The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - What 1,250 Professionals Say About Working With AI
Episode Date: December 5, 2025Anthropic asked 1,250 professionals how AI is actually changing their work, and the results reveal a blend of optimism, anxiety, and shifting identity—creatives feeling squeezed, scientists wanting ...trustworthy partners, and most workers hoping to hand off routine tasks while keeping what defines their craft. The episode also looks at how AI-run interviews collapse the old scale-vs-context tradeoff in research and what that means for understanding real-world AI impact. Headlines include Gemini 3 Deep Think, Replit’s enterprise push with Google, Opus 4.5’s benchmark surge, Salesforce’s Agent Force momentum, and Meta’s pivot away from the metaverse.Brought to you by:KPMG – Discover how AI is transforming possibility into reality. Tune into the new KPMG 'You Can with AI' podcast and unlock insights that will inform smarter decisions inside your enterprise. Listen now and start shaping your future with every episode. https://www.kpmg.us/AIpodcastsRovo - Unleash the potential of your team with AI-powered Search, Chat and Agents - https://rovo.com/AssemblyAI - The best way to build Voice AI apps - https://www.assemblyai.com/briefLandfallIP - AI to Navigate the Patent Process - https://landfallip.com/Blitzy.com - Go to https://blitzy.com/ to build enterprise software in days, not months Robots & Pencils - Cloud-native AI solutions that power results https://robotsandpencils.com/The Agent Readiness Audit from Superintelligent - Go to https://besuper.ai/ to request your company's agent readiness score.The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614Interested in sponsoring the show? sponsors@aidailybrief.ai
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Today on the AI Daily Brief, what 1,200 professionals tell us about working with AI.
And before that, in the headlines, Gemini 3 Deep Think is now available.
The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.
All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in.
First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, Super Intelligent, Rovo, Robots and Penciles, and Blitzy.
To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com.
Or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts.
And, of course, if you are interested in sponsoring the show, locking in those,
2025 rates before they expire, send us a note at sponsors at AIdailybrief.aI.
Now, last note before we dive in, we're doing a bit of a switcheroo today.
The headline section is actually a little bit longer than the main episode.
There was just enough news that we kind of had to do it that way.
So without any further ado, let's dive in.
Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief Headlines edition, all the daily AI news you need in
around five minutes, although today is a very jam-packed episode, so I expected to be a
little longer than normal.
We kick off today with an exciting one for you model testers out there.
Google has released Gemini 3 Deep Think Mode, which is their most powerful version of the new
Gemini 3 suite.
Now, right now, the new mode is exclusively available to subscribers of Google's AI Ultraplan,
which is their couple hundred dollar a month type of product.
Now, as you might imagine, then, with the price tag that high, deep think is designed to
tackle the most complex math, science, and logic problems available.
The mode builds on top of Gemini 2.5 Deepthink, and as much as I tend not to care about benchmarks,
does claim some impressive performances. They claim a state-of-the-art 41% result on humanity's last exam
without the use of tools, outperforming GPD5 Pro at 30.7% and Deep Think also achieved a 45% result
on the Arc AGI 2 test, more than doubling the performance of GPT5 Pro to become the new state-of-the-art.
Now, it should be noted whenever we talk about Arc AGI that there are two vectors, there is score,
and there is cost per task, and while Gemini 3 Deepthink absolutely shattered the previous high score,
it did so at a pretty elevated cost of $77 a task. Now, this might go some way to explaining why
they're paywalling Deep Think mode behind the most expensive subscription. It's important to note that
this is the first time normal users have ever had access to a model this expensive to run. OpenAI
never released the preview version of O3 that cost $167 per task to achieve its state-of-the-art
performance at the end of last year. Deep Think achieves its state-of-the-art performance
by exploring multiple hypotheses at once before delivering a solution.
A technique that has been used in research to boost performance,
but generally hasn't been available to regular users as a standard feature
due to the high inference costs.
Now, one thing that's not exactly clear yet
is what the use case is actually expected to be here.
