There’s a lot of magical thinking about how AI will actually help the labor market, but it seems clear to me that the entire reason for the billions being pumped into AI is the potential to slash labor costs.

It’s like they’re building human wood chippers while telling us that all these human wood chippers will actually result in fewer people being fed into wood chippers.

Sure, I have no doubt that a terminated NIH scientist will have no trouble finding a “factory job” that pays two or three times as much.

What world does this guy live in?

I’m just spitballing here, but maybe you should find out what people want first, and then build that.

I’m not surprised that Hannity finds it “almost impossible to comprehend” that someone would resign to uphold their principles.

About 45 of the most confusing seconds

Very true, and a big part of the reason most people won’t want this.

It’s like the “AI pin you wear that absorbs literally everything you see and hear” product that was pitched a couple of months ago. Kill it with fire!

The article keeps using the phrase “upcoming XR revolution” but I don’t see this gaining much traction outside purpose-built implementations for specific jobs, and a subset of tech enthusiasts.

Think I like this even better than OP’s

OMG yes… I wrote a macro that copies thousands of rows and then closes a file and I had to add a step to copy just one cell before closing to work around this stupid message.