While I agree with some of these observations - the research cited in the article really do not match the claims at all from what I can tell. > An NBER study o

While I agree with some of these observations - the research cited in the article really do not match the claims at all from what I can tell. > An NBER study of support agents [2] found generative AI boosted novice productivity by about a third while barely helping experts. Harvard Business School researchers found the same pattern in consulting work [3]. The first work cited was a research study on GPT-3(!) from 2020. Which is a barely coherent model relative to today's SOTA. The second HBS research study literally finds the opposite of what's claimed: > we observed performance enhancements in the experimental task for both groups when leveraging GPT-4. Note that the top-half-skill performers also received a significant boost, although not as much as the bottom-half-skill performers. Where bottom-half skilled participants with AI outperformed top-half skilled participants without AI. (And top-half skilled participants gained another 11% improvement when pared with AI). Again, GPT-4 model intelligence (3 years ago) is a far cry from frontier models today.