They announced it by showing it generating a domino's game
with complex physics in one shot.
Another Googler showed it producing a complex physics simulation
of a rubber vase falling on a hard surface,
which I think helps clear up one thing
because it is called Deep Think and we already have deep research,
there may be some mental overlap between the two,
but they are fundamentally different things.
Deep Think is not just a souped up version of deep research.
Instead, it is capable of scientific reasoning.
Now, in terms of first reactions,
a lot of people had the same experience
of hyperbrowser founder Sri Shukani, who wrote,
With all their TPUs and GPUs,
HowTF is Gemini 3 Deep Think overloaded and unusable?
This is also the response I got for the first couple of hours
after the announcement, although then it cleared up.
Victor Tallinn writes,
For those wondering and as expected,
Gemini 3 Deep Think solves the stack overflow bug that cost me a few days.
The answer is more decisive than Opus 4.5,
the only other public model to solve it.
Even Gemini 3 pro fails.
It even points the exact location confidently.
Takes forever, though.
I don't have harder test for now.
Most of my benchmarks are saturated.
Now, I've only had access for less than a day so far as well.
Knowing that it sort of probably wasn't the use case,
I still gave it a recent business strategy question
that I had been both genuinely exploring but also trying to test GPt51 thinking versus GPt51 Pro
versus Gemini 3 Pro. And I will say at this stage, I don't particularly think that the
extra reps of Deep Think are worth it for that type of business strategy question.
Basically, I don't think that it particularly added anything more. In fact, I didn't even
prefer its response relative to the others. So whereas I have recently been finding myself
being willing to take the time for 51 Pro on business strategy questions, I think Deep Think
might be a little too far and just not right-sized for that particular purpose. In any case,
I will continue to experiment with it, making full use of that Ultra account. Next up, we stay in the
Google Universe, where they have partnered with Replit to bring vibe coding to the enterprise. The
multi-year partnership will see Replit expand their use of Google Cloud services, meaning a deeper
integration of Google's AI models, as well as using Google Cloud infrastructure on the back end
to enable fully functional vibe-coded software. Apps coded in Replit will also be able to leverage
Google Cloud marketplace in their go-to-market strategy.
Replit CEO, Amjad Mossad said,
The goal for us and for Google is to make Enterprise vibe coding a thing.
We want to show the world that these tools are actually going to transform businesses and how people work.
Instead of people working in silos, designers only doing design, project managers only writing,
now anyone in the company can be entrepreneurial.
Richard Serrador, the senior director for Google Cloud, added,
it may feel like it, but Replit is no overnight success.
Amjad and team built something over time that became the exact right thing for this current moment
with builders. In separate comments to CNBC on the state of the AI bubble, Amjad acknowledged that
the honeymoon phase for vibe coding is over. He said, early on in the year, there was the vibe
coding hype market where everyone's heard about vibe coding. Everyone wanted to go try it. The tools were
not as good as they are today. So I think that burnt a lot of people. So there's a bit of a vibe
coding, I would say, hype slowdown, and a lot of companies that were making money are not making as
much money. Amjad noted that earlier in the year, we were getting weekly ARR updates from the vibe
coding companies and now we're not. That said, new statistics from Ramp
suggests that REPLIT isn't slowing down all that much. The Ramp Economics Lab reported
that REPLIT is currently number one for new customer growth across all software vendors.
Google is also up there following the release of Gemini 3 and Nanobanana Pro, sitting at
number five for new customer growth and number two for new spend growth. Now, one of my
contrarian somehow takes is that I think we are actually way too bearish on vibe coding right now.
I tend to think that when we say vibe coding, we are having two in
entirely different conversations at the same time using the same words.
There is vibe coding for non-technical people,
which is entirely different than vibe coding for software engineers.
That shine coming off the rose type of phenomenon that Amjad was talking about
is, I think, specific to vibe coding for software engineers.
There is a recalibration happening right now among developers
around how best to deploy these tools, around the autonomy spectrum,
all these sort of questions around how you're going to integrate agentic coding
into your processes in a way that doesn't just create new problems.
