Generative AIs like ChatGPT could affect 300 million full-time jobs

midian182

Posts: 9,662   +121
Staff member
A hot potato: The rise of generative AIs such as ChatGPT looks set to revolutionize many industries, but as with any type of automation, it comes at the cost of jobs. According to research by bank Goldman Sachs, these systems could replace a quarter of work tasks in the US and Europe, the equivalent of 300 million jobs.

There's a lot of excitement around the potential uses of generative AI. From Microsoft to Meta, companies are rushing to integrate these systems into their services. They're also putting many people at risk of being laid off, with administrative staff and lawyers most likely to be replaced.

Goldman Sachs' prediction that the likes of ChatGPT could affect 300 million jobs is a grim one. The bank does offer some good news, though, claiming that the generative AIs would cause a productivity boom that could raise annual global gross domestic product by 7% over a 10-year period.

A rise in GDP is unlikely to appease all the people ChatGPT makes unemployed, of course. Goldman Sachs admits that the technology could cause "significant disruption" across big economies. Joseph Briggs and Devesh Kodnani, the paper's authors, say nearly two-thirds of jobs in the US and Europe are exposed to some degree of AI automation.

Globally, 18% of work could be automated by AI, with developed countries impacted more than emerging markets.

A more optimistic part of the report predicts that around 63% of the US workforce will see 25% to 50% of their workload become automated and likely continue in their positions. The work done by generative AIs could give them extra time to focus on more productive tasks, like looking for another job where they're less likely to be fired. The paper states that those who work in physical or outdoor jobs such as construction and maintenance are unlikely to be impacted by generative AI, though they are at risk from other forms of automation.

About 7% of workers in jobs where generative AI could perform at least half their daily tasks are vulnerable to replacement.

"Although the impact of AI will ultimately depend on its capability and adoption timeline, this estimate highlights the enormous economic potential of generative AI if it delivers on its promise," said Goldman Sachs.

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, thinks generative AI could impact even more jobs than Goldman Sachs predicts. It wrote in a paper that 80% of the US workforce could see at least 10% of their tasks performed by these systems.

In addition to job losses, organizations including Europol and the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) have warned of the criminal applications presented by generative AIs, from writing malware to creating mass phishing campaigns.

Permalink to story.

 
but as with any type of automation, it comes at the cost of jobs.

That's not a foregone conclusion. Many times, automation can create or transform jobs, not destroy them. In some cases, automation can also increase worker pay. Some jobs may be eliminated and, in some cases, that might be a good thing.

Training is the key here and as I have always said, quit concentrating on raising minimum wage and focus instead on getting people trained to do skilled work. Everyone will be better off in the long run.
 
That's not a foregone conclusion. Many times, automation can create or transform jobs, not destroy them. In some cases, automation can also increase worker pay. Some jobs may be eliminated and, in some cases, that might be a good thing.

Training is the key here and as I have always said, quit concentrating on raising minimum wage and focus instead on getting people trained to do skilled work. Everyone will be better off in the long run.

I agree, with one caveat. Ask anyone if they think customer service is a better experience now than it was 20 years ago. You know what every one of them will say. AI isn't going to fix that because it will still only be able to do what its been trained to do, except it won't get paid for those tasks. That's the entire idea - if a technology doesn't help shrink payroll companies want nothing to do with it. "Reduce payroll" is job #1 for every executive.
 
Their "jobs" are to answer emails, go to meetings and talk to each other and copy and paste things.

If the cost of these salaries is eliminated, there will be a profit for shareholders and customers from lower prices, so they could benefit from buying shares on the one hand and from lower prices on the other, and in addition they will also have more free time to live. Why do they complain?

For example, someone has a taxi and drives it every day for a living, one day a technological addition becomes available for his taxi and that way it can do the work alone without a driver, that way the driver can now stay at home with his family and his taxi can work for him. Technically he has "lost his job" but in reality he has the same income with less effort.
 
That's overexaggeration. Let's give the AI full control of nuclear weaponry in every country. To minimize the chance of an error.
 
This is such BS. If you ban or limit the use of AI for jobs you are hurting human progress.

Should the use of tools been banned during the Agricultural evolution, only because it 'destroyed' jobs?

On the contrary, with the advancement of technology, new and more interesting jobs are created. Governments should not decrease progress by wanting to keep less productive workers. Progress would stagnate.
 
