> With half of my consulting projects over the last year-plus having some
> flavor of AI to them, it's worth adding a few things on this topic.

Interesting! It sounds like you may also work in the tech/IT sector? Yeah, lately on new technology projects "...oh, and make sure it has AI!" has been tacked on to the requirements list, but with the persons added it having no clear understanding of what AI is or what they actually want to do with it. It's just a buzzword, and they want to have it. They also seem to think it will somehow work magic and replace people completely. Which it won't. At this stage, AI is more of a useful tool to assist humans then to actually replace them. I use it to expedite crafting PowerShell commands/scripts, lookup syntax, or, uh, to help me help my daughter with her math and science homework, lol.

Daughter: "Hey Dad, can you check my chemistry homework for me?"
Homework: A student placed 50.00 mL of a water sample into an Erlenmeyer flask. Three drops of K2CrO4(aq) were then added to the flask. The buret contained 0.080 M AgNO3(aq) as the titrant. If 15.70 mL of titrant was used to reach the end point, calculate the amount of chloride ions in mg/L found in the sample.
Me: "Uhhh, suuuuuure. Just, uh, give me a minute." *opens ChatGPT*

> 1) It was in the news this week that the CEO of the fintech Klarna said
> that he believes AI can do all the jobs humans do. This is of course
> straight nonsense. My teams have straight up recommended not having
> AI take over certain processes for a variety of reasons (cost, time,
> complexity, etc.).

Yeeaaah, I'm kinda bothered by just how enthusiastic management has been at the prospect of eliminating jobs using AI. Just what do they think is gonna happen if/when no one has a job anymore?

> 2) And even if it could, the evidence out there that AI can do these jobs
> as well as experienced professionals - or, heck, just laypeople -
> is paltry. Just look at all the recent tests about agentic AI, or recent
> reporting on how poorly AI does when you want it to do your grocery
> shopping for you.

> Having said that, while many AI use cases in entertainment are worrisome,
> the kerfuffle about its use to make more authentic accents in The
> Brutalist seems a tad silly. It's not like this was stealing jobs,
> though it does raise reasonable questions about performance authenticity.

Yeah, that goes back to my prior point about it being a good tool that has valid use cases that don't involve simply replacing the humans.

> AI composers are definitely coming though, and I would absolutely expect
> Bleeding Fingers to experiment with having AI fill in on the lower-profile
> work they take on, if they haven't done so already. Hans has never been
> gun-shy about experimenting with new tech anyway.

Hmm, you bring up a fine point in the possibility that some of these production line-style composing conglomerates may possibly already be using AI and just not publicly copping to it yet.

> I do wonder if awards entities will start making rules on the percentage
> of a score's runtime that was made via AI assistance, similar to the
> current Academy rules on the use of preexisting themes.

I kinda hope so. I'm actually generally a pretty tech-positive person who enjoys the new capabilities new tech often brings, and AI definitely has already shown it has useful applications, but I'm also concerned about the overzealous pursuit of AI to replace human creativity.

As an aside, one use-case for AI that I'm actually hoping to eventually see would be in AI generated dialogue in video games that would allow for NPCs to address the player character with a player chosen proper name rather than a nickname like "Rookie" or "Hero of Whateversville", and to allow for more interactive NPC conversations.