[Politics] Bigger economic problems incoming

[Swansman]

The only question I have to add on AI conversation is, say there were two online articles .... "AI will lead to evolution in the employment market" and "AI will lead to dystopian future with replacement of nearly all human jobs", which one of those would get more clicks and be read more and thus become more entrenched in the minds of sci fi fans and tech subcultures?

I could be wrong and this advance could turn out to be an advance of a different of kind to those which have come before and I get computer intelligence is accelerating, but I still can't knock the thought out of my head that the interactions I've had so far with AI don't exactly fill me with dread about the obscelence of the human race in the short or medium term.

On the Swiss Bank thing. Well nothing in the news about collapsing market confidence or unusual volatility yet.

Maybe we'll all be ok?

Who says that AI replacing work needs to be dystopian? Not spending half of your wake time and maybe a third or fourth of your life doing some job could be pretty utopian, if we adapt our society and systems in time. As long as it comes with reproduction control, there's nothing unsustainable about it.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I hate to break it to but it is true. To give a few examples, up to the early 80s many businesses employed typing pools. As PCs become common so this technology to auto produce letters using sophisicated mail merges and action triggers ( like someone has gone into an unauthorised overdraft ). You'll be lucky to find a single typist in most organisations nowadays. Restaurant and bar chains now have automatic ordering systems to restock based on sales so nobody needs to calculate and place orders at the end of the day - this saves on staff heads. Equally in many McDonalds you now order from and pay at a screen - this has allowed McDonalds to cut staff. One branch in Dieppe that I use every time I come back from France used to have at least six staff on - it's now never more than two. Let's take customer service - you know that "Live Chat" option ? Well many are run by AI bots - not humans. This negates the need for so many staff to answer the live chat. Equally live chat means not so many calls need taking and thus a business needs less call agents. Banking - so many of us do our banking online that thousands of branches have closed and thousands of jobs have been lost. Even the branches that have survived have less staff due to self service. IT - self help protals for customers mean less Service Desk staff are required. Self healing networks' while kind of in their infancy, have and will continue to mean less network engineers are required. Car industry - cars on the production line used to be built by humans alone. Now a good percentage of the car is built by computers. And you've guessed it meaning less production line staff.

I could go on but as you see technology has taken jobs. It's created some new ones admittedly but not as many as have been lost. AI will be the next big job killer.

I'm not doubting tech has destroyed jobs, I am arguing that tech goes on to create even more thats why the number of jobs over time has increased not decreased. This may at some point end but it hasn't. This whole argument re-emerged because Andrew Yang a US politician was pushing it to promote UBI(Universal Basic Income). He was called out on that because the number of jobs business cycles aside are increasing. Your argument has no end product.

 

[beorhthelm]

The only question I have to add on AI conversation is, say there were two online articles .... "AI will lead to evolution in the employment market" and "AI will lead to dystopian future with replacement of nearly all human jobs", which one of those would get more clicks and be read more and thus become more entrenched in the minds of sci fi fans and tech subcultures?

exactly this. and until there is artificial intelligence worthy of the name, the first question isnt even worth asking.

though, to return to the subject of CS, the way we see social media parrot around rumour as if fact, one has to question how much real inteligence there is. it could frankly all be bots.

 

[Swansman]

I'm not doubting tech has destroyed jobs, I am arguing that tech goes on to create even more thats why the number of jobs over time has increased not decreased. This may at some point end but it hasn't. This whole argument re-emerged because Andrew Yang a US politician was pushing it to promote UBI(Universal Basic Income). He was called out on that because the number of jobs business cycles aside are increasing. Your argument has no end product.

AI is different from previous technological advances in a number of ways. First, AI is designed to replicate and exceed human intelligence, whereas previous technologies have been limited to replicating or assisting human activity. Second, AI has the ability to learn and improve itself over time, whereas previous technologies have been static. Third, AI has the potential to impact a wide range of industries and sectors, whereas previous technologies have been more limited in their scope.

