[raytopia]

Now the real question about AI automation starts. Is it cheaper to pay a human to do the task or a AI company?

[fragmede]

Humans have all sorts of issues you have to deal with. Being hungover, not sleeping well, having a personality, being late to work, not being able to work 24/7, very limited ability to copy them. If there's a soulless generic office-droidGPT that companies could hire that would never talk back and would do all sorts of menial work without needing breaks or to use the bathroom, I don't know that we humans stand a chance!

I have a bunch of work that needs doing. I can do it myself, or I can hire one person to do it. I gotta train them and manage them and even after I train them theres still only going to be one of them, and it's subject to their availability. On the other hand, if I need to train an AI to do it, but I can copy that AI, and then spin them up/down like on demand computer in the cloud, and not feel remotely bad about spinning them down?

It's definitely not there yet, but it's not hard to see the business case for it.

[Horffupolde]

This is the ultimate business model.

[OutOfHere]

Once we get to that stage, unless you're a capitalist, remember that your job is next in line to be replaced.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

I was about to comment that humans consume orders of magnitude less energy, but then I checked the numbers, and it looks like an average person consumes way more energy throughout their day (food, transportation, electricity usage, etc) than GPT-4.5 would at 1 query per minute over 24 hours.

[redox99]

It still not smart enough to replace for example customer service.

[infecto]

It's absolutely able to replace the majority of customer service volume which is full of mundane questions.