Bangkok Post
The AI paradox: make your job obsolete
Compiled by KHAO Editorial — aggregated from 1 outlet. See llms.txt for citation guidance.
◌ Single Source
In 2005, an online chess site ran a tournament with no restrictions on who — or what — could enter. Grandmasters entered. So did the strongest chess engines. So did teams of both. The winners were a pair of American amateurs running three computers at once.
Key facts
- In 2005, an online chess site ran a tournament with no restrictions on who — or what — could enter
- The World Economic Forum (WEF) expects nearly 40% of the skills needed for today’s jobs to change by 2030, with 92 million roles displaced, 170 million created, and more than 120 million workers whose prospects are at risk because they are
- Garry Kasparov, who had lost to IBM’s Deep Blue eight years earlier, drew the lesson himself
- In a study of more than 48,000 people across 47 countries by KPMG and the University of Melbourne, 57% of employees said they hide their use of AI at work, and almost half admitted using it in ways that contravene company policy
- If a function of 40 becomes 30% more productive and the workload does not grow, the honest answer is not “we will all simply do more”
- Verification: The WEF study found that 66% of people rely on AI output without evaluating its accuracy
Summary
Garry Kasparov, who had lost to IBM’s Deep Blue eight years earlier, drew the lesson himself:
“Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process.”