[sputknick]

My hot take is that as that percentage increases, salaries will go up asymptotically, until you get to 100%, then they crash to 0. If 80% of your job can be done by AI, I'm going to give you the work of 5 people. When is 99%, I will give you the work of 100 people

[coip]

If 80% is “done by the AI”, who is responsible for the certain failure on behalf of the AI? Given inference often is, >0%, wrong — in a word… hmm.

How many 9s until you’re comfortable? Even then, knowing 1000 tasks could likely have at least 1 foundational issue… how do you audit? “Pretty please do the needful” and have another “please ensure they do the needful”. Do you review the 1000 inputs/outputs processed? Don’t get me wrong, am familiar with the “send it” ethos all too well, but at-scale it seems like quite the pickle.

Genuinely curious how most people consider these angles… was tasked with building a model once to perform what literally could’ve otherwise been a SQL query… when I brought this up, it was met with “well we need to do it with AI” I don’t think a humans gonna want to find that needle in a haystack when 100,000 significant documents are originated… but I don’t have to worry about that one anymore thank goodness.

[hresvelgr]

If you're okay with the work being done poorly and without review, then sure. Otherwise, it'll take the same amount of time and be done worse. I would not trust solely 1 person to review 5 people's work let alone 100.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Then it’s not the work of 100 people, is it?

You’re arguing semantics. OP is hypothesising a future where the quality of work is comparable to that of a human. If you don’t believe that that’s on the cards, just say it, but you’re intentionally misrepresenting the hypothetical.