×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This is not the problem (627 comments)

"You're dismissing any of the many corrective features of consumers and competition in the market."

Do you know what global big means? It means necessarily low numbers, low competition and high barriers of entry. I'm not dismissing them but counting on the natural output. I.e.: hoy many car builders there were 40 years ago? how many are now? -and that's even considering that the potential producers are much more that they were back then: Europe and USA then and now you should add the South East.

"Indeed, history tells us that even huge and abusive corporations like Standard Oil cannot continue indefinitely."

Are you sure? On one hand, Standard Oil belongs to a much shorter world; on the other you don't have that many oil conglomerates now and their pressure on governments can be easily noted.

"Look carefully at the history and you'll see that the "trust busting" activities of the Federal government during that episode was driven by corrupt ambitions of politicians"

*Unavoidable* corrupt ambitions of policitians. There, corrected.

"and the market was ALREADY CORRECTING"

Are you sure? Exxon-Mobile seems to still going quite well nowadays. And this was not about any single company: names can come and go; maybe in a few years the new Delta Air Lines is Ryanair instead and there's no more American Airlines, but you can bet there will only be about ten big worldwide air companies -probably less, and that they'll lobby world governments just like they do now.

"Besides, we don't have anything better, or even as good, on a large scale."

I won't go into that now, but knowing nothing better doesn't make something to be good.

2 hours ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This is not the problem (627 comments)

"People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size."

That points us somewhere between 1014 and 1214 AD. I don't know any scholar that would say you had capitalist societies back then. And you wonder why I'm asking for _your_ definition of capitalism!?

Nevertheless, you offer some points towards your definition, so there we go:
* freemarket (I assume, Adam Smith's freemarket, here, correct me if I'm wrong)
* producers chase consumer resources
* Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money
* enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact
* also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. ...so yes, up to a point, Somalia gets out of the equation since it lacks enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud (I would better say "rule of law" instead of regulations, but I can accept this is a minor detail within context).

So then, you need an enforcement body strong enough to enforce the required regulations, which we usually identify to government which can either be tiranny or democracy/republic. I'll take the second since it is usually a 'standard' to accept the democracy/republic is a needed requirement for truly free markets.asdf

Unless you are talking about a short city-state, we are being to talk about representatadfive democracy or republic, which means authority of the people is managed by their representants.

So we have a strong enough government, constituency and their elective officers in a society model primed by the value of capital within a free market.

Under these circumnstances, moreso when you add global markets to the equation, it is unavoidable for at least some comercial entities to accrue enough power to be significant at the government level (much more than that and you fail on your point about enough regulation, much less and the companies are inefficient) and, in any case, they'll grow very strong when considered against a single individual.

This means that at least some comercial entities will accrue enough capital as either to brive elected officers or even to directly lobby the government to have laws that kill any or both of your last two points in their favour and once that starts to happen, no stable system can avoid it to go further.

You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.

This *shouldn't* happen in theory, it is still unavoidable in practice.

"in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is."

You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.

7 hours ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This is not the problem (627 comments)

"Free market capitalism, however, has the best historical track record for improving living conditions."

Only when you cherrypick your examples.

Please, first define capitalism, then upon your definition, let's see why Somalia is not as capitalist -or even more, than USA. Once I have your definition and some examples about how you work out it, I'll tell you how cronyism/corporatism becomes unavoidable.

Not that I'm excusing myself, it's only I'm tired of the true scotsman game.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Does the job still get done? (627 comments)

"3) A failed revolution attempted after deployment of robotic military / police, the 1% crush the 99% and live happily ever after"

We manage to do astounding technical feats but still there they go, mosquitoes and cockroaches. How is it that us 1% haven't managed to crush them 99% cockroaches?

4) the 1% puts out of "the system" the other 99% and don't give a damn about them except for making sure they don't get their head out of the water. I.e. quite alike to Huxley's 'A Brave New World'.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This is not the problem (627 comments)

"they've convinced a lot of people that capitalism is the problem"

But capitalism *is* the problem: current cronyism/corporatism/fascism seems to be an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, just as tiranny seems to be an unavoidable outcome of comunism.

Maybe your "pure" capitalism is free of those problems, but then comunism is also problem-free... in theory.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This silly person has no idea what will happen. (627 comments)

"Would you sacrifice the industrial revolution to make the lives of farmers easier?"

No, I wouldn't.

Would I look for ways for the industrial revolution not to be so damaging for millions over decades instead of just leaving it to the "market forces" which really benefit less than 1% of the population? Certainly yes.

"You can either do what you can to protect yourself and your family or not."

Unless you are already in the less than 1%, helping the majority will also help yourself.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Does the job still get done? (627 comments)

"A barbarian was someone who didn't speak the language (Greek and later, Latin). That's all the word means. If these slaves of yours still speak the prevailing language of English, they won't be barbarians."

