You are the OP, you literally removed someone's tweet from it's original context (or reposted without fact checking) and presented it here with an entirely different, false context. The fact that it's being misinterpreted is 100% on you for presenting it inaccurately, not the guy who's words you misrepresented.
I actually upvoted this before deciding to fact check which took me no more than ten seconds.
Oh yeah absolutely, but I also think the goal of the AI companies is not to actually create a functioning AI that could "do a job 20% as good as a human, but 90% cheaper", but to sell fancy software, whether it works or not, and leave the smaller companies holding the bag after they lay off their workforce.
Right? It actually makes me feel insane that the topic of "humans working less" is never in the selling points of these products.
Honestly I suspect that rather than some nefarious capitalist plot to enslave humanity, it is just more evidence that the software can't actually do what the people selling it to big corporations claim it can do.
This bit at the end, wow:
Gartner still expects that by 2028 about 15 percent of daily work decisions will be made autonomously by AI agents, up from 0 percent last year.
Agentic AI is wrong 70% of the time, but even assuming a human employee is barely correct most of the time and wrong 49% of the time, is it really still more efficient to replace them?
Very nice (and sad)
I like where your head's at, but Mastodon's system of verification seems much easier to me and doesn't rely on a third party.
Also this is not a news article, it's an opinion essay. It's perfectly reasonable to read this at any time.
I think quote posts are undesirable for the reasons you mentioned but I have to accept that it will be huge for adoption, and the flip side (promoting others work in a positive light) is also going to be really great.