Pluralistic: “…There are many “professions” bound to codes of conduct, policed to a greater or lesser extent by “colleges” or other professional associations, many of which have the power to bar a member from the profession for “professional misconduct.” Think of lawyers, accountants, medical professionals, librarians, teachers, some engineers, etc. While all of these fields are very different in terms of the work they do, they share one important trait: they are all fields that AI bros swear will be replaced by chatbots in the near future. I find this an interesting phenomenon. It’s clear to me that chatbots can’t do these jobs. Sure, there are instances in which professionals may choose to make use of some AI tools, and I’m happy to stipulate that when a skilled professional chooses to use AI as an adjunct to their work, it might go well. This is in keeping with my theory that to the extent that AI is useful, it’s when its user is a centaur (a person assisted by technology), but that employers dream of making AI’s users into reverse centaurs (machines who are assisted by people)…”

See also The Register “…Analyst firm Forrester’s vice president and principal analyst J. P. Gownder remains unconvinced that AI will revolutionize productivity….That might all change in the future if AI agents improve, but Gownder cannot find evidence that today’s AI boosts productivity. “[Nobel Prize winning economist] Robert Solow said that by 1987 the effects of the PC revolution can be seen everywhere, except in the productivity statistics. That holds true today as well,” Gownder said. “Productivity just has not soared.” The absence of a tech:productivity link is known as the Solow Paradox and is often cited when economists consider IT spending. “The truth of the matter is that with the exception of 2001 to 2007 when productivity was 2.8 percent growth per year, we actually never did see the PC revolution, to the extent that you might imagine,” Gownder said. Forrester’s most recent AI job replacement research estimates that the technology could uproot 6 percent of jobs by 2030, or about 10.4 million, through robotic process automation, business process automation, physical robotics and generative AI. Gownder believes jobs that AI takes won’t come back, as typically with job losses after economic rebounds. “These jobs are lost structurally, like they’re gone for good, because they’ve been replaced. That’s not an insignificant hit to the economy,” he said. To determine the jobs that are at greatest risk of being erased by AI, Gownder and his colleagues considered the roughly 800 job types and 34 skills defined by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, spoke with 200 companies, and developed a method similar to the one used by University of Oxford scholars Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne in their 2013 study that measured how susceptible jobs are to computerization…”