So now we've all had our fun with ChatGPT, and the tech journos have had their fun finding the howlers in every new iteration that comes along - most recently with 'SearchAI' last week - maybe we should take a look at how useful this stuff really is.

Tony Blair has no doubt at all, as he magisterially announced on the Today programme recently.  “Our calculation is that 40% of all jobs in the Department of Work and Pensions could be automated by AI!” he declared.

It emerged only later that he'd arrived at this figure by asking an AI.

From the perspective of the DWP staff, however, it might not look so rosy.

Assuming they're lucky enough not to be thrown on the dole but instead offered it as 'assistive technology', it will almost certainly be without the option to say 'no'.

Sheila Hayman is concerned jobs will be replaced by AISheila Hayman is concerned jobs will be replaced by AI (Image: Sheila Hayman)

Employers know best, and according to a recent report (upwork.com/research/ai-enhanced-work-models), 96% of them expect the use of AI tools to increase their company’s productivity.

Ask the unfortunates at the coal face, however, and 47% say they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect and 77% say the AI tools have actually decreased their productivity and added to their workload.

If Tony Blair had visited the DWP, he might have found an obvious reason. 'AI' - more properly 'machine learning' - is great at finding, comparing and remembering - at managing data, as long as the humans are in control of what and how it manages.

But 'generative AI' does what it says on the tin: it generates text. Reams and reams of it, for employees to read, manage and respond to.

Anybody trying to get into the job market will have experienced the result.

It's very easy to get ChatGPT or its equivalents to write your CV, and equally easy to get it to draft a job description.

Result: bots write documents to be read by other bots, far too many people apply for every job, more bots have to be drafted in to assess the applications, and the unfortunate job seeker has no chance of encountering an actual human at any stage. Result: demoralised applicants and drowning hirers.

So here's a radical idea: make it harder to apply for a job, but promise that all applications will be looked at and responded to - by a human.

Just don't suggest this to the boss.