The Age Of Mediocrity
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 5 were checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The output from ChatGPT or any other generative AI feels utterly soulless”
Our reading: Output from ChatGPT or any other generative AI feels utterly soulless.
No horizon
Qualifier: feels (subjective impression)
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“They crave a new Industrial Revolution where simulations of human beings do a shittier job slightly faster without needing to be paid to do it, or with a human being as a handler that must constantly refine and buff up work in a way that will likely take more time than having a human do it in the first place.”
Our reading: AI work that requires a human handler to constantly refine it will likely take more time than having a human do the work in the first place.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Causal claim
“Artificial intelligence allows the modern executive to recategorize more and more labor as “unskilled” because a computer could theoretically do it, even if the work product sucks.”
Our reading: Artificial intelligence allows the modern executive to recategorize more and more labor as 'unskilled' because a computer could theoretically do it, even if the work product sucks.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The strongest workplace evidence predates the target period.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Forecast
“They will gladly replace artists, writers and any other role that they believe can be automated in a heartbeat.”
Our reading: Companies will readily replace artists, writers and other roles they believe can be automated with AI.
Settled before its deadline Evidence as of
Limitation: Support depends on treating the occupations as examples rather than separate universal predictions.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“A reasonable person might think that companies wouldn’t lower the quality of their output just to theoretically save a dollar, and they would be wrong.”
Our reading: Companies are willing to lower the quality of their output via AI to theoretically save money.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Executive intentions are not directly observable.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Forecast
“I believe we are going to see a surge of companies desperately piling money into AI with little regard for the consequences, leading to several smaller versions of the $440 million software glitch that destroyed financial services firm Knight Capital.”
Our reading: A surge of reckless corporate AI investment will lead to several smaller-scale costly failures akin to the Knight Capital software glitch.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Limitation: The investment comparison starts in 2014 and does not isolate growth after the August 3, 2023 forecast [e1].
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Forecast
“Either way, we are entering an era where companies will begin testing how much they can automate away the human element of their business, and how much of the customer experience they can trim off until they start losing money.”
Our reading: We are entering an era where companies will begin testing how much they can automate away the human element of their business, and how much of the customer experience they can trim off until they start losing money.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Limitation: A broader reading that requires only automation experiments would be easier to support, but would omit the financial-limit clause.
Held from this post (4)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: AI hallucinates regularly and is getting worse, yet executives are adopting it as fast as possible regardless of whether it makes sense.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: As of August 2023, AI cannot realistically replace a writer or a writers' room.
- The two reviews read the claim differently