Comments by "Brenda Rua" (@brendarua01) on "The incredible inventions of intuitive AI | Maurice Conti" video.

  1. Maybe the A.I. will be smart enough to answer whether we should build A.I?
    432
  2. Marx and others at the time of industrialization wrote about real work being creative and enabling and noble. I think very few people have been lucky enough to experience that. But why couldn't UBI be the key to it? People helping people, learning the arts, improving themselves in thousands of ways, would be a new world and one to aspire to. Compare this to what passes for work now.
    4
  3. It strikes me that the terminology/ontology of today's economics is behind the times. What we are starting to see and what this AI revolution will create is structural unemployment. Your 19th century notions of money and employment don't seem to capture what's happening. To put it another way the models are too simple. For example what does GNP per capita mean when there are fewer and fewer participants actually involved? How does that play into notions of supply and demand when Joe down the street can simply "print" what they need in their basement with the help of the AI in their smart phone? Who's going to be earning the money working to buy all these wonderful gadgets? Henry Ford knew he needed a market of workers who could afford his goods. That foundational notion has slipped away but not been replaced. When will the house of cards tumble down?
    4
  4. Ben Saber, I find your view about electricity fascinating. I agree electricity has had a huge impact on civilization, and since A.I. requires it then it's more important. But I think you can imagine life without electricity. You can even experience it. Much of the world has none at all. Heck many of our grandparents in the U.S. went without. It wasn't until the Rural Electrification Program that people in very small towns and in the country had it. There was no profit in it so the power companies weren't interested. Many politicians didn't want to spend the money to do so. Now days you see something similar in the US with broadband access to the internet. But i agree with your general point. And just think, when the queen of England was shown a demonstration of electromagnetism, she asked (something like) "But what good is it?"
    2
  5. +Anonymusopina You are right on the mark there. We see a sample of this in the US now, with corporations moving jobs off shore. Each thinks if they are first then they can rely on the employees of other companies to buy their goods. It is a variation of the tragedy of the commons, an inherent contradiction built into capitalism. Robots are an extension of the cheap labor mob mentality of the short sighted owners. I see a universal basic income as the result of this. But it will not solve the problem because too much of the economy is based on goods that the basic income will not support. One will need a job, and a good one at that.
    2
  6. Which god?
    2
  7. Ohhhhhh o.O Cue the music!
    1
  8. +Vagelis, we have no argument about the nature of basic income guarantees. My point was a bit different. I'll try to rephrase it. Basic Income covers basic needs either through cash subsidies or direct delivery. It seems likely that this will not include luxury items, things like a new phone every couple of years, a new car, every 3-5 years, a 80" TV, etc. (Where the line is drawn remains to be seen.) Yet a substantial proportion of manufacturing is given over to non-essential, luxury goods. Who will be buying these in the volumes needed to sustain economic activity, let alone drive the growth that profit demands?
    1