There’s a lot of magical thinking about how AI will actually help the labor market, but it seems clear to me that the entire reason for the billions being pumped into AI is the potential to slash labor costs.

It’s like they’re building human wood chippers while telling us that all these human wood chippers will actually result in fewer people being fed into wood chippers.

Sure, I have no doubt that a terminated NIH scientist will have no trouble finding a “factory job” that pays two or three times as much.

What world does this guy live in?

I’m just spitballing here, but maybe you should find out what people want first, and then build that.

I’m not surprised that Hannity finds it “almost impossible to comprehend” that someone would resign to uphold their principles.

Also ironic since in this case the President and Secretary of Homeland Security immediately came out stating that the victim was a domestic terrorist and tried to murder the ICE agent with her car before any investigation was conducted, and both of which turned out to be false.

Think I like this even better than OP’s

OMG yes… I wrote a macro that copies thousands of rows and then closes a file and I had to add a step to copy just one cell before closing to work around this stupid message.

I love how many people rushed over to help her. Good citizens looking out.

I think the point you are making is that “AI is useful,” which is slightly different than “AI is great.”

I’m an AI hater, but I’ve found some niche areas in my life where it’s useful.

But I still see the overall net effect of AI - well, at least of LLMs, which are a small subset of AI - on the world to be overwhelmingly negative to the extent that the niche positive impacts are not remotely worth the costs.