71–80 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investors are willing to accept much lower long-term returns for safe haven assets. If you're going to "just own the damn robots" at any price, you're essentially paying for this sort of insurance.
but Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are software, not hardware, so you're not owning the robots.
"We’re in an age where we’re being told AI is about to start writing its own software." The most pregnant sentence in the entire piece.
All the problems in every serious piece of software I've ever worked on stem from the customer (be it external or in-house) not knowing what they want, the person in charge of capturing that doing a pretty bad job of it anyway, and the chain from there to the person writing the software taking that failure and making it worse. AI writing software will just get me another flavour of the wrong software. AI working out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure the proposed solution is to buy stocks of the U.S. technology giants: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
The largest market cap companies in a given decade, overwhelmingly tend to be under-performers in the following decade. It's a trend that has repeated decade after decade. Many of these types of companies - AMZN, NFLX, GOOGL, FB - have pulled a massive share of their future returns forward (which is what happened to Microsoft, stagnating its stock for ~15 years). In 2007 the largest companies were: Exxon, GE, Microso…
Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…
In the capitalist interpretation, "seize the means of production" translates to "start your own business and out-compete your competitors". Or put another way: just own the damn robots. "Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons" If only somehow I could capitalize on everyone who believed this nonsense. I would sell them shirts, but for them to receive them would be ownership of private…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best outcome is the "Culture" endpoint: a post-need society. 10% of people are called upon to work, and the rest thrive on basic income and become artists and inventors, philosophers and musicians and actors. The worst outcome, on the other hand, is rather more dystopian. A society with a very large percentage of young, unemployed people with no particular path to success is not a stable society. I suppose it mat…
Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in which the children of the 90% may move into/out of as their skills/ability apply? Which is to ask - is it worth maintaining a 90% at all or should we 'solve that problem'?
Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…
Duplicate the means of production. If we really end up in a world where robots make the products and robots make the robots, then the means of production are information products that can be copied like software. (And there will be open source robots too, but copying without permission is the fallback position if commercial robots are too patent-encumbered to reimplement by legal means.) I wouldn't steal a car... but…
Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…
In the capitalist interpretation, "seize the means of production" translates to "start your own business and out-compete your competitors". Or put another way: just own the damn robots. "Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons" If only somehow I could capitalize on everyone who believed this nonsense. I would sell them shirts, but for them to receive them would be ownership of private…
I came to see if people were talking about the robotics and automation ETF cited in the article and if it would be a good idea to buy at this point, but seems that everyone is having philosophical conversation instead of a investing conversation :-p
From a clueless investor here, it seems like NVidia would be a good play if you anticipate widespread growth in machine learning.
nVidia is still a solid choice as VR has raised the visual fidelity demands for games and experiences, and even a 1080Ti can't render VR games at 90+FPS at max graphics. That's still a lot of demand nVidia has to meet.
[1]: http://news.gallup.com/poll/216116/few-workers-worry-tech-ma...
Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…
Duplicate the means of production. If we really end up in a world where robots make the products and robots make the robots, then the means of production are information products that can be copied like software. (And there will be open source robots too, but copying without permission is the fallback position if commercial robots are too patent-encumbered to reimplement by legal means.) I wouldn't steal a car... but…
https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_conti_the_incredible_inven...