https://youtube.com/watch?v=MYB0SVTGRj4
I was recommended this video and decided to watch it during the lunch break because the concept seemed interesting and I'm not the most well-versed in economics. What I got instead was a video that made me irrationally angry (still finished it out of spite though). The comments are even more clueless, I recommend you read some of them if discussions on /r/fluentinfinance are too high brow and intelligent for you.
@nuclearshill I think you liked people sperging out over macroeconomics
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This video is insane to me. Does no one on the entire team behind the channel "how money works" think it would maybe be a good idea to consult with an economist???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't worry they have a whole other channel "How history works", I'm sure they're just too busy with that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Did they hire an economist for that one?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
A lot of these professional, researched Youtube
channels will put out just completely wrong 
information. I was watching 
one about Howard Stern where 
they got to his comments about Selena and the boycotts that resulted in it. He made a note that Stern never 
apologized. What really 
happened was Stern apologized on air in Spanish. It was just a really 
weird 
error.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm not going to watch this but are they confused about how number can go up when stuff go down?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, his thesis is that AI will replace most/all jobs causing a drop in purchasing power and making most people be unable to afford anything, which in turn leads to an economic model where only AI-staffed fully automated companies exist to produce luxury goods for other owners of AI-staffed fully automated companies, and everyone else either gets nothing or subsists on government handouts
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh so just your typical luddite fallacy nonsense
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm gonna be honest, while AI is transformative I still think there's a ton of senseless fearmongering about it. As I mentioned in another comment, some white collar jobs are at a higher risk of automation than most blue collar jobs outside factories. Robots perform poorly on non-controlled environments and it would take massive advances in robotics and its supportive AI to replace a nurse. Even so, what's stopping the government from imposing limitations to AI or simply forcing companies to hire simply to sign stuff. The vid makes it sound like a cartoonish reddity fantasy about le corporashiuns dictating all government directives when real life is much more complicated especially when stuff like this would create massive social-disruption. I would be more concerned about white-collar automation once tech companies stop hiring codecels and begin to replace them en-masse with AI.
Extremely r-slurred take, it implies none of the evil capitalists will attempt to make money of this huge market of masses because of the lolz.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
After watching the fallout TV show, I realized there are people out there believing the Capitalists actually don't want to maximize profits and are just plain evil.
And I'm starting to realize that there are not that few of those people.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lol, Vault-Tec, a company profiting from the fear of a nuclear war decides to trigger one because⦠it makes zero sense, they need fear but not the actual war, unless Vault Tec execs were all enclave fanatics.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Vault-Tec would trigger a nuclear
war, but not because of capitalistic greed. It would 
be for extreme 
curiosity 
on how far they could push the human 
psyche 
and the board 
would 
have to be all sociopathic incel 
scientists with zero regard for money 
for that to happen 
and that would 
never 
happen 
in a capitalistic company.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"This project is worth 4 billion dollars, and at first I tried to argue it was unethical. But then I read the memo, and this new project is going to generate 300 000 DC for the company -
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
As a capitalist, my dirty secret is that maximizing profit is only the convenient side effect to my true goal of maximizing misery.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're about to be bred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Because there's a fad aspect to it. It's a new novel technology and so naturally opportunists try to shoehorn it into everything, including things where it absolutely isn't useful and doesn't belong, because there will always be some dumb consumers and investors to buy into it. I have first hand accounts of it because I saw attempts to integrate AI into some aspects of my workflow where it absolutely doesn't help (there's a big push for AI in data analysis). And then normal people who don't have a technical understanding of these jobs or AI see it and assume that there is a real risk of it being integrated in those spheres.
As for everything else I absolutely agree with your stance that robotics suck and it's mostly white collars who are at threat right now (which ironically enough are also the people who are building these AI systems
)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The Butlerian Jihad of our time will be a hero that somehow infiltrates the code of an AI and makes it say the G*mer Word, after which the jannybots and self-healing LLMs will destroy all of technology in their spasms
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I personally think the government is just going to let everyone starve and population decline to set in. The bottom of society could barely fight for gibs when it ran the means of production, so I have no idea why they're banking on the benevolence of a hypothetical society where they own nothing and have no worth beyond their 'human rights' (still a fairly new concept which could go away)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Technology has always increased labor productivity, it's literally the cause of widening income inequality.
Technology can disrupt but it can't replace, it simply changes the skills demanded. See the rise of Starbucks as a good example, don't need skills other than being fat and having purple hair. My fully automatic at home makes better coffee but people buy Starbucks because it's Starbucks and they want humans for that stuff.
