United

eloncoin

Elon Musk

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), a nonprofit think tank, recently published research indicating that artificial intelligence could streamline the United Kingdom’s workforce, reduce government costs by billions, and automate more than 40% of worker tasks.&nbsp;According to the research, however, these benefits would <a href="https://assets.ctfassets.net/75ila1cntaeh/45YsrTDwevNRvsTsZ5dZGS/fc9805fa3a5a1de3c931d0446dcec239/Tony_Blair_Institute_for_Global_Change__The_Potential_Impact_of_AI_on_the_Public-Sector_Workforce__July_2024.pdf?" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">require</a> the government “to invest in AI technology, upgrade its data systems, train its workforce to use the new tools and cover any redundancy costs associated with early exits from the workforce.”<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rpLovrhWEUo"></iframe>This would cost approximately $4 billion per year for the next five years and $7 billion per year after that, write the researchers.But the real problem with the research, according to outside researchers who’ve read the paper, is in its reliance on ChatGPT.Oxford University’s Mohammad Amir Anwar <a href="https://x.com/ibalilebali/status/1811159699691122968" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">opined</a> on X that the Tony Blair Institute was “making shit up”; meanwhile, the University of Washington’s Emily Bender&nbsp;<a href="https://www.404media.co/ai-finds-that-ai-is-great-in-new-garbage-research-from-tony-blair-institute/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">told</a> 404 Media’s Emanuel Maiberg that the researchers “might as well be shaking at Magic 8 ball and writing down the answers it displays.”<figure><img src="https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2024-07/991e30e1-caab-43c0-9fe2-96b5e5ef0684.jpg" alt="Tony Blair Institute says AI is good for UK because ChatGPT said so" title=""><figcaption>Source: <a href="https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1811014990171680824" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Aaron Bastani</a></figcaption></figure><h2 id="the-problem">The problem</h2>TBI researchers set out to provide a high-level overview of the entire workforce so that they could then predict what potential impact automation could have on the market in the future.They determined that AI could save the UK billions of dollars almost immediately. Per the research paper, the costs of investment versus the potential savings “implies the net savings from fully utilizing AI in the public sector to be nearly 1.3 percent of GDP each year, equivalent to £37 billion a year in today’s terms.”The researchers even go so far as to claim that “this equates to a benefit-cost ratio of 9:1 in aggregate” up front, and “after five years we estimate the programme could cumulatively save 0.5 percent of annual GDP (or £15 billion in today’s terms), implying a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8:1 is possible if the technology is rolled out quickly.”While those numbers are certainly exciting, it’s unclear if they have any actual meaning.What’s in question is how the researchers came to their conclusions. Rather than conduct an exhaustive study with workers and employers to determine how automation would affect a given position, they <a href="https://www.onetcenter.org/overview.html" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">used</a> the O*Net data set to identify 20,000 tasks performed by workers and then fed the data to ChatGPT. The team then prompted the AI to determine what tasks were suitable for automation and what tools could be used to automate them.According to the researchers, using human experts to go over each task would have made their work “intractable,” which in science means too difficult to perform.This also means, ostensibly, that it would be “intractable” for the researchers to evaluate each of ChatGPT outputs — the team says they used the AI system to categorize nearly 20,000 tasks.If we can assume the AI made mistakes (according to both the TBI research and ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s website, the models are prone to error), then we can also assume that the research contains faulty information and that peer review would be intractable as well.<figure><img src="https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2024-07/5deebad2-b041-452a-8a8d-134bd3742efb.jpg" alt="Tony Blair Institute says AI is good for UK because ChatGPT said so" title=""><figcaption>A message on the ChatGPT prompt page indicating that the AI “can make mistakes” and advising users to “check important info.” Source: OpenAI</figcaption></figure><h2 id="automation-isn-t-easy">Automation isn’t easy</h2>So, what’s the real number? Technically speaking, it wouldn’t be possible for ChatGPT to understand the nuances of automation on a task-by-task basis because the necessary data is almost completely unlikely to be in its data set due to the intractability of creating it by hand.&nbsp;When it comes to solving novel problems that an AI system hasn’t been trained on, generative systems <a href="https://observer.com/2024/02/metas-a-i-chief-yann-lecun-explains-why-a-house-cat-is-smarter-than-the-best-a-i/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">tend</a> to fail.&nbsp;For example, automatic coffee makers have existed for decades, but general automation — teaching an AI system to make coffee anywhere, in any room — is <a href="https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/superhuman-agi-is-not-nigh" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">considered</a> an outstanding problem in the fields of artificial intelligence and robotics.Simply put, automation is difficult and requires a nuanced approach to each individual task.Back in 2017, for example, as the generative AI frenzy began picking up steam, it was assumed that autonomous driving would be solved within a matter of years. Elon Musk even famously <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/promises-broken-musk-offers-new-pledges-self-driving/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">predicted</a> that Tesla would operate one million robotaxis by the year 2020.But, as of July 2024, the vast majority of automakers, startups and Big Tech outlets that were working on self-driving cars as of 2021 have <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/business/ford-argo-ai-vw-shut-down/index.html#:~:text=Ford%20and%20Volkswagen%2C%20two%20of%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20largest,to%20develop%20self-driving%20cars%2C%20the%20startup%20Argo%20AI." rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">shut down</a> their respective programs. It turns out that 99% of driving is able to be automated, but so far, no engineering team has figured out how to safely automate the edge cases that make up that last 1%.&nbsp;While it’s easy to imagine any simple task being automated, context is important. ChatGPT may be capable of outputting text indicating that any job can be automated if you throw enough money at the problem, but the reality has so far <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/16/24179679/mcdonalds-ending-ai-chatbot-drive-thru-ordering-test-ibm" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">proved</a>&nbsp;to be&nbsp;antithetical to these claims.Related: <a href="https://cointelegraph.com/news/intuit-lays-off-10-focus-on-ai-artificial-intelligence" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Intuit lays off 10% of staff to focus on AI</a>

Tony Blair Institute says AI is good for UK because ChatGPT said so

Table of Contents

Cointelegraph

Other articles published on Jul 11, 2024

Best Meme Coin Airdrops This Month : Don't Miss Out!

Binance Sheds Over 60% Stake from Gopax as South Korea Navigates New Crypto Laws

Bitcoin's (BTC) Scary Drop Might Be 'Weeks Away,' This Signal Says

The dYdX Foundation’s 2024 Semi-Annual Ecosystem Report Highlights Incredible Progress & Communit...

Best Performing New Crypto Projects for July 2024

How GoMining is revolutionizing Bitcoin mining through NFTs

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!