Alle reden davon, dass KI Arbeitsplätze übernimmt. Aber das eigentliche Problem könnte sein Wie wir nutzen es. Dieser Artikel (Link hier) argumentiert, dass KI den Menschen nicht ersetzen muss, wenn sich Unternehmen darauf konzentrieren Menschenzentrierte KI Das erweitert statt sie aus dem Kreislauf auszuschließen. Investitionen in menschenzentrierte KI können im Vorfeld langsamer und teurer sein als reine Automatisierung, weshalb viele Unternehmen immer noch eher auf Kostensenkung als auf den Kapazitätsaufbau setzen.
Ein paar Schlüsselideen:
- Die Einführung von KI befindet sich noch in einem frühen Stadium – nur 1 % der Unternehmen nutzen sie vollständig.
- Produktivitätssteigerungen ergeben sich nur, wenn KI Arbeitsabläufe neu gestaltet und nicht nur Rollen eliminiert.
- Unternehmen, die Bezahlung und Beförderungen an KI-Kenntnisse knüpfen, sind bereits auf dem Vormarsch.
- „Sie werden Ihren Job nicht durch KI verlieren – Sie werden ihn an jemanden verlieren, der KI nutzt“, sagte der CEO von Nvidia.
Ist das optimistischer Unsinn? Oder ist eine auf den Menschen ausgerichtete KI tatsächlich der einzig realistische Weg nach vorn?
Is AI replacing workers or are we just using it wrong?
byu/BubblyOption7980 inFuturology
10 Kommentare
Of course it’s optimistic nonsense. We already see it, and we see managers eagerly looking for more of it. They aren’t necessarily firing entire teams, but teams can be much leaner now with 1 person controlling some AI tools.
That assumes there’s infinite scalability of demand for every field and company.
If you have 10 people working for you, producing 100 widgets monthly to fulfill all your orders, but a new AI technology means each worker can now produce 20 widgets, you don’t automatically have the ability to sell 200 widgets a month.
For most companies, in most industries, demand isn’t endless and doesn’t scale up just because of increased ability to produce whatever their product/service is.
Most companies in the situation above would *still* have contracts for 100 widgets a month, only now they can produce them with 5 employees instead of 10.
At some point in the future, if their sales people are able to do so and if there’s market demand at all, they might scale up sales, but it’s not instantaneous and it’s not guaranteed.
The whole point of AI is for people to lose their jobs. That’s literally 100% of the use cases any business puts forward for AI. It’s only intended use is to eliminate places where employees are given a paycheck.
Even your argument here is that „it’s not getting rid of jobs, it’s just replacing 100 people’s jobs with 1 persons job.“ Guess what, that’s what eliminating jobs is.
The end goal is where a handful of people own everything, and everyone else lives in shit and exists solely for the amusement of the rich.
Gone are the days where people pretended it might benefit society.
Or its a waste of time and resources because we haven’t fixed any of the current problems that we face a species.
Ai won’t solve any of them it will only make them worse.
I’m the tech co-founder of a bootstrapping startup building in the „Future of Work“ space (skills-based workforce intelligence for SMBs & nonprofits). Beyond the hype of „AI is gonna do all the work“, there’s a lot of real study and research into how we better match people up with the right AI assistance and tools. That article is surface level, but pointing the right direction.
Happy to share some more resources if you’re interested.
Capital owners will do anything they can do increase profits, and removing as many workers as the economy will bear will accomplish that, and that’s probably a lot of people. AI redesigns workflow… to require fewer people. People losing their jobs to people using AI won’t be 1 to 1 it will be like a whole department to 1.
As soon as AI is able to do a job without human input, the human will be fired, bet on that.
The problem is Deciders who think otherwise. Your average business guy looking to get the best return to the shareholder is going to take every risk to do so.
When you use a new tool, you find out what it can do and what it is best at. Then someone likely an engineer figures how best to use the tool by finding a need for that tool.
AI has some uses but they are ignoring the steps by jumping to just using it.
What thing is needed that AI can do better / cheaper / faster , etc than a human worker?
They don’t care they just see , we can use AI instead of a human worker and save money.
Without considering if AI can even do what that human worker is doing.
AI is designed to replace human labor, full stop. This is business 101, people cost money to keep on payroll, so we invent automated machines to reduce human labor, thus reducing costs. Happened a hundred years ago with the industrial revolution, that’s why all manufacturing is either automated or uses cheap labor in foreign nations.
The exact same thing is happening again with AI, instead of physical labor, it’s informational labor. It won’t eliminate all the office jobs, but it will devalue the labor where it only makes sense to hire cheap labor abroad.
To speak to your few key ideas:
1. What does it mean when it is suggested that companies are „fully using“ AI?
2. Who or what is reviewing those workflow redesigns to ensure they are better and more optimized?
3. How are they pulling ahead? I thought only 1% of companies are „fully using“ AI?
4. This is being stated by a CEO whose company builds the hardware processing architecture for AI. A company that is involved in propping up the one of the biggest tech bubbles in history. A technology that has huge drains on the environment and other sectors that is literally throwing money in a barrel and burning it with no plan to print money of its own.
Augmentation is a good approach right now. Augmenting employees with AI tools to make their lives easier is sort of the cornerstone of what tech sector is about. At the moment, we have people knowledgeable in their industries to catch AI in most cases when it is wrong, inefficient, or producing poor quality work. My concerns stems from when these experts retire, move on, and the next workforce comes in. How does a graduate come into the workforce, adopting AI through their entire education, be even remotely as effective as an AI augmented expert?
Even when the system becomes near perfect. You need humans for checks and balances and to drive innovation.
Think about it this way, let me add a few key ideas to your brain:
* Ask AI what the best chocolate chip cookie recipe is.
* What information does it have at its disposal to ensure that the recipe it gives is the best recipe that exists.
* What guarantees does it give to ensure that it will be the best chocolate chip cookie you have ever had?
* What if it isn’t? Does AI have the capability to innovate the recipe on its own to make it better? Does it have the ability to produce new chocolate chip recipes that are equally enjoyed but different? Does it value taste or cost if it is able to make these changes on its own?
* Now imagine a world where AI automation operates the factories to produce that cookie, making it the most efficiently produced and best cookie possible. Replacing jobs.
Now think about someone who existed prior to AI, who loves their grandmother’s chocolate chip cookies. Do you think they would enjoy the AI’s perfectly produced cookie more?
What about someone who only grew up with AI produced cookies. Would they have any concept on how good the cookie is or could be? Would they be able to see any areas where value could be added to the recipe? What if they found „Grandma’s Chocolate Chip Cookie“ recipe on a queue card in a attic somewhere and made them. How much would the two recipes differ after years and years of AI refinement to produce the best Chocolate Chip cookie. Would it even taste like the ones we are familiar with now?