Hey, it’s Marek,
I recently got quite annoyed at a number of headlines that completely misrepresented the cost challenges of AI. Axios suggested that humans might cost less than AI systems, and Fortune, similarly, announced that paying for tech is more expensive than paying for people.
I read the articles and followed up on the details. Their conclusions do not hold up.
The reason is a category error, which I discuss on the podcast. AI does three things to work: it substitutes a human, augments one, or activates work no human was ever going to do. Only the first makes “Is a human cheaper?” a sensible question; the other two turn it into nonsense. None of these is a "Which is cheaper, the human or the machine?" question. A plumber doesn't replace a water pipe, an excavator is useless without its operator, and no human was ever going to fold proteins at the scale machines do.
I’d bet you have projects in all three buckets right now, with the cost question pointed at the wrong one.
The danger in these headlines isn’t that they’re wrong. It’s that they’re comforting. And comfort is the last thing we should be seeking when so much is changing around us.
Stay curious!
