A viral essay warning of the impact of AI on jobs has been met with a mix of agreement and skepticism from scientists and business leaders.
The essay, titled “Something Big is Coming,” written by Matt Schumer, co-founder and CEO of OthersideAI, has been viewed more than 60 million times on X as of Thursday.
In a 5,000-word post, Schumer said AI could upend daily life on a “much larger” scale than the coronavirus, a comparison that sparked a backlash online. He writes that the changes already occurring in the technology industry are likely a harbinger of disruption that could soon extend to other industries.
“Even if there’s a 20% chance of something like this happening, people should know about it and be given time to prepare,” Schumer said in an interview with Business Insider’s Brent Griffith.
Here’s what some of AI’s sharpest minds have to say about Schumer’s essay:
david harbor
Mr. Haber, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm specializing in technology investments, wrote in a post on X that Mr. Schumer’s essay contains “great advice for getting ahead in your job at a big company right now.”
“‘The person who used AI to do this analysis in an hour instead of three days would be the most valuable person in the room.’ Ultimately, that’s not the case. Right now,” Haber quotes from the essay. “Learn, master these tools, and demonstrate what’s possible.”
Alexis Ohanian
The Reddit founder responded to Schumer’s original post on X with a simple comment: “Great article. I strongly agree.”
While Reddit has introduced a variety of AI-powered tools since 2023, from search features that summarize user discussions to AI that powers content recommendations and targets ads, Ohanian recently emphasized that the platform needs to remain human to remain competitive.
Eric Markowitz
Mr. Markowitz, the author and managing partner and director of research at Nightview Capital, a long-term-oriented investment firm, responded to Mr. Schumer with an essay of nearly the same length, criticizing the practice of chasing speed and replacing the value of humanity simply because it is possible.
“The two worlds of Wall Street and Silicon Valley form such a tight, self-reinforcing feedback loop of short-termism that they confuse efficiency with purpose, growth with meaning, progress with exclusion,” Markowitz writes.
“I have two research assistants. Can I replace them with AI? Absolutely. But their value extends their weekly output,” Markowitz added. “They give meaning to my work. I love seeing the excitement on their faces when they make new discoveries that I wouldn’t have discovered on my own.”
“Let me say it again: We are not our instruments. We never were,” Markowitz wrote in conclusion.
tod mcleese
McCleese, founder of HumanSkills.AI, wrote in X that Schumer was not wrong, but said the advice Schumer offered was like “telling someone the flood waters are rising and handing them a better bucket.”
“As AI capabilities grow, our role in defining direction, values and purpose will become increasingly important,” McCleese said.
“What does it bring when machines can do jobs? That’s all that matters when you have a lot of intelligence,” McCleese added. “Schumer wrote an alarm, and it’s a good alarm. But an alarm doesn’t tell you where to go. You have to find it within yourself.”
gary marcus
Marcus, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at New York University and founder of the AI company Robust.AI, had harsh words for Schumer in his newsletter.
Marx called Schumer’s blog post “weaponized hype, full of graphic narratives and marketing speeches,” and said he provided no actual data to support claims that modern AI can reliably create complex apps.
After discussing various studies that question the accuracy and productivity gains that AI tools actually provide, Marcus added, “Mr. Schumer’s presentation is completely one-sided and omits many of the concerns that have been widely expressed here and elsewhere.”
Vishal Misra
Misra, associate dean of computing and artificial intelligence at Columbia University, responded in a lengthy Substack article detailing why he thinks AI isn’t as scary as it seems, at least for now.
Misra writes that many of the strange behaviors that make AI appear sentient, such as perceived resistance and self-preservation, are simply the result of training data.
Mr. Misra said that while fear is understandable about the possibility of job cuts, history shows there may be no need to panic.
“When the camera was invented, it was natural for portrait painters to panic; their livelihoods depended on techniques that machines could now approximate,” Misra wrote.
“What happened? Painters did not disappear. Freed from the obligation to faithfully reproduce reality, they took on Impressionism, Cubism and Abstract Expressionism,” Misra added. “The camera didn’t kill painting; it liberated painting.”
