Machinery/technology has improved tremendously over the past century. Firms have increasingly adopted physical capital, particularly in certain sectors which require mass production of homogenous or near-identical goods. From initial glance you would look at the efficacy of these capital as they can lower costs for firms, meaning more profits for them, and potentially more inexpensive commodities for us. But if you take a step backwards, this came at the expense of those workers who were performing repetitive tasks and became replaced with more efficient equipment. Most do not see this as an issue since such jobs were perceived to be of a low-skilled nature and mundane, so this barely flinched younger generations whose jobs are thought of to be of more skilled and/or secure.

As time progressed AI has gradually become commensurate with higher-skilled jobs as we move towards a more technologically-oriented society. Take into account, for instance, less ‘rigid’ jobs which entail a degree of creativity or freedom, such as artists and writers. There are an increasing number of programs, like the increasingly trending Chat-GPT, which can generate similar and good work, be it an intricate article or visually appealing artworks. Although this is a relatively new phenomenon, in the sense that this hasn’t been standardised in most businesses domestically, such jobs could be easily at risk in a few years’ time if entrepreneurs opt for such programs. The likelihood is that AI won’t regress i.e., it will only keep enhancing, with its quality and output following suit. The degree to which occupations become insecure depends evidently on the degree of technology advancement and how responsive firms would be in adopting such new changes, but given Malta’s lagging when it comes to technological dimensions and novel procedures, such consequences are likely to take longer in materialising.

On the flip side, AI can lead to job creation particularly since it’s a growing ‘sector’, which is a viable argument if it is capable of offsetting the occupations that are made redundant. For example, UOM which is one of the main hubs in Malta which focuses on R&D projects can introduce more AI-oriented jobs which students could have the opportunity to work in. That said, this upside is discarding certain elements. Firstly, there may be people who have insufficient skills/education level to adapt to these new jobs, or realistically are outright lazy and do not have the willingness to change. Secondly, even if individuals are able to match such requirements (converging towards a more knowledge-oriented economy in which jobs could heavily center around data analysis or similar tasks) and earn potentially higher wages, this might come at the expense of doing an extremely mundane or undesirable job from the individual’s perspective. So realistically has their wellbeing improved?

Alternatively, a common ground can be reached, like most instances, where employees are paired with AI programs. A professor unravels how AI would impact society on a larger scale. From an optimist’s perspective it will be utilised when making decisions, but from a more pessimistic viewpoint, AI machines see their knowledge/optimisation increased and make most, if not all, our decisions on our behalf. Realistically we can observe both sides happening at the moment. Students are now increasingly utilising AI programs in aiding them in their studies, be it for seemingly irrelevant small tasks or for huge sections of an assignment/project.

Some argue that softwares like Chat-GTP are not sufficiently robust enough to tackle certain projects, notably those requiring exigent analysis/thinking. Although that could be true, people need to bear in mind: (i) the number of students using the program and (ii) the extent to which they are using it and (iii) the dynamic aspect to it when it draws from people’s knowledge. As the frequency of people using it rises, affixed with more intense usage, it would likely result in enhancement from the knowledge it acquires, rendering it capable of tackling more difficult issues.

I can definitely understand the former point as such tools can help students clear away from tedious tasks, prioritise life and be more productive. However, abusing from such a system could likely abstain students from the critical thinking aspect that university is meant to supplement students with. So, although AI can have positive impacts for society potentially yielding larger welfare, one should also take a holistic approach to not exclude the ‘costs’ that can materialise from it. Would companies still employ individuals if their skills can be substituted through ultra-modern technology?

The post AI, Work and Jobs appeared first on The Third Eye.

With several claims being made about this software and how robots will inevitably take over the world, we decided to sit down with Chat GPT and see for ourselves what this software is capable of.

We started off strong, with the first question targeting the worry lecturers have with regards to this software.

Q: Many lecturers at the University of Malta are worried that students will use Chat GPT to write their assignments. To what extent can Chat GPT write credible and factual university-level assignments? 

A: As an AI language model, Chat GPT is capable of generating text that can be credible and factual. However, it’s important to note that Chat GPT is not a substitute for the critical thinking, analysis, and research skills that are required for university-level assignments. 

While Chat GPT can help students generate ideas and suggest possible phrasings, it cannot replace the independent thinking, research, and writing skills that are essential for academic success. In addition, it’s important for universities to educate their students on the responsible use of technology and to develop policies and guidelines to prevent academic dishonesty. 

While that answer will not be enough to put lecturer’s mind at ease, it shows that Chat GPT is not as capable of writing university-level assignments as much as it is thought.

Furthermore, in a world that is constantly being digitalised, with technological inventions happening regularly, we are at a point were we need to co-exist with technology. Which brings us to our next question: Should university lecturers embrace AI tools?

A: Yes, university lecturers can benefit from embracing AI tools in various ways. For example: 

• Automating administrative tasks: AI tools can help automate routine administrative tasks, such as grading and providing feedback on assignments, freeing up more time for lecturers to focus on teaching and research. 

• Personalising learning: AI tools can help lecturers personalise the learning experience for their students, such as by tailoring content and resources to individual learning styles and needs. 

• Improving research: AI tools can be used to improve research, such as by automating data analysis and text mining, or by helping to identify patterns and trends in large datasets. 

• Enhancing teaching: AI tools can help lecturers enhance their teaching, such as by generating content, suggesting discussion topics, and providing insights into student performance and learning outcomes. 

• Staying up-to-date: AI tools can help lecturers stay up-to-date with the latest research and teaching trends, such as by providing recommendations for new materials and resources. 

Such an answer shows that Chat GPT is not simply an AI tool that is going to do students’ work for them, but can also be of help to lecturers. Many might have been too focused on the negative aspect of Chat GPT, without realising that having this software at hand can help in the day-to-day tasks lecturers perform.

Lastly, we asked the question every one has been dying to know: There have been several claims that AI and robots will one day take over earth. To what degree is that statement true?

A: The idea that AI and robots will one day take over Earth is a popular science fiction trope, but it is not a likely scenario in the real world. While it is true that AI and robots are becoming increasingly capable and ubiquitous, there are several reasons why it is unlikely that they will take over Earth: 

• Limited capabilities: AI and robots are designed to perform specific tasks and are limited in their abilities outside of those tasks. They are not capable of independent thought or action beyond their programmed functions. 

• Lack of motivation: AI and robots do not have the desire or motivation to take over the world. They are programmed to perform tasks for specific purposes and do not have inherent goals or objectives beyond those tasks. 

While it is important to consider the potential risks and benefits of AI and robotics, the idea that they will take over Earth is not a realistic scenario. Rather, we should focus on developing and using AI and robots in ways that are safe, responsible, and beneficial to society. 

Our interview with Chat GPT can offer insight into what this software is capable of and to what extend. While it is a new invention and people are still sceptical about this tool, we have reached a point where inventions similar to Chat GPT, and possibly even better (or worse, depending on your point of view), will be created.

What new invention will pop up soon? I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

The post Inside the Mind of Chat GPT: An Exclusive Interview with the AI Software Lecturers are Fearing appeared first on The Third Eye.