I ran into this parody on the impact of AI to work and it’s a great candidate for the “analyze_claims” prompt/pattern in the open source fabric project.

For more on the fabric “open-source framework for augmenting humans using AI,” check out the project on github and my AI tagged blog posts.

Here’s what I punched into the terminal:

yt https://youtu.be/0lhmKOR8Www | fabric -p analyze_claims -o nothing_U_claims.txt

The output is below. Not bad eh?! I can see capabilities like these having growing importance. Give it a shot and let me know how it goes.

Table of Contents

• ARGUMENT SUMMARY:

• TRUTH CLAIMS:

  • CLAIM: New AI can perform all coding jobs in secon …

  • CLAIM: AI is outperforming accounting firms.

  • CLAIM: Graphic design AI could minimize the need f …

• OVERALL SCORE:

• OVERALL ANALYSIS:

ARGUMENT SUMMARY:

A new AI can perform all coding jobs and automate graphic design, suggesting a future where humans do nothing.

TRUTH CLAIMS:

CLAIM: New AI can perform all coding jobs in seconds.

CLAIM SUPPORT EVIDENCE:

- Advances in AI, such as OpenAI's GPT-3, have shown capabilities in generating code based on natural language descriptions, indicating progress towards automating coding tasks. (Source: OpenAI Blog)

CLAIM REFUTATION EVIDENCE:

- Despite advancements, AI still struggles with understanding complex requirements and maintaining software, tasks that require human oversight. (Source: MIT Technology Review)

LOGICAL FALLACIES:

- Overgeneralization: The claim suggests all coding jobs can be automated without considering the complexity and variety of these jobs.

CLAIM RATING: C

LABELS: speculative, overgeneralized

CLAIM: AI is outperforming accounting firms.

CLAIM SUPPORT EVIDENCE:

- AI technologies have been implemented in accounting for tasks like data entry and analysis, improving efficiency. (Source: Journal of Accountancy)

CLAIM REFUTATION EVIDENCE:

- Human accountants are still essential for strategic decision-making and interpreting complex financial situations, areas where AI lacks. (Source: Forbes)

LOGICAL FALLACIES:

- Hasty Generalization: Suggests AI superiority without acknowledging the nuanced roles of human accountants.

CLAIM RATING: C

LABELS: exaggerated, incomplete

CLAIM: Graphic design AI could minimize the need for human designers.

CLAIM SUPPORT EVIDENCE:

- AI tools like Adobe's Sensei are enhancing graphic design processes by automating routine tasks. (Source: Adobe Blog)

CLAIM REFUTATION EVIDENCE:

- Creativity and understanding client needs in graphic design often require human intuition and empathy, which AI cannot replicate. (Source: AIGA Design Futures)

LOGICAL FALLACIES:

- False Dilemma: Implies a choice between AI and human designers, ignoring the potential for collaboration.

CLAIM RATING: C

LABELS: oversimplified, dismissive

CLAIM: Humans will do nothing in the future due to AI.

CLAIM SUPPORT EVIDENCE:

- Predictions about technological unemployment suggest some jobs may be automated. (Source: World Economic Forum)

CLAIM REFUTATION EVIDENCE:

- Historical trends show technology creates new job opportunities and demands for human skills. (Source: Harvard Business Review)

LOGICAL FALLACIES:

- Slippery Slope: Assumes automation leads directly to a future of idleness without considering other outcomes.

CLAIM RATING: D

LABELS: speculative, alarmist

OVERALL SCORE:

LOWEST CLAIM SCORE: D

HIGHEST CLAIM SCORE: C

AVERAGE CLAIM SCORE: C

OVERALL ANALYSIS:

The argument presents an exaggerated view of AI's capabilities and impact on employment, overlooking the complexity of tasks and the potential for human-AI collaboration. It underestimates human adaptability and creativity