Get ready for next level robo-calls, telemarketing and customer service.
*the company is not responsible if the Customer Service Bot has a 'hallucination'.

My landline phone is only plugged in, when I am expecting a call.

The spammers won, and there was n o t h I n g that I did, that could change it.
 
I agree, with one caveat. Ask anyone if they think customer service is a better experience now than it was 20 years ago. You know what every one of them will say. AI isn't going to fix that because it will still only be able to do what its been trained to do, except it won't get paid for those tasks. That's the entire idea - if a technology doesn't help shrink payroll companies want nothing to do with it. "Reduce payroll" is job #1 for every executive.
AI corporations will get paid ... a lot, don't buy this temporary free for all. OpenAI put billions in building AI and they pay billions in having and using datacentres. This last leg of training is also hundreds of times more specialised and expensive. Contrary to popular belief information is not free, it's under academic paywalls and corporate control. If the LLMs want to replace jobs they will need to get to very expensive DATA and specialist supervising training. AI will be cheaper to a certain extend than 100 workers, but at the same time it will scoup trillions for tech-bros.
 
Their "jobs" are to answer emails, go to meetings and talk to each other and copy and paste things.

If the cost of these salaries is eliminated, there will be a profit for shareholders and customers from lower prices, so they could benefit from buying shares on the one hand and from lower prices on the other, and in addition they will also have more free time to live. Why do they complain?

For example, someone has a taxi and drives it every day for a living, one day a technological addition becomes available for his taxi and that way it can do the work alone without a driver, that way the driver can now stay at home with his family and his taxi can work for him. Technically he has "lost his job" but in reality he has the same income with less effort.
Great, it's just that the taxi will belong to Google or most probably to Mercedes, Tesla or Uber... not a random Joe with a datacentre in his backyard. There is no point for retail if you can roll out the thing yourself. The issue is that commerce in general can collapse, unless there are new kinds of jobs that we can do.
 
I agree, with one caveat. Ask anyone if they think customer service is a better experience now than it was 20 years ago. You know what every one of them will say. AI isn't going to fix that because it will still only be able to do what its been trained to do, except it won't get paid for those tasks. That's the entire idea - if a technology doesn't help shrink payroll companies want nothing to do with it. "Reduce payroll" is job #1 for every executive.
I would say customer service is worse because it's been off-shored, there's less people to talk to making wait times long and the quality of service is not particularly good, or rather, doesn't have a lot of expertise.

I would think, adding an AI component to that could reduce language barriers, provide quicker response times and improve the quality of service with improved "expertise". That's just my opinion.

As for cost reductions, sure, I think every company is looking to manage cost and always will. That's basic business management. Labor is a cost, a necessary component but a cost nonetheless. I don't know that AI will necessarily lower labor costs, per se. I think it might reduce certain, low-paying positions, but may require higher skilled and therefore higher paid people. I'm sure it won't be a 1-to-1 ratio, maybe 5 unskilled to 1 skilled or something like that but, you would be paying the skilled worker the cost of 5 unskilled workers. Add to that the cost of AI and it may or may not reduce cost for the company, however, it may still be beneficial. If you can grow your business at X% and labor cost growth is <X% then maybe it's a good thing.
 
No, it won't replace those jobs. It will just become a tool like every other tool. What it might do is replace some incompetent ppl.
 
Awesome! Companies will super efficient at creating products... that nobody is buying because they are out of work.

Exactly. Neo-liberals and supply side economists always insist that production is the engine that drives the economy, with GDP being a perfect measure of how healthy an economy is. They keep glossing over one very important fact, without fuel to power an engine you're not going any place. And that fuel? Consumption. So the economy needs a robust consumer class or it will eventually falter.

The big problem is the gap between ultra wealthy and scraping by is widing and the current shortage of workers will only do one thing, excelerate their replacement with automation. But who's going to take advantage of these product and services if fewer and fewer people have the funds to do so? Well, we just collectively go deeper in debt is all. And when all that debt comes due? Yeah... won't be pretty.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

What I find really funny is I have pretty good credit and no debt. I pay my bills on time and don't have any credit cards to tempt me into abusing my credit. I'd maybe get one or two solicitations through the mail a year trying to get me to sign up for a CC. Since rates went up I get at least three a month. Yeah, I want to live beyond my means so that the top 1% can accumulate all the wealth, including mine...
 
Back