None of us have infinite talents — we have just a few. I think the evidence in my case points to a decent ability to see the emperor's new clothes and stay sober while everyone else is electrified and excited about what is, in fact, a soap bubble. I have an "emotional shield" against collective intoxication.
At Luxottica they were shrewd and they'd figured that out. That's why, for the bargain price of one intern and one conference (which they sent me to and which was supposed to convince me), in the mid-2000s they secured my negative assessment while everyone was pushing to enter Second Life. They didn't do it and saved millions. Later, those who followed my advice avoided throwing money at the various Metaverses, NFTs, and absurd crypto schemes. I won't mention other topics, but if you know me, you know them.
The point is that this time I'm on the side of the trend.
I do NOT believe all Big Tech AI investments are smart. Business-wise they could take other paths. It's pure FOMO, and it speaks to the psychological needs of weak people like the CEOs of these giants, who went from being sad, ignored nerds to powerful men in a delirium of overcompensation. However.
I believe the world is going to change dramatically, and that unfortunately hundreds of millions of humans will struggle enormously to have a job within ten years.
Those who think these predictions are exaggerated, in 99.9% of cases, only use free AI models. But if they spent a penny a month, they'd see what war machines are already available today. Machines that work BETTER than a mountain of people. I worked 20 years in companies or with collaborators (plus another 6 as a programmer and junior PM during university) and I've seen with my own eyes how people are, on average, ineffective, slow, chaotic, and not that competent. There are always great exceptions, of course. And people are valuable in themselves.
But I have a feeling that what's going to happen with AI in the workplace is exactly what's already happening with AI in other parts of society: the gradual replacement of humans with more efficient and competent sources.
Am I happy about this even though I consider technology a mother figure? No. People should always be the goal. But for too long they've been seen as a means, and frankly there's something better in terms of "means." Society already went wrong when it renamed individuals "human resources." That prurient semantics shifted the focus from people as the goal of society to people as a tool.
Alas, there are far better tools available today. For the first time, AI doesn't show the emperors naked.
It shows us naked.
And from that sentence, you can re-read my post.
