This conversation has drifted slightly off-topic. It was originally about the efficiency of producing good quality outputs akin to products or services with generative AI.
I work in an industry adjacent to generative AI, so my views are very specific, and kind of beside the point. But I think the broader public does think what you describe. Much (and probably most) of AI-generated content that ends up on the internet is very barely changed by a human.
I am not saying gen AI is not useful, but that it's not efficient in the process of making high quality content. It's simply not steerable enough in practice. In creative industries, people are going pretty wild about how much work AI can replace, but all I've seen is mediocrity and failure when it is involved. Or frustration, as you say, that what it outputs is very difficult to turn into a high-quality product.
I agree. The state of the art of gen AI systems is well below a typical human expert in every domain. Here human expert is well below the bar of 'world class', more like 'some one with 2-5 years of professional experience in that area.' So, if you have access to someone like that, it's a no-brainer to use their work instead of gen AI system.
The interesting use case which has emerged is that there are a lot of times where it would be really helpful to me to have a short conversation with an expert on a topic adjacent to my own expertise. And it turns out that for those conversations, talking to ChatGPT is much better than talking to no one; it can help me with the kind of things someone would learn in the first few months on the job in that area, things a little too hard to google but where a human expert is not readily available.
I think this is the best, maybe the only, professional use case for GenAI right now -- advice and limited assistance in areas just outside your area of expertise, such that you don't need to depend directly on its output and can easily check/integrate the work.
I work in an industry adjacent to generative AI, so my views are very specific, and kind of beside the point. But I think the broader public does think what you describe. Much (and probably most) of AI-generated content that ends up on the internet is very barely changed by a human.
I am not saying gen AI is not useful, but that it's not efficient in the process of making high quality content. It's simply not steerable enough in practice. In creative industries, people are going pretty wild about how much work AI can replace, but all I've seen is mediocrity and failure when it is involved. Or frustration, as you say, that what it outputs is very difficult to turn into a high-quality product.