You're not exactly wrong here, but many that's a kinda hilarious example. AI doesn't yet know how to operate in the grey area of not-quite-illegal bribery.

People who survive for decades of that aren't trivially replaced.

If this tech is going to be so amazing, it'll be better served by being a procurement/buyer system.

"Hey AI, what CRM system should I use [based on all the knowledge you have of my business already]?"

Engineer - Our company is so good word of mouth should be enough to bring in sales, if we need any more lets look to AI for a solution.

Sales - We bring in the money, all engineers do is cost the company money, we could probably run the app/develop the product on a skeleton crew, can't wait for AI to make those jobs obsolete!

Truth - Both engineers and sales are hugely successful to any companies strategy and AI isn't taking anyone's(engineer or sales) jobs not for a long time :)

Successful businesses must have 3 Successful divisions: good product, good sales and good finance/admin.

GPT-3 is great at sounding coherent, but much worse at actually reliably solving problems. I absolutely see GPT-3 like things aiding with sales decks, but... it won't replace the sales person.

There's also a large component of enterprise sales having a "trust" component where you know your counterparts. You're not spending approval-worthy amounts of money after only having talked to a chat bot.

Also, if your competitors are using GPT-3 to solve customer problems, having an actual, intelligent human can be a formidable differentiator in terms of customer experience.

If there's a sales person whose job is to tailor sales decks to use cases, you might replace them.

If a big sale takes a team of people to execute, maybe AI cuts a few of them off. Maybe the client is still talking to a real sales person when they need to, but that sales person is able to multiplex to more clients because the time they need to put into each is reduced.

I think people often miss this aspect of "X technology will make this job obsolete"; it isn't "that occupation no longer exists" as much as "far fewer of that occupation are now necessary to do the work", and that change can have meaningful economic impacts. Farriers, blacksmiths and calligraphers still exist, but their work is no longer core to the function of anyone's economy.

Salespeople says BS to sign you up, only vaguely coherent, backed by some basic database facts about the product/price, so GPT can handle that. Think about Donald Trump: Huge fan base of paying customers, barely distinguishable from a chatbot.

Only a moron would put them in front of a sale.

Now increase that complexity by orders of magnitude, since we're talking about the conversational skillset that a successful salesperson would have.

Everything is possible over a long enough timeline, but when AI is advanced enough to function as a successful salesperson, there will be a large number of other jobs that AI will also be "replacing".

In other words, the timeline for what you're predicting is much longer than you think it is.

Indeed. So many people I knew, thought full self driving, any weather, any road, fully AI, would be here by 2015. Then 20.

I doubt we will have it before 2050.

Those YouTube ads featuring pitchmen/people could be replaced by perpsnalizedt deepfake for race/gender/style that fits the target.

There is zero comparison to this and a facebook ad, or targeted marketing.