11–20 of 141 posts
Eg. Joe can't afford X due to lack of employment, and Bob can't afford Y for the same reason. Assuming Bob can supply X and Joe can supply Y (or some more complicated network of bartering), it seems like should be possible for an economy to arise.
There's a great 15 minute video by CGP Grey introducing the same set of concepts that technology will contribute to unemployment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Its a bit pop-sciency, but its very approachable and well explained.
There's a great 15 minute video by CGP Grey introducing the same set of concepts that technology will contribute to unemployment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Its a bit pop-sciency, but its very approachable and well explained.
The interesting thing is that a wave of redundancy due to automation or unprecedented efficiency contains problems that those made redundant might be able to work on. Eg. Joe can't afford X due to lack of employment, and Bob can't afford Y for the same reason. Assuming Bob can supply X and Joe can supply Y (or some more complicated network of bartering), it seems like should be possible for an economy to arise.
If machines are more productive than humans at everything, it break down. If the most productive infrastructure relies on big capital, it breaks down. If Bob and Joe become too poor, it breaks down.
If they're wrong, then they'll be replaced by algorithms that are better at predicting economic trends than they are.
If they're right, then...
Very interesting analysis. But they don't consider at all one very relevant change that happened during the last 30 years in most wealthy economies, especially the USA: That the taxation of the rich and the highest-earners in general was massively lowered. This contributed a lot to the concentration of wealth and capital in fewer hands.
But, the rates of taxation are so arbitrary. Legislators get together to determine fixed rates and tiers of taxation.
Aside from the complexities of accounting (which should be simpler with computers), couldn't it make more sense to tie tax rates to real mean wages? Then, the very rich would have incentive to increase jobs and increase mean wages.
[deleted]
At that point there will be no corporations or anything else related to our society because it will break the premise society is built on - that we are better off working with each other - someone in control of such AI doesn't need anyone else - it's impossible to guess what they would do with it but a logical choice would be to eliminate potential threats (ie. anyone who can develop similar technology or compromise it)
Once someone kicks off a "seed AI" that can develop/replicate fast enough it's game over for the rest, they win. And note that by AI I'm not talking about Terminator style self-aware machines - I'm talking about a problem solving device capable of performing given tasks.
They estimate in their chart that Athletic trainers have a 0.007 chance of being automated, the third lowest chance after therapists and dentists. it's hard to know exactly what they class as "Athletic trainers". For Olympic athletes, there will always be staff. For the rest of us, what would that "unlikely" automation of the coach look like? Perhaps it would start with a movement sensor on the wrist? A smartphone ap…
(Kind of similar to "lost sales due to piracy" given some limits)