https://futurism.com/the-byte/government-ai-worse-summarizing
The upshot: these AI summaries were so bad that the assessors agreed that using them could require more work down the line, because of the amount of fact-checking they require. If that's the case, then the purported upsides of using the technology — cost-cutting and time-saving — are seriously called into question.
Sure, but it's cheaper, and so if we fire all of our employees and replace them with AI, for this next quarter our profits will go WAY up, and then I can get my bonus and retire. So it's totally fine!
There's a certain level of risk aversion with these decisions though. One of the justification of salaries for managers who generally don't do shit is they take "responsibility". Honestly even if AI was performing at or above human level, a lot of briefs would have to be done by someone you could fire anyway.
And as much as next quarter performance is all they care about, there are still some survival instincts left. My last company put a ban on using genAI for all client facing activities because a sales guy almost presented a deck with client is going to instantly walk out levels of wrong information in it.
Yeah, that's something I was thinking about. With human employees, you can always blame workers when anything goes wrong, fire some people and call it a day. AI can't take responsibility the same way.
They'll fire everyone and love the short term profit boost but within a year realize it's fucking up their production processes. But they'll be so hooked on all that money saving that they'll pull some sneaky ways of rehiring everyone buy for less money and benefits.