 

[A mex eyecan]

AI is different from previous technological advances in a number of ways. First, AI is designed to replicate and exceed human intelligence, whereas previous technologies have been limited to replicating or assisting human activity. Second, AI has the ability to learn and improve itself over time, whereas previous technologies have been static. Third, AI has the potential to impact a wide range of industries and sectors, whereas previous technologies have been more limited in their scope.

and eventually lead to ‘computer says no’

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

AI is different from previous technological advances in a number of ways. First, AI is designed to replicate and exceed human intelligence, whereas previous technologies have been limited to replicating or assisting human activity. Second, AI has the ability to learn and improve itself over time, whereas previous technologies have been static. Third, AI has the potential to impact a wide range of industries and sectors, whereas previous technologies have been more limited in their scope.

Hoped...

All of which is why it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. I know he gets pelters for his awful syntax but Dan' Brown's last book (spoiler alert) engaged with this quite entertainingly.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

AI is different from previous technological advances in a number of ways. First, AI is designed to replicate and exceed human intelligence, whereas previous technologies have been limited to replicating or assisting human activity. Second, AI has the ability to learn and improve itself over time, whereas previous technologies have been static. Third, AI has the potential to impact a wide range of industries and sectors, whereas previous technologies have been more limited in their scope.

Yes all true but the mistake you are making is that it wont in turn kick start multiple other sunrise industries. The steam traction engine led to trains, and cars for example.
then petrol, or fossil fuel led to planes and rockets. Whats to say AI doesn't invent anti-gravitational tech? As long as it doesn't go full skynet the futures positive based on the past.

 

[Audax]

[tweet]1576940891696418816[/tweet]

More noise re: Credit Suisse

 

[Barham's tash]

It’s share price. CS commentators saying they are effectively bankrupt,

Careful you’re just using wild speculation here. Ultimately CS has capital reserves far greater than they did during 2008. Their regulators (FINMA in Switzerland and FCA/PRU in the UK) insist upon far more stringent requirements since 08. They have a tier 1 capital ratio of 13.4% way above the required 10% from a regulatory perspective.

What you’re seeing with the share price is a function of speculative trading from
Short selling hedge funds who are using the CDS (Credit Default Swap) price as a trading proxy to spook the wider market and drive the share price down - where they will actually make their money causing a negative feedback loop but ultimately it’s just all noise in the run up to their widely anticipated structural reform paper coming out in four weeks.

DB on the other hand could be in actual trouble due to funding gap issues.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Absolute nonsense.

Brown was one of the worst chancellors ever………and a key cog in the CAUSE of the 2008 crash in the U.K.

The proof………how about Fred Goodwin, so close to Brown he made him a knight of the realm and interfered with fateful RBS purchase of ABN AMRO.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...on-former-friend-sir-fred-goodwin-3b66gs87g29

Here’s Brown in 2007, in the Mansion House speech no less, lauding his city chums about his “risk based regulatory approach”.

https://www.ukpol.co.uk/gordon-brown-2007-mansion-house-speech/

In hindsight Ed Balls apologised in Parliament for Labour’s failures to control U.K. financial services.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/26/ed-balls-sorry-labour-failures

Oh, and how about PFI……

https://inews.co.uk/news/legacy-pfi-contracts-wasteful-shocking-exclusive-investigation-350832

And not forgetting his shameful raid on pension funds.

https://www.ftadviser.com/2014/05/0...ions-raid-WTQAjLW5DSRp9HUxwNZN7K/article.html

Brown rightly disappeared after his electoral defeat………..he should never be seen again, the stupid I’ve abolished boom and bust one eyed shit.

Agree with this - and I'm a labour supporter. He spent years building the bonfire which he subsequently helped to put out (after it had caused incalculable damage) - and now history remembers him as some sort of hero. This was his plan as we were following America towards the cliff edge that he knew very well was ahead. It worked a treat for him.