[manzanarama]

Consider the following example:

Two competing companies have 100 employees, and make 50 million per year. They each have 50 "computer people" each making 100k per year. Every day AI gets a little better and these people get more and more effective, if they are empowered, know how to, and choose to use it.

Their roles are slightly changing every day, as perhaps they don't take as much time on certain types of tasks, and the productivity seems to be slightly increasing. This boost may or may not result in increased sales or profit, but it is real.

Now let's say there is a breakthrough in AI, and it is clear that based on the exact actions that these people are doing right now, they can all be replaced with AI. And also let's say that one company chooses to do this, but the other company decides to keep all their workers and asks them to use the AI to do their current job and also push it to do what they always wished they could do but never had the time or could figure out how.

I can't see a world where the company that fires all their people and uses AI to do what they have been doing always comes out ahead.

Simply, for all jobs like this to be a real threat, it has to be the case that AI would have to be so good that a group og highly skilled and specialized humans working WITH an AI, would be no better than the AI by itself. And I think this is almost a paradox or impossible situation. How are its tasks defined, requirements met, priorities made?

So many of the successful companies are successful in spite of huge doubters to their strategies like Apple and Tesla. It is unlikely to me that an AI would spit out a controversial vision when asked to develop a new company, or a strategy within an existing company.

[ip26]

FWIW that applies to enterprise where the venture is ever evolving. Once a machine can sort apples visually, it’s good enough, and the job of apple sorting isn’t really changing.