[Tanjreeve]

The only actual hard data cited in this article is the opposite conclusion to the headline.

>Still, language-learning app Duolingo and fintech app Klarna have recently walked back aggressive stances on replacing humans with AI.

>Some studies have also shown AI isn’t panning out as much as hoped, so far. An IBM survey found that 3 in 4 AI initiatives fail to deliver their promised ROI. And a National Bureau of Economic Research study of workers in AI-exposed industries found that the technology had next to no impact on earnings or hours worked.

The data in favour of the articles conclusion is "some linkedin influencer said so" and

>But Indeed’s findings show that “for about two-thirds of all jobs, 50% or more of those skills are things that today’s generative AI can do reasonably well, or very well.”

And if you read THAT article that's linking it's some MBAs speculating again at a conference. Which isn't inherently a bad thing not everything in the world can or should be quantified in a clear statistical conclusion. But appropriating the language and implying it and then the source is "some ceo dudebro said so" should be treated with at least some dubiousness at this point when a lot more of job market trends can be explained far less nebulously by a generalised slowdown in hiring and economic shocks. If I'm being less generous I can say this is yet another example of the linkedin media complex trying to rewrite reality again.