Read the piece on createsend.com ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsThere is no scientific basis for assigning a number like 10% to the probability that AI will wipe out the human species. At the bottom of this email, I say a bit more about why extinction risk is ridiculous.
Their wordsThere need to be safeguards and limitations placed on this technology. But when we start talking about AI like it is some kind of magic voodoo that might suddenly become alive and destroy the entire human race, those real problems get lost.
Our reading
Lost professional jobs reflect companies' uncertainty about AI more than AI replacing people.
Their wordsMany people in the AI world will tell you the answer is obvious. AI is replacing all these people. Except there is very little evidence for that. Economists are looking, but cannot find real evidence (there's some 'speculative' evidence but nothing concrete yet). Instead, what I see when talking to executives and professionals every day is uncertainty.
Their wordsWe should not solely depend on the people running or working in AI companies to tell us what AI is going to do to the world. They are hopelessly conflicted. They are raising money. They are selling products. They are competing with each other.
Our reading
AI is not the cause of college graduates' trouble finding jobs; underemployment predates it.
Their wordsHere's what you may not know. 40% of students graduate into jobs that they could have gotten in high school. And that has been true for decades now. It pre-dates AI. AI fearmongering and uncertainty may be making it worse, but it's not the cause.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.