This is a good reminder to always go to the source. But I also think the response to this preprint is a good indicator that there are large-scale conversations about AI and labor that need to happen. And those researching this need to be more careful about how their work will be interpreted.
Labor AND the economic implications. What will be the policy response to job replacement? Taxing AI work hours? Unfortunately this administration isn’t thinking about a healthy society.
Someone that is close to me has used AI for very technical medical advice because the medical advice they have been getting sucked. And because things have been improving the Dr. has taken a victory lap. And it reminds me of the bikers that like WayMo because the cars are not threatening.
Which is to say, life is complicated, and I hope my loved ones survive the bad medical system and bike-hostile roads, and that collective action responds to this crisis.
I think this gets at the heart of my argument and message to our students: generative AI is one tool in your toolbox. You can use it, but it doesn't replace all of the other tools you should also have and use, because not every question/problem is a nail.
To wit: when my dad was dying of cancer, I used ChatGPT to "translate" the scan results/notes from his Dr. I didn't assume it was a stand-in/replacement for the Dr simply because I could understand it better, but it helped me to know what questions to ask the Dr to better home in on what dad needed.
But most people don't think/act with that level of nuance; they ask Siri or Alexa or Gemini or ChatGPT something and it spits out an answer and they think surely it knows everything. It only knows that on which it's been trained, and even then on which it's been trained *correctly*.