Is it me or ChatGPT? As AI grows smarter, I have a down-to-earth worry: my job.
Is it me or ChatGPT? As AI grows smarter, I have a down-to-earth worry: my job. | Opinion As someone who makes my living with words and enjoys using them, I find AI's uninvited intrusions into my day not just annoying, but alarming.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
How to use AI rewriting tools
Artificial Intelligence can instantly proofread your writing and make suggestions to tweak the tone of a message, paper or presentation.
Problem Solved
Many have commented lately about the supersonic rise of artificial intelligence and what it means for our future – and our very existence.
The questions that AI poses for our society, economy and democracy are valid and challenging.
But I have a more down-to-earth worry: How much longer will I have a job as a writer, which I feel lucky to hold as my vocation?
AI seemed to happen gradually, then suddenly (to quote Ernest Hemingway, one of my favorite human authors).
In recent months, I've noticed that no matter what I'm doing online – writing a column in Google Docs, an email in Outlook, a note to a friend on Instagram − an AI bot will pop in to ask if I would like 'help' crafting my message.
As someone who makes my living with words and enjoys using them, I find AI's uninvited intrusions into my day not just annoying, but alarming.
I'll admit, as an opinion columnist, I had thought that my skills were safe from robot replacement – at least in my lifetime. Aren't reason and persuasion uniquely human abilities? What does it mean if they aren't?
Opinion: Dems are mad about Biden book. Jake Tapper must be a deep undercover MAGA agent.
Hot takes from an artificial 'mind'? No thanks.
Lest you think I'm overreacting, real-world newspapers in the United States already are turning to AI to craft news and opinion for their readers.
For instance, the Los Angeles Times has started offering online readers the option to read AI-generated counterpoints to the opinion columns it runs. The 'Insights' feature judges the piece's point of view and then spits out an opposing argument.
That was the brainchild of Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who wants the opinion pages to reflect a broader range of views.
'If you just have the one side, it's just going to be an echo chamber,' Soon-Shiong told Fox News about the project, saying he thinks it's important "that all voices be heard.'
Now, as a conservative writer in a liberal media world, I respect Soon-Shiong's quest for balance. And I appreciate that my newspaper has crafted an opinion team with many different points of view – something that wasn't always the case.
But robots? Is that where we want other perspectives to come from?
Opinion: NPR has a right to exist. That doesn't mean it has a right to my tax dollars.
The Times, as you might expect, has already run into some awkward AI offerings. It isn't alone, though.
This month, several newspapers, including the Chicago Sun-Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, ran a syndicated summer book list that included books ... that don't exist.
Only five of the 15 recommended books were real, although I'll acknowledge that some of the made-up titles sounded interesting.
The writer who 'created' the list has admitted to using AI, and has since been fired.
The idea of news and commentary coming from a bot is unsettling, and not just because of my job security. Plenty of Americans feel the same way. New research from the Poynter Institute and the University of Minnesota found nearly half of those surveyed don't want news from generative artificial intelligence. And 20% said the media shouldn't use AI at all.
I decided to take AI for a test drive. What do you think of the result?
Given my fear of being replaced by a robot, I've stayed away from sites like ChatGPT, although I've received many examples from friends and family of what it can do.
But I decided to give it a simple prompt: "Write a column in the style of Ingrid Jacques of USA TODAY."
Opinion: Not funny, John Oliver – Standing for religious liberty doesn't equate to 'hate.'
In mere seconds, it 'wrote' a 675-word column, complete with a headline and byline. I'll share the first few lines of what popped up:
The Uncomfortable Truth About Wokeism
By Ingrid Jacques
The American cultural landscape is being shaped by a force so pervasive, so influential, that it seems to touch every corner of our lives. I'm not talking about the rise of artificial intelligence, nor the latest social media craze. No, I'm referring to the ideology of 'wokeism,' which, like a slow-moving storm, is now fully entrenched in our schools, workplaces, and public discourse.
Not bad, right? And I thought the nod to AI was apropos, given the topic of this column.
It's still creepy, though.
With the current political divisions in our country, I believe that sharing different points of view in a civil way is more important than ever, and I worry about the implications if those 'thoughts' are coming from something nonhuman.
So, while this may come as a disappointment to some of you, you're stuck with the 'real' me.
