You always have to make your own conclusions of course but it doesn't mean that it is useless or just wrong.

What value does Google has to cherry-pick the occupation metrics?

nemomarx 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They want to present AI as a growing and vital service so that shareholders think they're making good investments, right? Whether that's true or not, you know Google would always be putting the best appearance on it.

▲

tokioyoyo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I did say explicitly that I think, Google did not cherry pick any data. My main question is “are they trying to build a narrative, because of the growing anti-AI tendency of the general population?”. It feels like every big co is giving up on big questions (e.g. what happens when AI replaces more and more jobs? what happens to education system?) because searching for an answer to those questions was upsetting a lot of people. So, now it feels like it’s just “good and neutral stories only”, so I have to raise my eyebrow on each post.

▲

watwut 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> It feels like every big co is giving up on big questions (e.g. what happens when AI replaces more and more jobs? what happens to education system?) because searching for an answer to those questions was upsetting a lot of people.

They were not searching for the answers. They were trying to get more investment money on the promises to investors about education and jobs displacement. Those are two different things.

	▲	tokioyoyo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I genuinely believe in the early days they were looking for the problems. At least the people I know personally did so. Openly and loudly as well. Some people genuinely like to solve problems! But again, now it’s more of a “aight too much money on the table so maybe not real”.