What's annoying is that I have seen not one realistic idea come out of this. This is not some kind of alien technology, it is a concrete algorithm. You cannot just say 'this will revolutionize everything' and then refuse to elaborate. It is hard to integrate this into an existing project, and it does not solve the agency issue that we already had, which is that AI can talk, but it cannot make decisions for you. So more emasculated chat bots that nobody wants to talk to. And how big a market is copy editing really? To publish something based on chatgpd you still need to put in a ton of work, because it does not check its sources and makes stuff up. So how is AI really better than 5 years ago other than that it's a better writer with a better style? That wasn't the problem 5 years ago, and it is not today.
The killer feature with ChatGPT is that you can interactively refine a result. Your skill as a writer for a magazine for example now can be that you're good at recognizing good writing and can articulate how it can be made better, but you don't need to be a good writer yourself anymore. This was absolutely not possible 5 years ago or even 1 year ago.
ChatGPT doesn't need to be a "chat" product. It's an interactive stateful tool.
Oh you poor soul. AI is already making decisions for and about you, and policy will often prefer that automated decision over a human one, or worse, will farm out the "human appeal" to what is basically an internal Fiverr system that requires the humans to only take about 60 seconds for each appeal and can not possibly make good decisions.
I know from my work that a high quality human review of a simple situation with significant data labeling and highlighting important and relevant info to be reviewed costs about $1. If you are spending any less than that on a human review of arbitrary data with arbitrary rules you should consider it worse than a coin flip.
> You cannot just say 'this will revolutionize everything' and then refuse to elaborate.
This is intentional, as most of the low-hanging fruit of AI transformation are things people either don't care about, or think would be a net negative. Like replacing junior publicists with AI-written PR copy. What difference would that make to the consumer? Very little if any.
On the other hand, replacing real human art (as you might see on The New Yorker cartoons or The Economist) with AI-generated images may make some readers unhappy.