For now.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
iPad 原生 app 第二擊？Instagram 也有望年內上架
Yahoo購物節，6月2至13日正式舉行！集合全球精選著數的網上大型購物節：波鞋低至36折、手袋低至4折、自助餐半價、旅遊產品買一送一等，更有獨家優惠為您而設，把握限時兩星期優惠，1Click買盡全世界！ WhatsApp 上週正式推出了原生 iPad 版本 app，讓用戶可以在 Apple 平板電腦上繼續與親友對話，另一個同屬 Meta 旗下，而且也是至今都沒有 iPad 專用 app 的 Instagram 也似乎即將跟進了。 Bloomberg 的 Mark Gurman 在《Power On》電子報中表示，獲消息指 「Meta 員工正在積極測試 Instagram for iPad，開發工作進行得如火如荼。如果一切順利，預計今年內正式推出。」目前 IG 用戶想要在有更大片螢幕的 iPad 上查看內容，就只能強大放大畫面，與早有 iPad app 的對手 TikTok 相比，實在是落後不少。 據指 Instagram 的 iPad 原生 app 的開發一波三折，而且都不是受礙於技術原因，Gurman 認為 Meta 與 Apple 長久以來的仇怨是其中的原因，因為 Apple CEO Tim Cook 曾在 Cambridge Analytica 隱私醜聞後公開批評 Meta，同時更在 Onavo VPN 被發現有間諜軟件行為的事件後，他們就被公開驅逐出 Apple 開發者計劃。 隨著 Instagram 已經支援高解像度內容的上載和顯示，Reels 也支援橫向影片和更長的時長，IG 生態內容是愈來愈適全在大螢幕上播放，當然也需要迎擊市場上其他同類對手。 更多內容： 15 年磨一劍！Instagram 終於要有單獨 iPad app 了？ Instagram for iPad is reportedly coming soon; here's when to expect it Apple Developer Event Will Show It's Still Far From Being an AI Leader 遲到好過冇到！iPad 版 WhatsApp 終於登陸 App Store 緊貼最新科技資訊、網購優惠，追隨 Yahoo Tech 各大社交平台！ 🎉📱 Tech Facebook： 🎉📱 Tech Instagram： 🎉📱 Tech WhatsApp 社群： 🎉📱 Tech WhatsApp 頻道： 🎉📱 Tech Telegram 頻道：
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
The AI future is already here
In March, Shopify 's CEO told his managers he was implementing a new rule: Before asking for more head count, they had to prove that AI couldn't do the job as well as a human would. A few weeks later, Duolingo 's CEO announced a similar decree and went even further — saying the company would gradually phase out contractors and replace them with AI. The announcements matched what I've been hearing in my own conversations with employers: Because of AI, they are hiring less than before. When I first started reporting on ChatGPT's impact on the labor market, I thought it would take many years for AI to meaningfully reshape the job landscape. But in recent months, I've found myself wondering if the AI revolution has already arrived. To answer that question, I asked Revelio Labs, an analytics provider that aggregates huge reams of workforce data from across the internet, to see if it could tell which jobs are already being replaced by AI. Not in some hypothetical future, but right now — today. Zanele Munyikwa, an economist at Revelio Labs, started by looking at the job descriptions in online postings and identifying the listed responsibilities that AI can already perform or augment. She found that over the past three years, the share of AI-doable tasks in online job postings has declined by 19%. After further analysis, she reached a startling conclusion: The vast majority of the drop took place because companies are hiring fewer people in roles that AI can do. Next, Munyikwa segmented all the occupations into three buckets: those with a lot of AI-doable tasks (high-exposure roles), those with relatively few AI-doable tasks (low-exposure roles), and those in between. Since OpenAI released ChatGPT in 2022, she found, there has been a decline in job openings across the board. But the hiring downturn has been steeper for high-exposure roles (31%) than for low-exposure roles (25%). In short, jobs that AI can perform are disappearing from job boards faster than those that AI can't handle. Which jobs have the most exposure to AI? Those that handle a lot of tech functions: database administrators, IT specialists, information security, and data engineers. The jobs with the lowest exposure to AI, by contrast, are in-person roles like restaurant managers, foremen, and mechanics. This isn't the first analysis to show the early impact of AI on the labor market. In 2023, a group of researchers at Washington University and New York University homed in on a set of professionals who are particularly vulnerable: freelancers in writing-related occupations. After the introduction of ChatGPT, the number of jobs in those fields dropped by 2% on the freelancing platform Upwork — and monthly earnings declined by 5.2%. "In the short term," the researchers wrote, "generative AI reduces overall demand for knowledge workers of all types." At Revelio Labs, Munyikwa is careful about expanding on the implications of her own findings. It's unclear, she says, if AI in its current iteration is actually capable of doing all the white-collar work that employers think it can. It could be that CEOs at companies like Shopify and Duolingo will wake up one day and discover that hiring less for AI-exposed roles was a bad move. Will it affect the quality of the work or the creativity of employees — and, ultimately, the bottom line? The answer will determine how enduring the AI hiring standstill will prove to be in the years ahead. Some companies already appear to be doing an about-face on their AI optimism. Last year, the fintech company Klarna boasted that its investment in artificial intelligence had enabled it to put a freeze on human hiring. An AI assistant, it reported, was doing "the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents." But in recent months, Klarna has changed its tune. It has started hiring human agents again, acknowledging that its AI-driven cost-cutting push led to "lower quality." "It's so critical that you are clear to your customer that there will always be a human," CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski told Bloomberg. "Really investing in the quality of the human support is the way of the future for us." Will there be more chastened Siemiatkowskis in the months and years ahead? I'm not betting on it. All across tech, chief executives share an almost religious fervor to have fewer employees around — employees who complain and get demotivated and need breaks in all the ways AI doesn't. At the same time, the AI tools at our disposal are getting better and better every month, enabling companies to shed employees. As long as that's the case, I'm not sure white-collar occupations face an optimistic future. Even Siemiatkowski still says he expects to reduce his workforce by another 500 through attrition in the coming year. And when Klarna's technology improves enough, he predicts, he'll be able to downsize at an even faster pace. Asked when that point will come, he replied: "I think it's very likely within 12 months."
