Thinking specifically about AI here: if a process does not give a consistent or predictable output (and cannot reliably replace work done by humans) then can it really be considered “automation”?
Thinking specifically about AI here: if a process does not give a consistent or predictable output (and cannot reliably replace work done by humans) then can it really be considered “automation”?
Automation is just using technology to replace human labor, so yes. The exact mechanism doesn’t change that. “AI” is a buzzword but LLMs have replaced human labor already in various ways even though most of the applications are hype / BS. For example, it has certainly taken a bite out of stock images and product graphic design.
Individual capitalists must seek out automation because reducing labor cost without decreasing productivity means a higher profit for them. Capital in aggregate seeks automation because it disciplines labor, means you can threaten and mistreat labor more easily. In that sense “AI” is serving the same purpose as historical automation even when it fails to substitute labor as a productive aspect. Companies can threaten their employees with “AI” that doesn’t work and they can rebrand firings as layoffs using media discourse that overhypes “AI” on their behalf, it is part of the PR universe.