bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,742
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Sure, but it will only run on C3PO...Can I get AI to write an Android app for me?
Sure, but it will only run on C3PO...Can I get AI to write an Android app for me?
Wages and income have been increasing. Just not as rapidly as many people would like. One huge reason for the lackluster real wage growth is the cost of rent/housing. One huge part of the solution to that is supply, supply, supply. Governments need to get out of the way and make it easier/less costly to add more supply, and massively more supply. Medical price inflation is also a huge issue and far more complicated.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1jtuM
A cow gets Mad Cow Disease by eating feed contaminated with parts that came from another cow that was sick with Mad Cow Disease.
Mostly it comes in the form of self reinforcing ideological diseases... Religions.A cow gets Mad Cow Disease by eating feed contaminated with parts that came from another cow that was sick with Mad Cow Disease.
AI Chat acquires its "information" by reading text available on the Internet.
Increasingly that text and its "information" is generated by other AI bots.
See a problem?
The problem is that that is not a reasonable expectation. The thing is there are really three pieces of the pie. Worker/business/equipment. The reason productivity goes up is investment in equipment. For most of history the equipment was a fairly minor portion of the total cost for most jobs. That is no longer true--by now the average capital cost per worker is multiple years of wages and for some jobs the cost of the equipment is more than what it's operator will make in a lifetime.
Your graph shows Real Median Personal Income increasing by 53% over almost 50 years. But the total economy has increased hugely, and ordinary workers think they should keep their "share of the pie." In fact, however, Real GDP per Capita has increased over the same period, not by 53% but by 141%.
The problem is that that is not a reasonable expectation.Your graph shows Real Median Personal Income increasing by 53% over almost 50 years. But the total economy has increased hugely, and ordinary workers think they should keep their "share of the pie." In fact, however, Real GDP per Capita has increased over the same period, not by 53% but by 141%.
The thing is there are really three pieces of the pie. Worker/business/equipment.
The reason productivity goes up is investment in equipment. For most of history the equipment was a fairly minor portion of the total cost for most jobs. That is no longer true--by now the average capital cost per worker is multiple years of wages and for some jobs the cost of the equipment is more than what it's operator will make in a lifetime.
Note, also, that by use of median you distort the picture--a lot of improvement has been from skilled workers no longer spending nearly as much time on minor stuff and thus doing more of whatever they're actually being paid to do. And almost all of that is above the median.
Bill Gates walks into a bar. One intoxicated imbiber yells out "Congratulations and cheers to everyone! Our average wealth just increased by a billion ollars!!"
What's important is that the standard of living is rising.The problem is that that is not a reasonable expectation.Your graph shows Real Median Personal Income increasing by 53% over almost 50 years. But the total economy has increased hugely, and ordinary workers think they should keep their "share of the pie." In fact, however, Real GDP per Capita has increased over the same period, not by 53% but by 141%.
Of course we know WHY it's happening. But is it a GOOD thing? AI will exacerbate the unfortunate trend; that's thread topic. Remedy is beyond thread's scope; try a Marxism thread.
Land is a small part of equipment costs.The thing is there are really three pieces of the pie. Worker/business/equipment.
Don't forget LAND. Billionaires have been buying up land all over the planet. Are we heading toward medieval conditions where the Duke of Saxony owned all of Saxony?
You're focusing on the wrong thing.The reason productivity goes up is investment in equipment. For most of history the equipment was a fairly minor portion of the total cost for most jobs. That is no longer true--by now the average capital cost per worker is multiple years of wages and for some jobs the cost of the equipment is more than what it's operator will make in a lifetime.
Again, Yes. Obviously. That's the point. Do we mindlessly bow to the God of Capitalism? Or wonder what sort of society we want to have?
Median shows what lower income workers are making.Note, also, that by use of median you distort the picture--a lot of improvement has been from skilled workers no longer spending nearly as much time on minor stuff and thus doing more of whatever they're actually being paid to do. And almost all of that is above the median.
Haven't we been around and around and around on this before? Use of median instead of mean is a FEATURE, not a FLAW. It doesn't "distort" the picture. It CLARIFIES it.
I'm not talking about the Bill Gates of the world. I'm talking about the large numbers of people in high skill positions. Pretty much any job that requires a college degree is going to be above your median.Your preferred statistic would celebrate the old joke:
Bill Gates walks into a bar. One intoxicated imbiber yells out "Congratulations and cheers to everyone! Our average wealth just increased by a billion ollars!!"
Always has been though. People will adapt.Except it is disruptive to those trained in the old skills. We do not have an adequate system to retrain them to new skills--but that's a failing of our system, not a wrong in deploying the new technology.EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.
And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.
It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.
Studying the sciences for 'fun' or 'curiosity' is how we have had some of the greatest breakthroughs. We need MORE of it, not less.Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.
They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.
We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?
But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
Now to get the AI programs to stop STEALING it................You realise that that doesn't affect the point at all, right?You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.
They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.
We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?
But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
AI can produce as much art as you want, without making human artists redundant.
Nobody will pay you to dig ditches or clean bathrooms if a machine can do it cheaper and to tbe same or better standard; But if you produce great art, people will buy it, even if they can also buy it from machines.
I wasn't aware it went anywhere after the AI looked at it and moved on, and art is defined by the rampancy of piracy and the lack of fucks given there: great artists "steal"Now to get the AI programs to stop STEALING it................You realise that that doesn't affect the point at all, right?You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.
They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.
We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?
But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
AI can produce as much art as you want, without making human artists redundant.
Nobody will pay you to dig ditches or clean bathrooms if a machine can do it cheaper and to tbe same or better standard; But if you produce great art, people will buy it, even if they can also buy it from machines.
idiots. Would it allow private center owners to mandate immunizations? After all 'unvaccinated' is NOT a protected class as such as a private daycare owner, I should be allowed to accept whichever children I choose.What about New Hampshire?
New Hampshire's GOP are taking a stand—against the polio vaccine
The Granite State could be the first to ditch polio and measles requirements for child care.www.motherjones.com
Digital artists are being ripped off by AI generating programs.I wasn't aware it went anywhere after the AI looked at it and moved on, and art is defined by the rampancy of piracy and the lack of fucks given there: great artists "steal"Now to get the AI programs to stop STEALING it................You realise that that doesn't affect the point at all, right?You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.
They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.
We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?
But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
AI can produce as much art as you want, without making human artists redundant.
Nobody will pay you to dig ditches or clean bathrooms if a machine can do it cheaper and to tbe same or better standard; But if you produce great art, people will buy it, even if they can also buy it from machines.
No, they aren't, not any more than they are being ripped off by each other at any rate.Digital artists are being ripped off by AI generating programs.I wasn't aware it went anywhere after the AI looked at it and moved on, and art is defined by the rampancy of piracy and the lack of fucks given there: great artists "steal"Now to get the AI programs to stop STEALING it................You realise that that doesn't affect the point at all, right?You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.
They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.
We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?
But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
AI can produce as much art as you want, without making human artists redundant.
Nobody will pay you to dig ditches or clean bathrooms if a machine can do it cheaper and to tbe same or better standard; But if you produce great art, people will buy it, even if they can also buy it from machines.
Why not? I did.AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?
Same thing they do now. Struggle.What will people without the abilities to get a strong education when everything from yard work to Uber driver, to hair dresser is taken over by robots?