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Why Human Skills Beat Qualifications In The Age Of AI
Artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize how we work, making mundane tasks more efficient and slashing the cost of many back-office jobs. But there's a dark side associated with this efficiency and progress - the loss of those people skills that set one individual apart from another, those human qualities that engage others with your business and how you do things. These are often the essence of your business brand and the 'glue' that gets employees and customers to stick. A woman addressing staff in a private meeting Think about the pre-Internet days when we might use a paper map to navigate a car journey. After a few trips, the human brain would begin to understand where the roads were and build a mental picture of the route. With generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Gemini, that work is done for us so we lose the muscle memory of building up that picture. It's the same in the workplace - when employees are producing the same output for a task because they're all using the same tool, there is no differentiation and no reason to see your business as unique. This is why it's an important shift that more and more companies are looking at skills over traditional qualifications. According to a global survey by hiring platform Indeed, 67% of jobseekers and 51% of hiring managers believe that skills and on-the-job experience carry more weight than someone's qualifications or job titles. Skills-based hiring prioritizes these personal qualities such as communication and engagement skills over whether someone attended a certain university, for example, or they might favour someone who had acquired transferable experience volunteering while their peers were at university. Of course there will be industries where an academic qualification is essential, but our knowledge-based economy will need people who can set themselves apart with human qualities. The World Economic Forum's 2025 Future of Work report spells this out - alongside digital skills and data literacy, creative thinking, resilience, flexibility and agility are rising in importance. From a recruitment perspective, this means not setting up processes that rule people out based on non-essential criteria. In practice, this could mean removing the requirement for a degree or reducing the number of years' experience needed (and in some countries, it's unlawful to ask for these anyway). Look for ways that candidates can demonstrate qualities such as resilience and adaptability through the questions you ask or assessments you set. Why is this important? While AI can reduce the cost of doing business, this should not be the ultimate goal. Take customer support - a role that is increasingly being taken over by chatbots or other AI tools. Although these bots can handle basic questions and troubleshooting, customers with more complex issues will always value the more nuanced input and critical thinking of a human employee. Or if your business is in the creative industry and responsible for producing written communications, the team that can create something innovative and different from others is the one that will stand out in selection over one that has asked a generative AI tool to write its pitch. From a brand perspective, focusing on skills-based hiring and human qualities over algorithms could be more valuable in the long term. Of course, qualifications offer a measurement or benchmark by which we can compare people. But there are other approaches we can use in the recruitment process that can gauge if people have achieved in different ways. Perhaps they have excelled in a sport and are effective within a team, for example, or their previous experience and career trajectory in their career shows them to be a successful client advocate, even when they don't have the same level of qualification as another candidate. As with AI, we cannot rely on qualifications alone to secure the right path forward for the business - it's about the whole person, the whole 'problem' we're trying to solve for customers, and the multiple qualities that make an effective team that will deliver on targets. Ultimately, leaders need to build a business that is adaptable and resilient in a fast-changing market. Although AI tools can support employees to get up to speed quickly with some aspects of their role (it can generate drafts for those who struggle with blank page, or help people to communicate in other languages for example), they cannot replace someone who can create an engaging first impression, alternative way to solve a problem, or put themselves in someone else's shoes. As markets change, quick-thinking and empathetic humans can adapt quickly, contributing to sustainable business growth in the long term.