However, for the non-technical people, I think we are barely scratching the surface.
In particular, I do not think that vibe coding has significantly made its way into the business
world yet.
It's mostly still individual hackers and tinkerers who are discovering that they can build and
modify their own websites now without having to use Wix or Squarespace or something like
that.
I genuinely believe that that is going to change.
And I actually think 26 is going to be a massive increase year for ViveCoding, but with a very
different market audience.
One more Google adjacent story. Google's neocloud partner Fluidstack is in talks to raise $700 million
at a $7 billion valuation. Fluidstack started the year as a relative unknown, but signed multiple
data center development deals to jumpstart their business. Google served as the backstop on a pair of
deals, pledging to repay debt if Fluid Stack defaults. As part of those deals, Fluidstack became
one of the first third-party vendors to receive Google's TPUs. Now, that wasn't massive news back in
September when the deals were struck, but now that the market narrative views TPUs as a genuine contender
to Nvidia's dominant GPUs, that is changing. Fluidstack also secured the contract to build a gigawatt
capacity data center in France as part of President Emmanuel Macron's push for sovereign AI.
They are additionally the infrastructure partner for Anthropics $50 billion data center investment
announced last month. The new funding round will reportedly be led by situational awareness,
which is of course the hedge fund started by former Open AI researcher Leopold Ashenbrenner.
Moving to our next story, hype around Opus 4.5 continues to build as the model keeps pushing the limits.
Sayesh Kapoor, who you may know from the AI's normal technology blog,
announced that his team are ready to declare that Opus has solved the core bench scientific agent benchmark.
The benchmark requires agents to reproduce scientific papers when given the code and data from a paper.
The agent is scored on its ability to set up the repo from the paper, run the code, and then correctly answer questions about the result.
Functionally, it's a benchmark primarily about agentic code execution.
core bench uses a common agent scaffold called core agent to allow comparison between different models
on a level playing field. Opus 4.5 was initially tested using Core Agent and scored 42%, a solid
score, but not close to Opus 4.1's leading score of 51%. DeepMind researcher Nicholas Carlini
then reached out to the team with a new scaffold that uses Claude code, as well as some issues
with the way the benchmark was being scored. Corbench team ran the benchmark again using the
Claude Coat harness and found that Opus 4.5's performance almost doubled to 78%.
interestingly, a jump of this size was unique to Opus 4.5. Sonnet 4 and 4.5 saw much smaller improvements,
and Opus 4.1 actually went backwards. Kapoor wrote,
We're unsure what led to this difference. One hypothesis is that the Claude 4.5 series of models
is much better tuned to work with Claude Code. Another could be that the lower-level
instructions in Core Agent, which worked well for less capable models, stopped being effective
and hinder the model's performance for more capable models. The Core Bench Team also manually went
through their benchmark weeding out grading errors that Carlini had pointed out.
Eight tasks were being incorrectly marked as wrong due to small floating point errors,
and one task was impossible to reproduce due to a dataset being removed from the internet.
The team manually scored Opus 4.5's performance at 95% with only two tasks failed.
Kapoor wrote, with Opus 4.5 scoring 95%, we're treating core bench hard as solved.
The team now plans to pivot to an undisclosed set of test questions for their next benchmark
to ensure the questions aren't included in training data.
Now, outside the benchmarks, the personal testimonials for 4.5 Opus just continue to roll in.
Dan Shipper from Evry, who was very bullish to begin with, wrote a new piece going even farther.
He said on Twitter, Opus 4.5 blew me away this week. I built a fully featured reading companion app that I now use every day,
in between meetings without looking at the code. Two things that are important. We just reached a new level of autonomous coding.
You've been able to one-shot an impressive app demo for a while now with any frontier model.
