> They found that ~70% copy-pasted the first output without editing it at all. .... This means that ChatGPT can immediately substitute for some workers. It’s a story of replacement rather than augmentation.
1. If they only accepted 70% and not 100% isn't that an argument for augmentation not automation?
2. Who wrote the prompt? We always need someone to write the prompt as these models are no generally intelligent agents.
The conclusion here seems wrong:
> They found that ~70% copy-pasted the first output without editing it at all. .... This means that ChatGPT can immediately substitute for some workers. It’s a story of replacement rather than augmentation.
1. If they only accepted 70% and not 100% isn't that an argument for augmentation not automation?
2. Who wrote the prompt? We always need someone to write the prompt as these models are no generally intelligent agents.
I wrote a more nuanced take on this topic here: https://scalingknowledge.substack.com/p/why-job-displacement-predictions
Cool stuff, mate