Why AI can’t replace humans

Today we’re covering a very popular (we discussed it lately here) yet dubious topic. And we still can’t get a certain answer! But how come?

The explosive rise of AI has made us consider how it may transform our careers in a variety of sectors and give us the chance to reinvent the value of our work. This change might be sparked by generative AI; the issue now is not “if,” but “when” the change will happen.

The greatest enthusiasm in using AI we see from those who up to enhance the efficiency and speed of their work.

However we still can see that in certain circles there is a concern of job loss due to the perception of AI as a competitor. And this feeling has a strong base, no doubts. We’ve faced massive dismissals of digital artists, voice actors and content writers. 

But for now AI’s work features won’t replace human ones. Technically, AI isn’t creating something new, but merging pieces of text, voice and art it had analysed previously. And most of the time, yeah, it may create something sinister like a portrait of a person with no hands or a machine-sounding voiceline.

Although AI has the ability to eliminate human mistakes, a serious question appears: how accurate its outputs would be?

Though professionals warn when clients are utilizing AI on their own, there may be further difficulties, particularly if they don’t know when a response is incomplete or misleading.  This emphasizes even more how someone using AI has to be involved in the process, ideally with expertise and understanding of the sector, to ensure accuracy when the technology is employed instead of accepting the results as they are.

For example, if a person who’s got a medical degree and working experience decides to consulate with AI on a specific topic, they would probably understand whereas the answer is correct, incomplete or false. At the same time a person with no medical education won’t be able to fact-check the response they’ve received by AI.