Jump to content

Walking Man


Featured Posts

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Difficult to say.  In simplistic terms the cost of handing out money is going to be high.  The actual picture is more complex.  Leaving people financially destitute has an actual cost and a societal cost.  Reducing individual stress will lead to savings.

 

With the accelerating advances in AI, society will soon reach a crunch point because so many jobs will be lost.  The choices will be:

1.  Legislate against AI.

2. Allow half to population to be unemployed and destitute with the consequent societal breakdown which would inevitably occur.  (This is the head-in-the-sand option).

3.  Legislate for a redstribution of wealth by taxing the ever more profitable corporations to allow payment of a basic income.

 

Look at it this way:  A few years ago supermarkets introduced automatic tills.  Many people got cross about this because it led to people losing their jobs, but they were all missing the point.  The supermarkets made the change because it was more profitable to them.  In that situation it's the job of government to take some of those profits to provide for those who lost their jobs.

 

This change has been going on since the time of the Luddites and increase mechanisation in factories and farms.  The ultimate solution was a bodge:  the creation of the welfare state but also the creation of non essential jobs, to keep the masses compliant. 

 

A huge shock to the system is coming, when all those calls centre jobs are gone; when all driving jobs are gone.  We're talking millions of people.  We need a sensible conversation about how to manage that.  For example:  do we want ever cheaper taxi rides, or do we want to pay the same for a driverless taxi but pay a universal basic income.  I would prefer the second option, but I suspect we'll sleepwalk into the first option and then wonder why half the population are rioting.

 

I suspect the countries which have that sensible conversation will come out of it all the strongest.

 

The forthcoming "AI world" should be the greatest opportunity in history to raise the world's population out of drudgery, hunger and servitude.  Will that happen?  Probably not.

most of the countries in the developing world have welfare programs. Even with corruption(expected from immature democracies) its more or less in line with the income their govt can hope to get. Unfortunately their income is pretty less.

Most of the developed world(probably except US) has advanced welfare programs. This costs more but the govts can get more money out of their working population / corporation to be able to expand the welfare spending.

 

Now I dont understand why it has to be any different with onset of more automation. It will only increase the productivity and tax to the govt. Govt will be spending that extra money on the sort of welfare you want to see. With more global peace, they might get away much less spending on defence.

 

I lied a bit when I said most of the developed world has advanced welfare program because we have higher productivity compared to developing countries. Its also because our govt has access to cheap loans. So they have expanded the welfare beyond what their tax base will allow. One solution is to increase taxation to bring welfare spending in line. Increased personal tax is not very popular with british public, so 'tax the rich and tax the corporate seems to be go-to solution'.

I think we should increase taxation across the board.

 

I would say with much more automation, we will probably catch up and be able to massively expand welfare to include universal basic income. We don't begrudge the poor when they access NHS. Why would universal basic income be any different?

 

The issue is, the economy needs to produce enough for govt to take a cut and spread it across. I think for universal basic income, the pie need to be bigger, just taking a bigger cut wont suffice.

but then we are arguing without numbers, so these all words mean very little.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

most of the countries in the developing world have welfare programs. Even with corruption(expected from immature democracies) its more or less in line with the income their govt can hope to get. Unfortunately their income is pretty less.

Most of the developed world(probably except US) has advanced welfare programs. This costs more but the govts can get more money out of their working population / corporation to be able to expand the welfare spending.

 

Now I dont understand why it has to be any different with onset of more automation. It will only increase the productivity and tax to the govt. Govt will be spending that extra money on the sort of welfare you want to see. With more global peace, they might get away much less spending on defence.

 

I lied a bit when I said most of the developed world has advanced welfare program because we have higher productivity compared to developing countries. Its also because our govt has access to cheap loans. So they have expanded the welfare beyond what their tax base will allow. One solution is to increase taxation to bring welfare spending in line. Increased personal tax is not very popular with british public, so 'tax the rich and tax the corporate seems to be go-to solution'.

I think we should increase taxation across the board.

 

I would say with much more automation, we will probably catch up and be able to massively expand welfare to include universal basic income. We don't begrudge the poor when they access NHS. Why would universal basic income be any different?

