This video has 20 different people test AI to see if it could do their job.
For example, the doctor agreed that the AI did a nice job of diagnosing questions a person had. Can it do their job? No, but can it do a great job as the receptionist? Yes. Imagine you contact the doctor, tell the AI your symptoms and it could immediately help diagnose the symptoms and perhaps make the doctors job easier and quicker.
Second, imagine you are online, contact this AI, tell it your symptoms, it makes its diagnosis and then refers you to a doctor on the same site who asks further questions. By doing that you will train the AI to work better. Very often you go to the doctor with the symptoms and they refer you to others to get certain tests done. AI could easily get to that level.
People are looking at this wrong. Can AI replace the doctor? No. But if you have a doctor's office with 8 doctors and a few technicians and two receptionists could you handle 25% more patients with AI? I think the answer is yes. 12 people can do the job of 16. Think of the tools that a construction worker uses, they allow 12 men to do the work of 20, it is the same with AI.
Likewise with the lawyer. All of the issues that the lawyer saw were things that could easily be taught to AI.
The bartender thought that AI couldn't take her job because it didn't ask enough questions in designing a new drink. That would be simple fix, anyone designing a "bartender AI" could easily put that into the system. So if a person knows what they want, or if they can tell you what they want the AI would definitely be able to make it.
Likewise with the chef.
Much of these people saying "AI can't replace them yet" are looking at this wrong. How many people cooking at the vast majority of chain restaurants are designing new recipes? If you have a set menu AI can definitely replace you.
Consider the translator asking AI to translate a passage into Korean. She found many errors. However, I remember translation in the 80s and this has made tremendous improvement. She didn't say that it was incomprehensible, only that there are stylistic errors. Also, if you required all translators to use this AI and then correct the mistakes the AI would learn very quickly and would soon be much better. Also, even with the mistakes would the AI save the translator time?
In almost all cases the person said this would be acceptable as a first draft, or as a brainstorming exercise, etc. Once again, if the AI can save you 25% of your time it is the same as replacing 25% of people doing the job.
The personal trainer is the best example of how easy it would be to replace her. She gave it a prompt for a training regimen and she said it did a good job, but would the person know how to do these exercises properly? Well, just have the AI include youtube videos on each exercise. She also said what is the time frame for each exercise, again that could easily be seen on these youtube videos. So instead of spending an hour to get a training session with a trainer I could go online have the AI do the same thing only I will also have everything saved for me so I can see it over and over again any time I need refreshing.
For example, I go to a gym, people rarely make use of trainers. Some do, but most don't. But if you had this simple system you could access on their website, I think most if not all members would use it at some point or other.
In 19/20 cases the people admitted that AI could do part of their job well. in only one case, a firefighter, did they say that AI couldn't do their job and I completely disagree with him. Robots could be much better than firefighters, you don't worry about the smoke or the heat getting to them, they can find and identify people better using heat sensitive sensors, etc. and they could be designed to pull people out, give them air, and cover them with a thermal blanket depending on the situation. We have robots that are designed like people and can walk up stairs, have arms and hands to pick stuff up, etc.
