Amazulu

Splitting hairs

You know what I was trying to say

Shard

Not at all. If you use the word "only" you have to be 100% sure that it relates to one thing. Sloppy writing leads to misinterpretation.

GarryP

Not changed my mind at all, just hammering into yours that write once means writing the code once and instantiating multiple times is the way you get to easy scaleability, which is a characteristic that AIs often have, and thus fast unemployment from one codebase. Your view would be called write and forget - not the same thing.

And you still avoided the point.

Nope, lets call that you avoiding the example of outsourcing meaning your claim that the market couldn't be that stupid is evidentially wrong.

We covered that a long, long, time ago. As Shard says, farm workers into the factory, then into the offices - eventually you run out of places to go .... when the machines can do everything you can do.

Here's a question for you. Imagine you were a hot-shot, smart, entrepreneur who's come up with some business model for whispering sweet nothings into the customers' ear while they sleep to make them happier - you know, one of those new industries you talk so much about.

Do you, as a smart hot-shot, R&D the elements of your model to include ranks of humans doing the new job of "Sweet Nothings Whisper", as you seem to expect. Or do you create an AI to do the job, filling out a server farm to scale from a few local customers to world domination and billions in the bank?

Beoz

What point? Its pointless.

We have been doing platform stuff for years. It has its benefits but also much of it is thrown in the bin.

In fact, platform code is more often and not a hindrance to technology development.

The commercial aspects override the devs everytime. How can we get the next release out quickly to satisfy the customers so we can continue to claim their repeat revenue. Lets build on the old. Yes it needs redoing but we don't have the time.

That's how it works. But so what? Code is code. It evolves, its technology, its what it does.

AI will have a platform. Code will be added to it. It will be commericialised which will hinder development.

But so what?

My point was that outsourcing was exactly the same kind of short sighted behaviour as automating without changing the distribution of the wealth resulting. And the market certainly did that, didn't it? You need something to make things more equitable, because the market is dumb on its own.

You are right. I didn't pick this up. Nope. If anything the global distribution of wealth has become more even with the likes of China and India closing the wealth gap on their western counterparts due to outsourcing and globalisation.

Then the proof is in the pudding. Automation creates jobs. Just admit it. You cannot deny the facts


What do you think and again so what. What is the "so what" value here. Are you trying to suggest I take 2 jobs away from the human voice overs but instead give many more to other areas. I start with zero employees, I add 100, and minus 2. That's 98 fresh faces I give jobs too.

I have a marketing team, a sales team, a design team, I employ devs to write the code, I pay a company to maintain my website (more jobs for them), I pay Amazon to host my servers, my accountant gets a piece (because I want to throw around ideas with a human rather than a spreadsheet), and the list goes on.

See farming. Same deal, that's why jobs around food production and delivery has risen exponentially.

Beoz

Nope. Productivity increase means more workers. But before that productivity increases needs demand. If no one has money then there's no demand. No productivity increase, no development.

Catch 22 all around.

We are safe.

Shard

You seem to believe that demand is infinite.

Beoz

Nope. Again I never said that. But nice try.

Making money is infinite.

If I make a hundred dollars a year (assuming I don't spend more than I make) then I only get to save somewhere between $0-$100 - Saving Money = Finite

If I make $100 a year, and I can run the business better, I stand to make more $100. How much can I make? Who knows? Making Money = Infinite

Shard

No need to explain the grade school costs vs sales dynamic, we all get that.

On the previous post, however, the implication of your productivity argument is that there is infinite demand to be satisfied. The more you automate, the greater the wealth that gets generated, and higher need for workers elsewhere. That seems to be the faulty logic in your various arguments.

Classic entrepreneurial mindset, by the way, and you seem to be one, so as you guys, good on ya.

Beoz

Do tell. I am all ears.

BTW a lot of jobs will just fail to automate completely. The humans will use automation to a greater extent to do more things - volume and accuracy.

Tax accountants for example. They should have been gone long ago but continue to survive because of the human to human interaction.

Tradesmen will hang in there for the working class. Not enough repetition. Too much bespoke work.

Shard

If you were all ears you would take on board what everyone and every expert is saying about automation.

Many jobs will not automate - strawman - that's not the issue. What we're discussing is the lack of replacement jobs for those many jobs that do disappear.

Automation should lead to a bigger pie, more wealth, new industries...BUT... many average workers will not have a role to fill. The office workers, delivery drivers, retail assistant, and even your beloved up-selling 20th century salesmen. Not just me or Garry saying this, it's a huge number of qualified commentators.

But you seem to have blind faith, blind optimism in new types of work being created for the masses. Maybe. I had hoped you would have come up with some examples by this stage, but it seems not.

Maybe the displaced could become an army of plumbers or hairdressers. Maybe work will become elderly care work or teaching. Maybe traditional work will exist in upgrading the economies in Africa and other developing regions. Maybe continual upgrading of infrastructure will employ enough displaced persons.

It's important to consider realistic scenarios, because then they can be planned and new economic models can be introduced (eg. UBI). Assuming the machine and information age are just going to hum along indefinitely, is short sighted.

Beoz

You hit the nail on the head right there.

You see, its pretty simple.

Back when farming jobs were falling off a cliff, great grandfather Shard said "how are all these displaced fruit pickers going to find jobs? They aren't smart enough to drive one of those new truck things or operate a one of those mind boggling cash registers, and for operating a computer to send a message, forget it, these guys can't even write there own name".

The one tool Great Grandfather Shard needed at his disposal was the crystal ball. He would have seen the luddite fallacy.

I like the one about the continual upgrade of infrastructure. That in itself is becoming a monster business and is only going to get bigger. Traditionally ignored (especially on the infrastructure where health and safety isn't as serious) because its too hard. But, these infrastructure assets lasts for decades, requiring constant maintainence and upgrading. Good spot Shard.

Shard

Gee, thanks.

Just remember, it's now called "the myth of the Luddite fallacy". Small, but important distinction.

Beoz

So its starting to make sense then?

Shard

My position has not changed from the start, as I suspect is the same for you. Time will tell what happens.

Beoz

Now where were we - oh yes, we concluded that automation increases jobs.

What about population booms? Should we worry, or do we naturally allow populations to boom, in reaction to other requirements?

https://www.domain.com.au/news/why-a...171006-gyulxw/