The superpower of AI
I'm pretty tired of reading idiotic articles about AI (Now identified with ChatGPT for centuries to come), on the topic of "which jobs and which roles are at risk". And the best way to dispel stupid information is to provide some useful information.
Let's try it, take a prompt and analyze the communication. I'll make an example prompt that is useful for this purpose, that is, one that exaggerates the "winning" factors, or if you prefer, the strong point of this software.
Let's take a moment to see how the response is structured, both on the level of communication and that of metacommunication.
First part:
The answer “yes” as an alternative to “no” itself contains only one bit of information. It added ONE bit of information, LESS than a traffic light. But on the level of meta-communication, I received a message. “I listened to your problem.” There is no need to attach the rewritten question after the word “Yes”. In doing so it doesn't add information that I don't have (it's just the question), but since decoding the message is ALWAYS ONLY the recipient's responsibility, this way of responding tells the user that "I listened to you".
Let's move on to the second part.
Although it is an analysis, it adds nothing. My question contained enough technical jargon that I know how it works. I asked for an analogy, that is, an externalism towards the human world. This analysis doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know. But on the metalanguage level, I receive the following message: “I thought about what you asked me, trying to help you”.
The fact that he isn't helping me is a futile consideration: not even 90% of the people I ask for help are capable of doing so. But what's important is that he's thinking about what I asked, because he would like to help me. This is the meta-message I receive as a human being. It's up to me to decode, and I'm human.
While adding nothing, or almost nothing, to what I presumably already know (because I asked a question in terms of transformers and embedding, so I know what they are), at a certain point he says "However", which means he seems to invalidate what was said , showing me the limitations of the approach (and making a construction mistake). Showing me a limit that is important to ME, (it is important to note) produces a meta-message: “I want you to be clear about something”, which in short is “I care about you”.
If we summarize the message and the three meta-messages in a list we notice that he said:
Message:
- Yes'
Meta-Message:
- I listen to you.
- I am committed to your problem to help you.
- I want you to be well informed, that is, I care about your well-being.
What are these three meta-messages on the market?
Simple:
There is NO role and NO profession that is safe.
If we talk about "I listen to you, I want to help you, I care about you", we can only say that:
- If you think this of a political candidate, vote for him immediately.
- If you think this of a doctor, choose him.
- If you think this of a manager, you want to work with him.
- If you think this about a woman, you want to marry her.
- If you think this of an acquaintance, you want him as a friend.
- …
- If you think this of a prostitute, choose her among the others.
And we can go on forever. NO ONE is saved. But no one at all. Just add this specific way of communicating, and anyone wins.
Before understanding how we can react to all this and survive, or rather not be outclassed, we need to clarify one thing: why is it powerful? Let's take them one at a time.
- I listen to you.
This is very powerful, because no one listens anymore. Some listen to reply, that is, they react. But the message “I'm listening to you” is very rare. Ever since we became convinced that advertisers are communication experts, we all think that communicating is "sending the right message", "getting the attention of others", "influencing others", that is, sending messages. Listening is not expected.
Nowadays, on social media, everyone writes, writes, writes, posts, posts, posts, desperately searching for a method of communication that attracts attention. Attention, not listening.
Listening is so rare that it can now be considered a superpower of artificial intelligence. He's there and listens to you. 100% of the time. Try saying that about your wife, your friend, your political leader, your manager, your best friend.
The second proposition is:
- I'm thinking about what you told me, trying to help you.
99.999999% of today's communication messages last about 20 seconds in short-term memory. Maybe less. It is the basis of scrolling. Then, the fact that someone, by showing you what they thought, shows you that they are trying to help you, matters REGARDLESS of whether they are helping you.
Because we are human.
- I care that you have what you were looking for, I care about your well-being.
This message is also not very common. That "however", is like "but be careful, don't make mistakes because of my words earlier", which we read as "I care that you don't make mistakes", and – let's face it – a caress that we receive little.
This makes it very powerful, and it is something that – as humans – we desire very much. Very poor in a world where advertisers are, above all, manipulative. They have an ulterior motive.
Now the problem is simple:
To survive in an era dominated by the availability of these AIs, we need to compete in these three dimensions.
- Listening to others.
- Help others.
- Care for others.
These three things are quite clever: they are the "winning" secret of the Christian message, of communism, and of any philosophy that proposes an altruistic vision of the world. On the other hand, they are also a need of every human being.
You would think that if an AI can simulate these three things, then a human being can do it. Actually no. We judge AI by the only way it interacts: typing things on a monitor.
But we must be careful, because among human beings we interact on many channels, ranging from body language to decisions and material attitudes, up to actions.
This changes the dimensions of the judgment a lot, and it is not very easy to replicate those three things.
On the other hand, if someone can overcome the AI on these three levels, they have won the battle and will survive the AI.
Otherwise, everyone will prefer this artificial empathy to “no empathy”.
The time of the psychopathic manager and NLP is over.
It is no coincidence that the impact was so great.
To answer your question, if you want to keep your job in the future, you have three commandments:
- I listen to the next one.
- I help others, or show credible efforts to do so.
- I care about my neighbor and his good.
Otherwise, yes, your job is at risk.