Reading that article made me angry because I wasted my time. This is a nice analysis à grace de gpt4:

Key facts:

1. Priya is a biomedical data curator in her mid-20s from a poor background in Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. She has a bachelor's degree in Biotechnology and her job involves annotating RNA sequencing data from scientific papers. 3. The author tried using GPT-4 to perform Priya's job and achieved the correct result in less time and at a lower cost. 4. The author speculates that Priya may lose her job within six months due to automation. 5. The author expresses concern about their own long-term career prospects in software engineering because of GPT-4.

Logical fallacies: 1. Hasty Generalization: The author assumes that GPT-4 will make Priya's job obsolete based on a single successful trial. 2. Slippery Slope: The author assumes that GPT-4's impact on Priya's job will lead to her losing her job and moving back home, and potentially to the decline of the author's own career prospects in software engineering.

Counter arguments:

1. GPT-4 may not be able to handle all aspects of Priya's job or maintain consistent quality, which could still necessitate human intervention. 2. The advent of GPT-4 could lead to new job opportunities that require both domain expertise and an understanding of the technology. 3. As technology progresses, there is potential for job retraining and upskilling to adapt to new demands in the workforce.

And one more answer from gpt4:

More counter arguments:

4. The integration of GPT-4 into the biomedical data curation process might not necessarily replace human workers, but could complement their work by automating repetitive tasks and allowing them to focus on more complex aspects of the job. 5. GPT-4 could drive innovation in the biotechnology field by speeding up data processing and analysis, potentially creating new job opportunities in research and development.

Similar developments in the past:

1. The introduction of the personal computer (PC) in the 1980s revolutionized the way people worked and led to concerns about job losses. However, PCs also created new job opportunities in software development, IT support, and hardware manufacturing. 2. The rise of the internet in the 1990s and 2000s disrupted traditional industries like print media and retail, causing job losses in some areas but also creating new opportunities in web development, e-commerce, and digital marketing. 3. The automation of assembly lines in the automotive industry during the 20th century led to concerns about job losses for factory workers. However, the increased efficiency in production also contributed to the growth of the industry and created new job opportunities in engineering, design, and quality control.

In each of these cases, technological advancements initially led to concerns about job losses, but they also created new opportunities for workers who adapted to the changing landscape.

I don’t brake for LLM responses in public forums.

The article is not making an argument. The author is not debating whether we should stop using GPT-4. Calling this fallacious reasoning is a category error.

I can see some very real arguments:

- > What is the economic impact of LLMs? Idk (openAI has published some lengthy paper about it). What I do know is that some rich bloke in the US will get a few million dollars richer and Priya will lose her job.

- > I don’t see a long-term career in software anymore. Any dreams I had of earning decent money as a software engineer are slowly fading.

I think the author is not proposing to keep worthless jobs but realized that while Priya work is worthless, his very own work is about to become so.

But the title implies that he wishes that gpt4 never existed so those jobs could continue existing like in the past?

I think it is more similar to how I wish a cute gazelle wouldn't be eaten by a lion, but that's the way it goes.

I see it more as a very argumentative article where he outlines past, present and future. And he expresses his wish, yes that is true.

A wish is not a proposal

I see your point. Still, I think that is more an argument wrapped in the appearance of a rethorical wish

There's no dishonor in admitting you were wrong.