It’s too expensive to replace human workers with AI—for now, says MIT study

An artificially intelligent robot may not steal your job as soon as you think.

That’s because it may be too expensive for companies to replace human workers with AI, according to a January study from MIT CSAIL, MIT Sloan, The Productivity Institute and IBM’s Institute for Business Value.

“Our study on automation with AI computer vision systems does deliver some encouraging news about job replacement, showing that many tasks wouldn’t be economically attractive to automate for years or even decades,” Neil Thompson, principal investigator at MIT CSAIL and the Initiative on the Digital Economy, tells CNBC Make It.

Continued at link

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/02/mit-study-using-ai-to-replace-humans-may-be-too-expensive.html

Comment! It's anonymous!

6 replies (most recent on top)

@dga+1qSoibVb. Perhaps workers in India are cheaper than AI. Though I might disagree. If you measure the cost of offshored workers. For me, I would rather get my answers from "fargo" than try to interpret the bird language from an offshored customer service agent.
There are different types of AI -- with AI robotics being the most expensive.

@mav+1qSoibVb - People sometimes prefer technology once they get used to it. I used to make a lot of deposits in-person at the branch. Once I started using the mobile app for deposits, I couldn't imagine driving to the branch to make a deposit with a live teller.

Banking doesn't need robots. I wonder how many customer assistance people "fargo" is taking away. A large part of this AI craze will be getting customers to accept the new computer-to-human interface.
For example, using this bakery example, rather than have a complex robot manipulate an oven -- you redesign the oven to be programmed and accept ingredients from bins.

Workers in India are less expensive than AI and as loyal as AI.

Are any WF jobs in the "many" category they are describing? Not that it matters much in the short term. So long as Indians are cheaper...

"...many tasks wouldn’t be economically attractive to automate for years or even decades."

That could be good timing for Wells Fargo shareholders. At the current pace, that's about the same timeframe for the bank to get out from under the Consent Order.

Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

It’s too expensive to replace human workers with AI—for now, says MIT study

6 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply