Goldman Sachs Launches AI Assistant Firmwide, With 10,000 Employees Already Using It (reuters.com) 45
Goldman Sachs has officially rolled out a generative AI assistant across the company to enhance productivity, with around 10,000 employees already using it for tasks like summarizing documents and data analysis. Reuters reports: With the AI tool's official company-wide launch, Goldman joins a long list of big banks already leveraging the technology to shape their operations in a targeted manner and help employees in day-to-day tasks. [...] The GS AI assistant will help Goldman employees in "summarizing complex documents and drafting initial content to performing data analysis," according to the internal memo. "While the official line is that AI frees up employees for 'higher-value work,' the real-world consequence is a reduced need for human labor," notes Gizmodo in their reporting. A banker told Gizmodo that because their AI system now processes 85% of all client responses for margin calls, "the operations team avoided hiring 30 new people."
Gizmodo asks pointedly: "If one AI tool is replacing the need for 30 back-office staff in one corner of one bank, what happens when the entire industry scales that up?"
Gizmodo asks pointedly: "If one AI tool is replacing the need for 30 back-office staff in one corner of one bank, what happens when the entire industry scales that up?"
People person (Score:2)
Why can't the person writing the original document just do the work the person using the AI was going to do. Then you just skipped the step of using the human using the AI assistant to summarize the document.
Re: (Score:3)
The other guy needs a two sentence AI summary because he can feel good about how simple and straightforward the contract really is, since nothing could ever go wrong anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not until their AI tool reads the contract, strikes items out, adds items, etc. and sends it back.
Unproven if AI replaces jobs (Score:1)
We've not had it long enough to know. Not hiring 30 staff is not the same as firing 30 staff. The AI replacing jobs is just another part of the fear marketing to boost the bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
Not hiring 30 staff is not the same as firing 30 staff.
It is not exactly the same because of the personal disruption a firing has on someone, but they are pretty close. I have been laid off once, but it was in a strong job market so I found another position with a significant pay increase within a month. Being laid off right now if far worse because it isn't as easy to find an equivalent position.
When looking at the economy overall, not hiring 30 people is the same as firing 30 people. Both result in 30 less jobs in the market. Considering the US population fro
Re: (Score:2)
Not increasing is not the same as reducing. Odd to see that issue come up outside of a Congressional funding debate.
Re: (Score:2)
However, his conclusion is wrong.
I.e., there is a constant gross change of -$someNumber, requiring a constant +$someNumber in order to balance it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not hiring 30 staff is not the same as firing 30 staff.
It is When looking at the economy overall, not hiring 30 people is the same as firing 30 people. Both result in 30 less jobs in the market.
MaGa MaTh! I go to a casino and look at a blackjack table with $500 in my pocket. I watch one hand which where I would've sat was dealt a 21. I just lost $750! Not playing that hand is the same as losing $750.......wait......that doesn't make sense. I still have $500.
Re: (Score:2)
Sitting in that casino, the dollars in your pocket do not constantly go down.
In an economy, composed of people who die and retire, it does.
Dude's conclusion is a bit overstated without several asterisks, but on the balance, you're definitely a lot dumber than they are.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is where attrition equals 30.
If attrition <> 30, then your assertion is simply false.
Re: (Score:2)
I am exiting the digital world. (Score:5, Insightful)
More or less.
I'm your Type A 80ies computer-kid and switching my career to becoming a full-time web-developer in 2000 was one of the best decisions I ever made. The last 25 years were awesome, I had a great time and made made decent money, even if I didn't get rich.
However, I see the writing on the wall. The bots are here and they're taking over and social media IMHO has always been a total PoS and it ain't getting better. Slashdot is the only thing that comes close to that for me and I've been here for 25 years which is quite a run. I'll stay around, but that's only a small part of my day.
I'm glad I have all the skills I could ever ask for in handling computers and digital devices and I'm also glad I basically can do _everything_ I would ever want to do with a computer myself and on a professional level. Designing, programing, video-editing, sound-editing, 3D, DTP, print, typography, etc. all with todays offerings of FOSS. But I also see that there is less and less need for my services in the real world, at an increasing rate and of the new stuff, from social media and online ads onward right up to todays generative and conversational AI there is nothing really there that interests me where I see a full-on day job coming out of it. It's all more of an all-out replacement of my kind.
On top of that I see the "loneliness epidemic" running rampant outside of my nerdy peer group and the real world increasingly becoming somewhat of an exception for a growing number of people.
As far as I can see it is due time for me to focus more and more on non-digital things. The last few years my non-fiction reading has moved from IT stuff to social skills and modern psychology (authentic relating, radical honesty, attachment style theory, mindfulness, etc.) and my pastime activities are all IRL (paragliding, kite-surfing, traveling, social dancing, meeting with non-IT peope such as motorbike clubs and boardgamers, etc.).
The prospect of more and more AI taking over as partners also makes hanging out online way less attractive IMHO. I will still be running my blogs and websites and helping people with digital stuff, but the party clearly is with real face-to-face human interaction now, the IT stuff has taken the place of little more than a sophisticated cultural technique and stopped being a day-job for me.
While I did get lucky and scored a good job as a sole IT expert and senior developer in a company of 70+ legal experts and lawyers, I do expect my job to go extinct in the foreseeable future and really don't see myself sitting at a desk typing and clicking for money. Those times have passed and I'm likely better off being a barista, dancing coach or travel guide in the future.
It is my impression that quite a few of my fellow IT experts see things more or less the same way.
Re:Incels don't whine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Incels don't whine. [...] rampant femnoise and misandry have perverted the term beyond recognition.
You're not only whining right now, you're specifically whining in incel.
Re: (Score:3)
you are a faggot
You are a coward, and since I'm not, if I were a homosexual, you would know. I mean, you'd know mostly because I was fucking your dad, but you'd know.
Re:I am exiting the digital world. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. The same thing happened with hardware engineering through the 2000s. You used to be able to have an incredible career designing fun products and earning good money if you could do the hardware and embedded software. Then they started outsourcing everything. Over that time I looked at the situation in Shenzhen and sometimes wish I'd been born in China - they got what we used to have. Malls full of electronics part manufacturers and a rapidly developing eco-system able to crank out amazing products.
It was way more exciting than doing yet another iPhone app, but at least the app stuff was pretty easy and paid well. Now the writing is on the wall for app stuff as well. The whole tech thing is a mess.
One thing I have learnt though, is that there is very little connection between how hard you work or how difficult your job is vs the pay. You can still work as an electronics engineer in the west, but you'll work at least twice as hard as you would have back 20 years ago, for the same pay without inflation adjustment. You'll also be the lone voice at the company lamenting corner cutting and duck taped solutions for everything, yet be blamed and have to pull the weekend shift when the product starts catching fire because of the dodgy temu batteries. It's not worth it when a good EE can do pretty much anything else.
Ultimately I don't know what the advice will be for my kids. I think we're just moving to a new sort of feudalism, where pretty much all jobs won't pay enough to have much of a life, so it will all come down to your family's wealth. I see that I have an opportunity to provide them with a bit of a financial base, though I think the window is closing. So really the key is have rich parents and then just do whatever you want since none of the jobs are really going to pay very much unless you have the right connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I am exiting the digital world. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I see the "loneliness epidemic" running rampant
That's an obvious market opportunity for fake AI friends to keep people company.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I left IT nine years ago but had already lost interest years before that with rampant idiocy overwhelming simple logic. Every competent IT-er I knew also agreed there was no fun to be found in the business any longer.
At least I'm glad I still had years of fun discovery in the field, something I doubt generations from now on will experience.
Bankers make their own work (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't deny that the financial sector has important uses, but a large part of it now is just a make for work scheme funded by government bailouts. Outside of things like keeping your money safe, facilitating trade, and insurance etc, its main purpose is supposed to be the efficient allocation of capital, and this dominates the sector. Yet we repeatedly see situations such as the GFC where it essentially just perpetuated a gigantic ponzi scheme, and rather ironically, it was so bad at allocating capital to growth that even when the price of capital was negative (zero interest rates) for over a decade, it still kept trying to feed money into various ponzi scheme, rather than invest in actual real economic output.
It is laughable in how useless all the modern derivative, high-frequency-trading and other innovations are at generating real economic growth. The victorians built the first industrial society with log tables and quill pens.
Anyway, my point is that we already know that we don't need much of the financial system, yet it continues to propagate and grow like a cancer, so I have no doubt that the good folks at Goldman Sachs will find yet more ways to harness the talents of our best and brightest in the pursuit of pointless financial innovations, even if this AI replaces a lot of their existing work.
Goldman Sachs built a 28k person office in ft wort (Score:1)
so yea built this Hugh place had the city winded two high way, build power for them tore up two ranches.
Yea and its been empty since they finished it. Its the size of a small city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[obligatory] Oh, the Hugh-manity!
How are they counting it? (Score:3)
Just because you push a piece of software onto corporate devices doesn't mean that people are "using it". But of course, they want to impress the market, bending reality to their narrative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a university now, and they mandated copilot, sometimes I's suprising helpfull, but more often it is inacturate. I even tried using a low ball of tell me all the remote systems, databases, ldap, AD and even local config files from from a medium size perl file and it was so grossly wrong missing things like $remote_ldap_host and creating it's own config files and such. I can't even have it check itself.
Did this with chatgtp free, and it wasn't much better.
Sometimes its great but its unreliable
well.... (Score:2)
"Gizmodo asks pointedly: "If one AI tool is replacing the need for 30 back-office staff in one corner of one bank, what happens when the entire industry scales that up?""
The end of civilisation.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is foolishly framed.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be a thing... (Score:2)
at large enterprises now. MSFT came in and extolled the benefits of copilot to summarize Teams meetings (which requires you to record your meetings) and now the entire workforce is being encouraged to use it.
I don't mind tools that reduce day to day toil, but it's a slippery slope between this and "Hey Cortana/Siri/Chatgpt/whatever, dig through this directory on user employee share hard drives and summarize their activity over the past year. Score activity using the following metrics. Rank employees base
Re: (Score:2)
If they would have co-pilot good enough to go to meetings, that would be an advance. Then it could summarize later in its spare time when all it is doing is trying to get that co-pilot in the next company over into cyberbed.
A real advance though would have co-pilot initiating meetings for other bots where they could decide important things (e.g., which one has the best hallucinations, what dd the VP's wife do with the poolboy, etc).
And the last stage is where there are co-pilot companies run by a bot with a
We're doomed (Score:2)
in other words (Score:2)
Disppointed by lack of funny (Score:2)
as usual
GS is rolling out AI "officially." (Score:2)
The rest of us are using it _unofficially_.