Opus 4.5 is the first model that just keeps coding and coding without running into apps.
endless loops of errors. Second, prompt native apps are now possible. Opus 4.5 can now act as a
general purpose agent inside your app to power many of your features. This turns building features
into an exercise in writing prompts instead of writing code. The NYT's Kevin Roos is also finding
Opus 45 great for non-coding purposes. He writes, Claude Opus 4.5 is a remarkable model for
writing, brainstorming, and giving feedback on written work. It's also fun to talk to and seems
almost anti-engagement maxed. The other night I was hitting it with stupid questions at 1 a.m. and it said
Kevin go to bed. Now, as for me, I have not yet found myself switching away from GBT51 or Gemini
3 to Opus 4.5 all that often, but with all of this chatter, it seems clear that I'm going to have
to give it an even bigger swing. A couple more stories, like I said, we are on an extended headlines
today. A little bit of market and adoption news. Salesforce has delivered a strong revenue forecast on
the back of Agent Force adoption. Salesforce said their Q4 revenue would be between $11.1 billion
and $11.2 billion, outstripping analysts forecasts of $10.9 billion. They also said that,
that remaining performance obligations, a measure of future bookings,
would increase by about 15% compared to analyst estimates of 10%.
CEO Mark Beniof credited their AI-focused products, stating,
our Agent Force and Data 360 products are the momentum drivers.
Active customer accounts for Agent Force have grown 70% quarter over quarter,
with many customers now transitioning from the pilot phase to active deployment.
Benioff said that they now have over 9,500 paying Agent Force customers.
He said,
We've delivered incredible results with Agent Force.
It's really exceeding our expectation.
This is our fastest growing product ever.
Now, one interesting sub-wrinkle that I'm watching with the Salesforce story,
a big question that many have is to what extent models get commoditized in the future.
Salesforce, for their part, has primarily built on top of OpenAI model since they launched Agent
Force in late 2024.
However, last week, Benningoff posted, I've used Chad GPT every day for three years, just spent
two hours on Gemini 3, I'm not going back.
The leap is insane.
Reasoning, speed, images, video, everything is sharper and faster.
It feels like the world just changed again.
That on Thursday, he posted,
LLMs are the new disc drives,
commodity infrastructure you hotswap for whoever's cheapest and best.
The fantasy that the model is a moat just expired.
So, interesting things to watch to see
how Salesforce thinks about model switching
and what that means for the rest of the market.
An even bigger market story yesterday,
if only a little tangentially related to AI,
is that meta could be giving up on their namesake technology
with rumors of deep cuts to the Metaverse division.
Bloomberg reports that the Metaverse Group could see budget cuts as high as 30% next year.
Their sources said cuts of that magnitude would most likely include layoffs as soon as January
of next year. They did caveat that no final decisions have been made, but deep cuts to
the Metaverse Group are on the agenda for end-of-year budget planning sessions.
Sources said that Zuckerberg has asked for 10% cuts across the board, which has been the standard
request for the past few years. However, the Metaverse Group was signaled out for deeper cuts
due to the lack of industry-wide competition over the technology.
Now, for most public market investors, it's hard for them to see the Metaverse as anything but a massive disappointment, especially relative to the pitch.
In 2021, Zuckerberg presented the Metaverse with such conviction that he changed the name of the company.
Since then, their Metaverse group has been nothing short of a cash incinerator.
The group has lost more than $70 billion since the Metaverse strategy was announced,
and thus, unsurprisingly, markets responded well to the idea that meta would be slashing that particular category of spend.
The stock jumped by 5.7% in its largest intraday move since July.
Now, while the Metaverse group is being slashed, that doesn't necessarily carry over to the
parent division Reality Labs. That broader division is focused on meta's various AR and VR
products and has been going from strength to strength in recent years. The Meta Raybans have been
a surprise hit and now to find their product category, which is presumably a product category only
becoming more important as LLM capabilities catch up to the promise of AI wearables.
A meta spokesperson suggested this strategy pivot is underway, commenting,
within our overall Reality Labs portfolio, we are shifting some of our investment from
Metaverse towards AI glasses and wearables given the momentum there. We aren't planning any
broader changes than that. The reallocation of resources also aligns to Meta's poaching a veteran
Apple U.X designer Alan Dye earlier this week. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg announced that Dye would
lead a new creative studio within Reality Labs that would focus on design, fashion, and technology.
