61–70 of 99 posts
Which is why AI attracts the statist types including the NYT: this is the best opportunity to dramatically increase central planning, now that climate hoax failed to deliver.
If State doesn't help regulate AI, protect helpless workers, and justly redistribute resources, who will?
>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The same newspaper that decry automation also complain about the future lack of workers available to take care of elderly.
There's no immediate [5yr horizon] automation coming to solve this. Human home care workers will be needed [and more of them]; it's in a category of jobs that not even machines want.
>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…
I agree with this thesis. However, doesn’t our economic system rely on lots of consumers? If the majority of people are very poor, would this not reduce the overall economy? Then what’s the benefit to the aristocracy?
>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…
This is basically Marx and the theory of capital, e.g already describing our world since industrialization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no immediate [5yr horizon] automation coming to solve this. Human home care workers will be needed [and more of them]; it's in a category of jobs that not even machines want.
But there will be plenty of people free to care for the elderly after the machines take their jobs.
Isn't replacing people with machines what we've been doing uninterrupted since the beginning of the industrial revolution ? In what sense is replacing a translator with DeepL different from replacing a farmer with a tractor ? We've gone from more than two third of the population working on the fields to less than 5% and people still have jobs. What has changed that makes us think that this time it will be different ?
I think we've killed the "automation will allow us to kill off all the workers" idea. Automation isn't going to kill work.
>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…
There will be automation, it will take much longer to deliver than is being pitched. It will deliver smaller benefits (initially) than are being pitched. It will probably not realise the type of value that is easy to pitch.
In the meantime lying liars are scaring people; this suits all the liars because scared people are compliant.