 

The issue is, the economy needs to produce enough for govt to take a cut and spread it across. I think for universal basic income, the pie need to be bigger, just taking a bigger cut wont suffice.

but then we are arguing without numbers, so these all words mean very little.

 

 

The bit in bold above is hopeful to the point of naivety.  Tax to the government will only increase if governments legislate to collect that tax and to close the loopholes which form.  The current situation with huge global corporations had led to widespead tax avoidance which will only get worse.  Automation will make these companies more efficient and productive but there's only 2 ways the rest of us will see the benefit of that:

 

1.  Prices for products and services drop.

2. The state is able to claim far greater taxes off these companies than they do now.

 

As I said previously, I'd prefer option 2, which that wealth being redstributed in the form of a UBI.  Option 1 would be problem because those remaining in work would be effectively richer while the rest of the population would be dependent on our current benefits system, claiming job seekers allowance for jobs which don't exist, so that cheaper product would still be unaffordable.

 

And remember, AI isn't just going to arrive fully formed.  It will get better and better until it's used for almost all jobs.  This would free up the human population to a life of leisure and the pursuit of those things which makes them happy and fulfilled (eg boating).  But that can only happen if the wealth which is created is given back to us all.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The bit in bold above is hopeful to the point of naivety.  Tax to the government will only increase if governments legislate to collect that tax and to close the loopholes which form.  The current situation with huge global corporations had led to widespead tax avoidance which will only get worse.  Automation will make these companies more efficient and productive but there's only 2 ways the rest of us will see the benefit of that:

 

1.  Prices for products and services drop.

2. The state is able to claim far greater taxes off these companies than they do now.

 

As I said previously, I'd prefer option 2, which that wealth being redstributed in the form of a UBI.  Option 1 would be problem because those remaining in work would be effectively richer while the rest of the population would be dependent on our current benefits system, claiming job seekers allowance for jobs which don't exist, so that cheaper product would still be unaffordable.

 

And remember, AI isn't just going to arrive fully formed.  It will get better and better until it's used for almost all jobs.  This would free up the human population to a life of leisure and the pursuit of those things which makes them happy and fulfilled (eg boating).  But that can only happen if the wealth which is created is given back to us all.

I'd like to see AI take on my job as a performer and entertainer! Also call centre staff are safe at the moment. Most of the young flibbertigibbets are marginally more intelligent than the chat bots, who in general are clueless. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

I'd like to see AI take on my job as a performer and entertainer! Also call centre staff are safe at the moment. Most of the young flibbertigibbets are marginally more intelligent than the chat bots, who in general are clueless. 

 

 

 

I thought ABBA had already done this.

 

https://abbavoyage.com/

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

I'd like to see AI take on my job as a performer and entertainer! Also call centre staff are safe at the moment. Most of the young flibbertigibbets are marginally more intelligent than the chat bots, who in general are clueless. 

 

 

I'm not sure I'd bet the house on that one.:unsure: From my anecdotal experience most call centre staff are already working from screens with set algorithms, with AI and a decent voice generator they'll be out the door. With my recent experience of contact with the Royal Mail call centre, I'd have got more sense from a budgie:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Quattrodave said:

I'd be careful there, if AI can already create 'deep fakes' i wonder what it can do in say 10 years...

Ride a 5ft unicycle, juggle and eat fire? With panache? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

I'd like to see AI take on my job as a performer and entertainer! Also call centre staff are safe at the moment. Most of the young flibbertigibbets are marginally more intelligent than the chat bots, who in general are clueless. 

 

 

Good luck with that.  I suspect AI created entertainment will supersede large parts of our current performing arts.  As to current chatbots, yes they're currently terrible, but 5 years ago they barely existed at all.  Have a look at the recent news regarding google's LaMDA AI, some of the transcripts of conversations are mind boggling.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

Ride a 5ft unicycle, juggle and eat fire? With panache? 