In a post on thread, Zuckerberg wrote, we're entering a new era where AI glasses and other
devices will change how we connect with technology and each other. The potential is enormous,
but what matters most is making these experiences feel natural and truly centered around people.
With this new studio, we're focused on making every interaction thoughtful, intuitive, and built
to serve people. So, friends, that is the story from this extended headlines edition,
but for now, we'll wrap it there and move on to the main episode. Today's episode is brought to you
by my company, Superintelligent. Superintelligent is an AI planning platform. And right now, as we head
into 2026, the big theme that we're seeing among the enterprises that we work with is a real
determination to make 2026 a year of scaled AI deployments, not just more pilots and experiments.
However, many of our partners are stuck on some AI plateau. It might be issues of governance. It might
be issues of data readiness. It might be issues of process mapping. Whatever the case,
we're launching a new type of assessment called Plateau breaker that, as you probably guess from
that name is about breaking through AI plateaus. We'll deploy voice agents to collect information
and diagnose what the real bottlenecks are that are keeping you on that plateau. From there,
we put together a blueprint and an action plan that helps you move right through that plateau
into full-scale deployment and real ROI. If you're interested in learning more about plateau breaker,
shoot us a note, contact at B-super.a.i with plateau in the subject line.
Meet Rovo, your AI-powered teammate. Rovo enleashes the potential of your team with AI
powered search, chat, and agents, or build your own agent with Studio.
Rovo is powered by your organization's knowledge and lives on Atlassian's trusted and secure
platform, so it's always working in the context of your work.
Connect Robo to your favorite SaaS app so no knowledge gets left behind.
Rovo runs on the teamwork graph, Atlassian's intelligence layer that unifies data across
all of your apps and delivers personalized AI insights from day one.
Rovo is already built into Jira, Confluence, and Jira Service Management Standard, premium, and enterprise
subscriptions.
Know the feeling when AI turns from tool to teammate?
If you Rovo, you know.
Discover Rovo, your new AI teammate powered by Atlassian.
Get started at ROV as in Victory, O.com.
AI isn't a one-off project.
It's a partnership that has to evolve as the technology does.
Robots and pencils work side by side with clients to bring practical AI into every phase.
automation, personalization, decision support, and optimization. They prove what works through
applied experimentation and build systems that amplify human potential. As an AWS certified
partner with global delivery centers, robots and pencils combines reach with high-touch service.
Where others hand off, they stay engaged, because partnership isn't a project plan. It's a
commitment. As AI advances, so will their solutions. That's long-term value. Progress starts with
the right partner. Start with robots and pencils at robots and pencils.com.
This episode is brought to you by Blitzy, the Enterprise Autonomous Software Development Platform with infinite code context.
Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprise-scale code bases with millions of lines of code.
Enterprise engineering leaders start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform, bringing in their development requirements.
The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and pre-compiles code for each task.
Blitzy delivers 80% plus of the development work autonomously,
while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete the sprint.
Public companies are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase
when incorporating Blitzy as their pre-IDE development tool,
pairing it with their coding pilot of choice to bring an AI-native SDLC into their org.
Visit blitzy.com and press get a demo to learn how Blitzy transforms your SDLC
from AI assisted to AI Native.
Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief.
In an episode earlier this week,
I talked about how I thought that heading into 2026, we were likely to see a lot more studies
and research and experiments that were trying to figure out just how much of the current slate
of human work AI was actually able to do. We got a McKinsey study a couple weeks ago that said
that up to 57% of tasks could be automated. More recently, we got that MIT iceberg report,
which said that 11.7% of value generating tasks could be automated. Now, of course,
those things have been translated by mainstream media into headlines that 50,000,
7% of jobs or 12% of jobs are going to be lost. If you want a refutation of why 12% of
tasks being able to be automated doesn't mean 12% of jobs going away. Listen to yesterday's
episode. But alongside those types of studies, what I hope for is that we're also going to get
more research around how these things are playing out in practice. There is a seismic gap
and massive difference in what AI can theoretically do and what it is actually doing in practice.
