>> created new jobs for skilled workers who were needed to operate the machines or run AI-powered systems respectively
> Operate machines across all industries vs data science ?
Operate the machines across all industries vs run AI-powered systems across all industries.
(Those chatgpt-like responses miss a major factor, though. Automatisation of agricultural processes didn't result in 95% of the population operating agricultural machines: it freed them to do other things.)
Sooo...data scientists ? Isn't the focal point of all of this the realization that given time (most likely a lot less than people thought before gpt's) AI systems won't need human oversight ? Isn't this the goal of OpenAI ?
This is why I think making comparison to whatever that was is wrong. Our current situation is too distinctive. We're being potentially freed up to do things other than cognitive tasks
- by the rise of AGI, or maybe a very refined language model.
I don't know. It's out of my scope that's why I'm asking. The infrastructure is there, the software is there and if not it soon most likely will be. What's left is to feed it domain specific data. To contribute somehow to a system like that I imagine you have to have a cognitive ability way beyond average. All the 'AI-' in front of job descriptions won't be in the ballpark of greasing cogs during the industrial revolution.
> Operate machines across all industries vs data science ?
Operate the machines across all industries vs run AI-powered systems across all industries.
(Those chatgpt-like responses miss a major factor, though. Automatisation of agricultural processes didn't result in 95% of the population operating agricultural machines: it freed them to do other things.)