This is one of my major concerns about people trying to use these tools for 'efficiency'. The only plausible value in somebody writing a huge report and somebody else reading it is information transfer. LLM's are notoriously bad at this. The noise to signal ratio is unacceptably high, and you will be worse off reading the summary than if you skimmed the first and last pages. In fact, you will be worse off than if you did nothing at all.

Using AI to output noise and learn nothing at breakneck speeds is worse than simply looking out the window, because you now have a false sense of security about your understanding of the material.

Relatedly, I think people get the sense that 'getting better at prompting' is purely a one-way issue of training the robot to give better outputs. But you are also training yourself to only ask the sorts of questions that it can answer well. Those questions that it will no longer occur to you to ask (not just of the robot, but of yourself) might be the most pertinent ones!

This reminds me of that "telephone" kids game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game

So what we now have is a very expensive and energy-intensive method for inflating data in a lossy manner. Incredible.

This just highlights the absurdity of having your employer responsible for your health insurance and managing your taxes for you.

These should be handled by the government, equally for all.

> HR on the surface seems unimportant, but you’d notice if the company stopped having health insurance or sending your taxes to the IRS etc etc.

Interesting on how the very example you give for "oh this job isn't really bullshit" ultimately ends up being useless for the business itself, and exists only as a result of regulation.

No, health insurance being provided by employers, or tax withholding aren't useful things for anyone, except for the state who now offloads its costs onto private businesses.

It's possible to automate the pointless stuff without realising it's pointless.

I think they can both be true. Perhaps the innovation of AI is not that it automates important work, but because it forces people to question if the work has already been automated or is even necessary.

Well, if a lot of it is bullshit that can also be done more efficiently with AI, then 99% of white collar roles could be eliminated by the 1% using AI, and essentially both were very close to true.

I think what he meant was that the top 1% ruling class is keeping those bullshit jobs around to keep the poor people (their cattle) occupied so they won't have time and energy to think and revolt.

It seems more like they're implying it's those at the top think that about other people.