People are touting this like it's a good thing or something, presumably this means a 30% reduction compared to the previous staffing this would have require. 30% is a lot.

[–] toototabon@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's perceived as good? (curious, why would it be?) Just that it's disingenuous to market it as AI. Everyone and their mother now has """AI""" 🤷‍♂️

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, good is probably the wrong word, I mean "positive in the sense it shows AI can't replace humans".

[–] toototabon@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, i get it! Yeah, 30% is a considerable percentage.

Where I work (text-based customer support), a few weeks ago I stumbled upon a spreadsheet analysing that they could "save" 25% in wages by implementing GPT-4.

It may still be mostly humans on the line, but 1 out 4 of us may get the boot.