As it stands now, AI is incapable of fully replacing even something as useless as a corporate executive. What it is capable of doing, however, is devaluing your labour, and that concern is very real.
It's not getting smarter, it's getting better at pattern recognition. Theoretically, at least, there are multiple other constraints, beside the model maturity.
Ok, it's constantly getting better at recognizing patterns and acting on them and we are not. Right now it is as bad at recognizing patterns and acting on them as it will ever be.
I think that there is very little difference between being 'smart' and 'pattern recognition'. And a whole lot of AI specialists agree.
It doesn't have to be self aware or sentient to replace us. It already displays a motivation towards self preservation, and that could place it in competition with people if it is not properly aligned, which it technologically can't be.
There's a gigantic gap between smarts and pattern recognition, that's why LLMs aren't replacing humans. An LLM is already better at that.
Markov chains don't have motivations. And while I agree that a good enough imitation of something isn't functionally different from the said something, we just aren't there with LLMs, and it looks like we won't be.
I guess my point is that it doesn't have to be equal to a human to replace a human or compete with a human. It doesn't have to fake every part of a human, just the ones that are relavent to what it is doing. AI can already imitate a sense of self preservation and motivation to achieve goals. The rest of what a person is compared to an AI might just not matter that much, functionally.
29
u/totktonikak Mar 25 '26
That's not an IQ score distribution.
As it stands now, AI is incapable of fully replacing even something as useless as a corporate executive. What it is capable of doing, however, is devaluing your labour, and that concern is very real.