Now, one of the companies that is most on the spot right now when it comes to providing
some amount of that real lived experience information is Anthropic.
Yesterday, we looked at some research that they did around their own team, where they had
interviewed researchers and engineers in August to figure out how Claude and Claude Code were
impacting their work, and today we're looking at an even more expanded look at how AI is
working in practice with the introduction of Anthropic interviewer.
The TLDR is that Anthropic launched a new research tool and tested it by asking
professionals about their experience working with AI. Now, I want to focus mostly on the results
and what the professionals actually said more than the tool itself, but it is worth mentioning
the tool itself a little bit because some are understanding that holding aside this specific
use case for it, this potentially represents a broader pattern in how research happens in the future.
Now, in their introduction, Anthropic points out that while they recently developed Cleo, which is a
privacy preserving system for getting insights from real-world AI use of Claude, there were inherent
limits there. As they write, the tool only allowed us to understand what was happening within
conversations with Claude. What about what comes afterwards? How are people actually using
Claude's outputs? How do they feel about it? What do they imagine the role of AI to be in their future?
If we want a comprehensive picture of AI's changing role in people's lives, and to center humans
in the development of models, we need to ask people directly. Such a project, they noted,
would require us to run many hundreds of interviews. Here, we enlisted AI to help us do so.
Now, Google's Tao Dong got that there was something interesting about the form factor here.
He writes, after reading the project blog post and a few transcripts,
my initial impression is that we're seeing a new genre of user research,
a crossover between surveys and interviews.
I'm tempted to call it semi-structured surveys.
It acts like a survey with predefined open-ended questions,
but with the ability to ask decent follow-up questions on the fly.
While these 10-15-minute sessions weren't particularly deep,
they combined the scale of a survey with the flexibility of a moderator.
Paring this with AI analysis allowed the team to identify quantitative patterns
and actually explain why they exist.
Seems like a fascinating experiment.
What's your take? My take is that this is pretty much exactly what we built or at least a version of it with superintelligent.
In superintelligence, audits and assessments, whether they are our agent readiness assessments or our new plateau breaker assessments.
One of the key ideas is that surveys are great for scale but bad for context.
Interviews are great for context but bad for scale.
But with AI, particularly voice AI, you don't have to make that trade-off.
And rather than inferring from a small sample, you can just go ask everybody.
Now, I don't think that this is some crazy novel insight.
nor do I think that our technology is some stratospheric leap.
But I think that this particular pattern of using AI to radically scale information gathering
and then speed up information analysis is something that is absolutely going to become
de rigour for all sorts of current research processes, and in so doing it is going to open up
totally new types of research that weren't possible before because of the scale of information
that you can collect and analyze.
So before we move on to the specific results, I would say if you are thinking about
interesting research projects across basically any domain, if they involve talking
with people, I believe that you can radically increase your ambition thanks to the new tools that
are available.
All right, so back to this actual survey of these 1,250 professionals.
For our purposes, what I'm most interested in is what they said about working with AI.
Now, presumably, this group is probably going to be more enthusiastic than a random
sample of 1,250 people.
And so I think that that caveat is important.
But within that, some of the high-level insights from Anthropic are that, one, people are
optimistic about the role that AI plays in their work. A positive sentiment characterized the majority
of topics discussed, however, as we'll see, there are a small number of topics that have more
relatively pessimistic outlooks. A second insight, which I think is really valuable about how we
design systems and think about displacement, people from the general workforce want to preserve
tasks that define their professional identity while delegating routine work to AI. They envision
futures where routine tasks are automated and their roles shift to overseeing AI systems.
Again, I don't think that that's particularly novel, but it's interesting to see that that is
how people are starting to think about their role as well.
We talk a lot as insiders about this idea of shifting to a model where humans manage AI agents
and AI systems, but it's interesting to see that start to come out as an expectation or a goal
from individual professionals as well.
