MIT study finds AI can already replace 11.7% of U.S. workforce (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 2 months ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/usa@midwest.social

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Wednesday released a study that found that artificial intelligence can already replace 11.7% of the U.S. labor market, or as much as $1.2 trillion in wages across finance, health care and professional services.

The study was conducted using a labor simulation tool called the Iceberg Index, which was created by MIT and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The index simulates how 151 million U.S. workers interact across the country and how they are affected by AI and corresponding policy

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] RustyShackleford@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 months ago

People often overestimate the functionality of AI. If you plan to let it make business decisions, it might be wiser to smash your genitals in your car trunk latch.

[-] getoffthatchronic@lemdro.id 6 points 2 months ago

This isn't even about competency really as the cost of AI is being artificially depressed through all of these businesses running at a loss. It might be insane to stick in a blender with US labor statistics. Hopefully not the kind the WH uses?

There are a lot of different things falling under the umbrella of AI. You're right to be skeptical of an algorithm's ability to estimate another algorithm's ability in practice. They're testing how well the buzzword tech can move the needle on numbers the fed obsesses over. Really pigeonholing the tech into profitability. Best uses of this tech will be in balancing electricity flows through the country, with inputs including population + industry usage, weather patterns & other renewable energy variables (these are very much a social good but you can already hear capital hissing at the thought). Humans already operate many cybernetic systems that turn on volition, with inputs adjusted to make them exploitative. Streamlining them is going to rip the balls right off for sure. As I often quote Michael Parenti by recently, "You're stupid if you think they're stupid," it goes nicely with "the purpose of a system is what it does."

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 18 points 2 months ago

Let me know when they replace the overpaid C-level parasites with cheaper, faster, more efficient AI CEO/CFO et cetera.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

As much as I agree, do you really want to have an AI manager looking over your shoulder all day every day.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Wouldn’t it be out playing golf if it was replacing them?

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Even with the hallucinations I'm pretty sure AI can already do many CEO's job better than they can. The only thing they seem to take into account is line go up. That's pretty easy to replicate.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago

I say this as someone generally bullish about AI: bullshit. I use it all the time. It's helpful when you already know what you're doing. Anything you do with AI at scale is going to have a number of fuckups, even if it's mostly reliable — and for most purposes I wouldn't even go that far.

I see it all the time. I ask Cline to have Claude do a bunch of things and create a markdown file... and it does everything, including generating the markdown, but forgets to put it in a file and then acts confused when you say to put it in a file. If that was some financial report or contract, it could tank a whole business.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Breaking news 11.7% of the work force are doing useless work, work that leadership has no idea how essential it is, and some that a normalized response of text or semantic searching can be replaced with.

[-] Sickos@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

graeber 50% of jobs are useless, so jot that down

Also profit is waste and money isn't real

[-] getoffthatchronic@lemdro.id 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm sure there is plenty of chaff to cut in finance and healthcare etcetera, in my heart I want to believe in a coming Burger Decimation, but US labor statistics are absolutely cooked. Having read practically nothing about the model they're using, I would appreciate if anyone can tell how accurate the model they are using really is.