, say debugging a small program in Python then for two people with equivalent experience the person with access to something like GPT4 will absolutely outperform the person who does not have access to it. That said, I still believe that there is some threshold where you need at least some basic level of experience and a complete novice with GPT4 would still not outperform someone with years of experience. So to me the bottom line is - if it is feasible, learn how to integrate AI into your workflow because as someone with years of experience you will know how to do that much better than someone without years of experience. What's even more important: You will recognize when the model you are interacting with is making a mistake much sooner than someone lacking your experience which can be crucial.
I think someone who has enough experience and knowledge vs someone who has both experience + AI access have both their pros and cons when it comes to doing a specific task. Anw, we should look at AI as a tool to make us more productive and do stuff faster rather than as a threat. It wouldn't harm to learn how to utilize AI for our advantage if we already have the necessary knowledge to perform a task
AI can is indeed a powerful tool that can augment human experience, but it likely won't replace it entirely in most fields. An experienced doctor might use AI to analyze patient data and identify potential diagnoses. However, the doctor would use their experience and judgment to interpret the data, make a final diagnosis, and communicate with the patient.
Yes.
AI is great at pattern recognition and prediction. It is literally using statistics to make decisions. If the task is to guess the next chess move, or the weather, or the next word in a sentence, yes. If the task is to rely on facts, for example, a lawyer arguing a case or a documentary writer, then the person with access to AI will fail horribly, unless they understand the above limitation.
Hey there, that's a great point! AI is certainly making a splash these days, but we humans still have a major edge. While AI can devour mountains of data, it's like having a giant cookbook full of amazing recipes â it doesn't have the experience we do in the kitchen. We've got that gut feeling, that sixth sense for what works, what doesn't, and how to make something truly special. AI might be a whiz with the numbers, but we're the master chefs, using our experience and intuition to turn data into something truly delicious.
Probably, but only if the person with experience also doesn't use an AI.
Depends on the job but if itâs knowledge based, then yes
This is such a naive question my goodness..