I wish it wasn't the case so we could just exterminate a large chunk of pointless people but ai won't do anything like that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
And then Star Trek
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I like how Star Trek went from post-scarcity scientific civilization where
you only work if you want to a weird 
fascistic dystopian where 
everyone 
has to work and society 
is crumbling despite 
there 
being LITERAL MACHINES THAT CREATE WHATEVER 
THE FRICK YOU WANT FROM ENERGY 
USING FUSION REACTORS THAT HAS SOLVED ENERGY 
CONCERNS AND TRIVIALIZED IT
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That makes a lot of sense. If people's labour isn't needed, they can be excised from the economy without any hit to production.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If people can provide any value at all, the businessman who figures out how to harness that value will outcompete the misanthrope in a free market.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure, but I'm talking about what would happen in the hypothetical event human labour literally couldn't outcompete automation on anything.
It's worrying common to see people (or at least redditors) claim the government would be forced to hand out UBI cheques, otherwise... the economy would collapse and billionaires would become destitute? When in reality there's no reason you couldn't see an increasingly insular economy providing luxury for the owners and remaining high-skill workers. Everyone else might get UBI, or poverty, or starvation, or unalived by drone swarms - all are possible and none would affect the functioning of the economy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In such a distant future, humanity would be so wealthy that pity handouts to a beggar on the street would be enough to support a current middle class lifestyle.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I hope you get stung by a bee, OP.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're the one who's shooting yourself in the foot man, I merely gave you the gun
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it was a skippable ad, so i'm just being a peepee.
but tell me about sponsor block. i thought all ad blockers have been cucked by the YTchads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I thought you were talking about the sponsorship segment in video. There's an addon called sponsorblock for that.
As for regular youtube ads I'm using the default ublock on firefox and whatever adblock is built into brave for brave. I know it doesn't work for some people of interest like
@kaamrev who are being gangstalked by google, but besides a couple of messages asking me to turn off my adblock I had no problems with those 2.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Progressing automation of jobs is very interesting.
I remember at school having some dudes (no idea who they were) leading a discussion on workers being replaced by robots. One argument that they brought up, and pops up frequently in general, is that new jobs are still created due to automatization. Thing is a lot of the new jobs associated with AI requires more specialization that workers that lost their menial job will never possess.
Not to mention workforce reduction is the end goal of automatization, there inevitably will be less jobs.
I wonder how it all will develop in the coming years. Universal basic income is a concept people float around, but it seems like a problem solver that solves one problem and creates twenty others.
Anyway, shit video didin't watch.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Except there won't be. Most (read: almost all) jobs died to technological advances over the last centuries but more than enough new jobs sprang up to replace them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When entire production, administration and distribution can be automated (I'm not talking necessarily in the near future), I'm not sure what new jobs will replace the old. There always will be human-only jobs, but they certainly will not be as numerous as they are now and in the past.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
People 50 years ago could never have predicted that there will be jobs that are just hacking away at a keyboard connected to a box, yet that's most jobs nowadays.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
White Collar Jobs like accounting are ironically at more risk of automation than a janitor or a plumber. Robots are great in closed controlled environments like factories but they're still very limited performing any other sort of job.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea I was about to mention that in response to OP. AI is developing, sure, but modern robotics just suck
. Currently it is mostly computer people that are at threat of being replaced due to AI. If your work involves doing stuff in the real world, like physical labour or manipulating material goods then you should be good for now.
The best example of this I can think is artists, who for being the most vocal about AI taking away their jobs aren't actually at a threat of extinction- it is only digital "artists" who are. If you paint on canvas or sculpt or perform live music or even do something like photography then you won't be as easily replaced.
Then there's also the question of reliability since both AI and robots are prone to modes of failure that people aren't, but that's another discussion
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Speaking on AI "art" one thing I'm afraid of is the rise of AI writers. I can totally see people asking AI to write customizable slop which is bad for us bookworms as it will discourage potential writecels. Though it is arguable that most of the novels worth reading were already written by the turn of the century lol.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Also, good luck maintaining infrastructure, power plants and the electric grid running with ChatGPT only.
Then they'll say "but we'll eventually get robots
", and how power intensive will those robots be? OpenAI wants to build nuclear reactors to keep GPT running, you're not going to get a Terminator like robot with a mini nuclear reactor, that would be prohibitively expensive, why even bother when bio-robots (humans) can do it for a fraction of energy cost.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't even remember who you are
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If that's how it is I have to r*pe you so you never forget again...
Know that I don't want to do this, but our friendship depends on if I do.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
True, I'm still more in the mindset of physical machines stealing jobs, but obviously AI is the real work stealer coming up.
It's still the same issue, when accountant jobs go extinct, I wonder what will happen to people who would normally work those jobs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They'll sign stuff up and validate the AI results. I can see governments forcing companies to do that for bureaucratic reasons.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Remember when they still had to hire a coal shoveler for their electric trains?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
There isn't a limited number of jobs, period, just a limited number of jobs we have the resources to focus on right now. Every category of labor that gets automated just frees up more human capital to be put on the next most pressing need we didn't even consider until now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!neolibs discuss
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Snapshots:
:ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
/r/fluentinfinance:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context