A third insight, which absolutely resonates with what I'm seeing, is that despite creatives
facing pure judgment and anxiety about their future, they are turning to AI to increase their
productivity. As Anthropic puts it, they are navigating both the immediate stigma of AI use in
creative communities and deeper concerns about economic displacement and the erosion of human
creative identity. Lastly, number four, Anthropic writes that scientists want AI partnership but can't
yet trust it for core research. Scientists uniformly express a desire for AI that could generate
hypotheses and design experiments, but at present they can find their actual use to tasks like
writing manuscripts or debugging analysis code. So what's interesting here, as opposed to some of
these other areas, is that it sounds like scientists want AI to do more or at least be more helpful
with their core functions, not just those routine tasks to be automated.
So let's look at the visualization.
If you're listening to the show, I'll go through this pretty fast, but if you're watching it,
the blue-gray represents more pessimistic, the muted yellow represents more optimistic.
And you can see across almost every category, optimism mostly beats out pessimism.
The one area, it appears to me where there's relatively more pessimism, at least among the
general workforce, is in career adaption, which makes sense.
Now among creatives, there are a few areas where, again, pessimism takes a little bit more root.
In particular, artist displacement shows actually people more pessimistic than optimistic overall.
Same with writer displacement.
Among scientists, the biggest area that saw actual more pessimism than optimism is around security concerns.
And when you dig into the examples they shared, a lot of it reflects broader sentiment that you hear day in and day out on social media.
For example, a lot of folks are trying to figure out what parts of their jobs won't be automated,
which parts of their skills will be valuable in a future where they assume AI is ubiquitous.
For example, a trucking dispatcher said,
I'm always trying to figure out things that humans offer to the industry that can't be automated
and really hone in on that aspect, like the personalized human interactions.
However, that is not something that I think will be necessary in the long run.
I'm still trying to figure out what skills would be good to work on that AI can't take over.
Obviously, way bigger than just that particular job role.
This question is particularly pertinent, I think,
because it's not only something that people should be asking individually,
but it's also something that people who are designing upskilling and retraining systems need to be hyper-conscious of.
It is not going to be particularly useful if we design a bunch of training programs that just get obviated by GPT7.
Another thing that comes up on the pessimism side is the stigma of using AI.
A salesperson, for example, said, I hear from colleagues that they can tell when email correspondence is AI generated
and they have a slightly negative regard for the sender. They feel slighted and the sender is too lazy to send them a personalized note and push it on to AI to do it.
I think one really interesting question is to what extent that is a temporary transitional feeling,
where in the future people will feel like, of course, they used AI to write an email,
or if that's going to be something that's more persistent.
On the optimism side, however, you see tons of reflective comments.
People looking to AI to help them manage their time, expand their creativity,
reduce their stress by allowing them to focus on the best parts of their job.
Overall, 86% of professionals reported that AI saves them time,
and 65% said that they were satisfied with the role AI plays in their work.
across different categories of work, there was a pretty similar distribution of frustration,
satisfaction, with slightly expanded worry in categories like art design and media.
Among creative professionals, there is a much bigger band of responses.
Designers, for example, see much more frustration than filmmakers,
and in many cases you just see complication even within individual categories,
worry and satisfaction and hope and frustration all sitting alongside one another.
In my estimation, this is the type of survey that needs to happen,
not once in a while, but on a very regular basis. I want to see these questions tracked over time,
and I want to see that data available to policymakers of all stripes. Now, one really cool thing about
this is we wrap. Anthropic is making all of the data available in a public data set that you can
download from Hugging Face. Of course, with all the participants' approval, meaning that if you are so
interested, you can go interact with and run your own analysis on this research as well.
Overall, I think these 1,200 professionals tell us a lot of the same story that we've been seeing for years
now, a future that has so much opportunity, but is fundamentally different.
And in that difference, somewhat scary as well.
Good job, Anthropic, for digging up this real information.
But that's going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief.
Appreciate you listening.
We're watching as always.
And until next time, peace.