I never tried eating fire with panache. Does it make the fire taste better ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I never tried eating fire with panache. Does it make the fire taste better ?

by Lentheric? :D 

This reminds me of christmas tv adverts in times gone by, good ‘ol Victor Kermit Kiam II and his Remington Microscreen :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

by Lentheric? :D 

This reminds me of christmas tv adverts in times gone by, good ‘ol Victor Kermit Kiam II and his Remington Microscreen :) 

I prefer ze Jean Paul Gaultier wiz ze breasts 

classique.webp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 From my anecdotal experience most call centre staff are already working from screens with set algorithms, 

I experienced this situation in the pre-computer era. In the mid-1970's I found that my gas stop-cock leaked, but only in the OFF position. (at the time, people were advised to turn off their gas and electric when going on holiday). On ringing the gas board to report it, the customer services person was most insistent that I turn off the gas.  Dad had been a gas fitter, and I knew how to test for leaks using soapy water, and had positively identified the leak as coming from the conical plug of the stop cock when in the OFF position, but the customer services person wouldn't listen. I had to insist on speaking to a supervisor before I could get a visit arranged to fix it: evidently the customer services' script said the gas had to be turned off before taking any further steps. 

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

And remember, AI isn't just going to arrive fully formed.  It will get better and better until it's used for almost all jobs.  This would free up the human population to a life of leisure and the pursuit of those things which makes them happy and fulfilled (eg boating).  But that can only happen if the wealth which is created is given back to us all.

 

And you lecture others about naivety? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

And you lecture others about naivety? 🤣

Strange, I'm usually accused of being overly cynical, but time will tell.  But the advances in AI in just the last 2 or 3 years are nothing short of astounding.  Human progress throughout history has seen a continuous progression of automation with occassional seismic leaps.  One of the those leaps is happening right now.  You can either get on board with it or be left behind.  My job is considered fairly technical and specialised and requires a minimum of a masters degree and further professional qualifications, yet I'm aware that it may become entirely defunct within my lifetime.  At the very least I'd expect a drop of at least 90% of workers with AI doing the bulk of it and a small number of people being paid to keep an eye on the AI.

 

If I had a child and was advising them on a future career, I'd suggest politician, as they're likely to be the last to go.

 

As yes, I do think blindly trusting governments and corporations to work together to ensure a sufficient tax revenue to support a UBI for the masses, without us all fighting for it, is naive, when the evidence strongly points in the opposite direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

In the mid-1970's I found that my gas stop-cock leaked

....

I had to insist on speaking to a supervisor before I could get a visit arranged to fix it

So t'was on the Monday morning that the gas man came to call!

 

 

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

I'd like to see AI take on my job as a performer and entertainer!

Frankly, I think there's many a  "performer and entertainer" I'd happily see replaced by AI. Alan Carr springs immediately to mind, but many others are available...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Frankly, I think there's many a  "performer and entertainer" I'd happily see replaced by AI. Alan Carr springs immediately to mind, but many others are available...

Heaven forfend! If a known entertainer is turned into an AI avatar then there will be no end to them. At least 'real' ones recycle every so often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2022 at 15:08, doratheexplorer said:

The bit in bold above is hopeful to the point of naivety.  Tax to the government will only increase if governments legislate to collect that tax and to close the loopholes which form.  The current situation with huge global corporations had led to widespead tax avoidance which will only get worse.  Automation will make these companies more efficient and productive but there's only 2 ways the rest of us will see the benefit of that:

 

1.  Prices for products and services drop.

2. The state is able to claim far greater taxes off these companies than they do now.

 

As I said previously, I'd prefer option 2, which that wealth being redstributed in the form of a UBI.  Option 1 would be problem because those remaining in work would be effectively richer while the rest of the population would be dependent on our current benefits system, claiming job seekers allowance for jobs which don't exist, so that cheaper product would still be unaffordable.

 

And remember, AI isn't just going to arrive fully formed.  It will get better and better until it's used for almost all jobs.  This would free up the human population to a life of leisure and the pursuit of those things which makes them happy and fulfilled (eg boating).  But that can only happen if the wealth which is created is given back to us all.

since I dont know the amount needed(to implement UBC) I wont pretend that I know the extend govt should collect extra tax(additional tax on corporate / closing loopholes)

may be it will be more than enough, may be it will not even make a dent. There might be a moral case for govt to do it anyway but that's not the point of argument.

to repeat, without numbers its all emotions and feelings. Which is important but gets a bit boring to argue after a while. cheers.

Also please note, I am(from my first post onwards) talking about whether we 'can' not whether we 'should'. Avoid more copypasta trying to prove the later please.

 

Edited by restlessnomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.