Source (Bluesky)
Transcript
recently my friend's comics professor told her that it's acceptable to use gen Al for script- writing but not for art, since a machine can't generate meaningful artistic work. meanwhile, my sister's screenwriting professor said that they can use gen Al for concept art and visualization, but that it won't be able to generate a script that's any good. and at my job, it seems like each department says that Al can be useful in every field except the one that they know best.
It's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation. The more attuned we are with certain processes, crafts, and occupations, the more we realize that gen Al will never be able to provide a suitable replacement. The case for its existence relies on our ignorance of the work and skill required to do everything we don't.
And managers think it's good for everything except being executives and management. Except that's probably the one thing AI can do just as well as a manager who thinks AI is good for a bunch of stuff.
Sounds like you may be doing exactly what is being described in this post. Assuming AI can do something you aren't intimately experienced with
Every executive I've met that has declared they will be able to reduce headcount thanks to AI is an idiot. They are frequently factually incorrect but blather on confidentially regardless.
That's one area where LLM absolutely can do the same thing.
Competent executives? No it can't but corporate world doesn't reward competence, they only care about confidence.