REVIEW 3 cited by
Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The 2024 Index is our most comprehensive to date and arrives at an important moment when AI's influence on society has never been more pronounced. This year, we have broadened our scope to more extensively cover essential trends such as technical advancements in AI, public perceptions of the technology, and the geopolitical dynamics surrounding its development. Featuring more original data than ever before, this edition introduces new estimates on AI training costs, detailed analyses of the responsible AI landscape, and an entirely new chapter dedicated to AI's impact on science and medicine. The AI Index report tracks, collates, distills, and visualizes data related to artificial intelligence (AI). Our mission is to provide unbiased, rigorously vetted, broadly sourced data in order for policymakers, researchers, executives, journalists, and the general public to develop a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the complex field of AI. The AI Index is recognized globally as one of the most credible and authoritative sources for data and insights on artificial intelligence. Previous editions have been cited in major newspapers, including the The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Guardian, have amassed hundreds of academic citations, and been referenced by high-level policymakers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, among other places. This year's edition surpasses all previous ones in size, scale, and scope, reflecting the growing significance that AI is coming to hold in all of our lives.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Which Economic Tasks are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations
Using millions of Claude.ai conversations mapped to O*NET tasks, AI usage is concentrated in software and writing, reaches 25% of tasks in 36% of occupations, and is split 57% augmentation versus 43% automation.
-
The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem
A proposed 'Human Utility Factor' metric claims to set computable automation and redistribution limits for AI governance, but the key threshold formula is inconsistent with the paper's own parameters.
-
Pilot Study on Generative AI and Critical Thinking in Higher Education Classrooms
A short video lesson on evaluating generative AI output was associated with a statistically significant but fragile improvement in one course's AI-critique assignment, in a small non-randomized pilot.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.