No, they wouldn't be barbarians; they'd just be slaves which were not considered proper human beings.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Translation: new technology costs jobs (627 comments)

"Alarmist articles about how the latest technologies are going to destroy all jobs is not new. Most of the time the job destruction is either overestimated or temporary."

Yes, it's only that:
a) You don't want to be on the side of the jobs being destroyed when "temporary" can mean up to 150 years.
b) All trends have their limits (see Malthus). So it might be the case that this time there're no new jobs to be created for human hands (at least not enough for all the hands avaliable) once current ones are taken off of human hands.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This silly person has no idea what will happen. (627 comments)

"... over the short term jobs may be lost. They were after every previous advancement. But then the market found a place for the labor that was freed up in the process."

Yes. It's only that in the case of the industrial revolution it took, what? 100 to 150 years to recover. Are you ready to destroy the lives of yourself, your son, your grandson, your grand-grandson and the son of your grand-grandson for the one-percenters to be more wealthy?

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Less work is not a problem. (627 comments)

"For a whort while, the extra richess will go to the capitalist, but society will eventually balance itself."

For a short while? What makes you think it will take a short while or even that will happen at all?

Steam engines destroyed both jobs and quality of living. They eventually got to produce a better society for everybody (for a definition of "everybody"). It's only that "eventually" meant century a beyond.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Good, we're not trying to create more work (627 comments)

"Easy. Basic income and land value tax."

That's just the 'to be' and it is quite far from the 'as is'. In any project the critical factor is the process going from the 'as is' to the 'to be'.

I don't see your proposal for such a process and without it, it just won't happen.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Does the job still get done? (627 comments)

"That model doesn't really exist today other than by force (taxes), and it will be interesting to see how the great divide will handle that."

What does make you think it will handle in any way? History shows that aristocracy is quite acquinted to do nothing about it and if 90% of population becomes unshelted pariahs, so be it. This has only changed when the 90-percenters have taken care of it by means of revolution and revolution only happens when the 90-percenters are really starving *and* the get a minimal support to revolt from some people of higher ranks. What makes you think this will happen again in the future?

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:Does the job still get done? (627 comments)

"But humans have a long history of having to work in order to get food, clothes, shelter and other essentials."

In fact, that's not the case.

It's a matter of how you define "human". If you think a bit about it, "human" has only meant "all of us, Homo sapiens" in the very recent past. Get, let's say, ancient Greece: for all practical purposes, "humans" were only affluent men, and those didn't work for a living. All the other H. sapiens were not humans but slaves/women/barbarians, not to be taken into account. Now the role of slaves will be taken by machines and all the other H. sapiens not privileged to be considered humans will just be barbarians.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

turbidostato Re:This is not the problem (627 comments)

"you don't want to destroy the redundant people, they're what really makes your economy."

Please, apply a bit more of imagination.

*Current* economy, not much more than a century old (since Henry Ford, to put an obvious time tag) is based on a middle class buying production.

But for basically all history, wealth distribution has managed to work on a basis of a very short affluent/powerful class with a majority of peasants/slaves/outclassed. Maybe the 20th century has just been an exception along history and we are just returning to the standard trend.

yesterday
top

Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor

turbidostato Re:Verizon admits it's a "weakness" (162 comments)

"No, because the "backdoor" is getting a judge to sign a warrant for the police to wiretap you"

The police and the police only? In each and every case?

2 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

turbidostato Re:No one gets the oil! (184 comments)

"It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of HOW right and HOW wrong.

Newtonian mechanics is right enough for most everyday living"

Well, ptolemaic astronomy is right enough for most everyday living too, just as much as newtonian mechanics.

In fact, now that you told about forgetting GPS, you probably know that ptolemaic astronomy not only is good enough to navigate your way all around the world, by land, boat or plane, but the way navigation is tought to pilots and ship captains *is* ptolemaic, not copernican, right?

Why we don't stop teaching about Copernicus, then?

2 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

turbidostato Re:No one gets the oil! (184 comments)

"So no, it's not "utterly wrong"."

Yes, it is. Other ancient theories are crazily maddining wrong and certainly Newton's Principia is a shinning cathedral honoring the human intelligence but it still is utterly wrong.

Good you mention Asimov, since he was quite on the ontological path (against the pure mathematical path ala Dirac).

Now, forget about the numbers: it's about quality, not quantity. Newton thinks that there exists an absolute coordinate system and that things like mass, speed, length or time are therefore also absolute. Einstein demonstrates that he can't be any more wrong.

Ptolemy thought that the Earth is in the center of the universe and that objects in the sky circle around it by means of a dance of composed circles (epycicles and deferents) and it offers a magnificent math that "it's mostly right with many decimal places" and his model is also a magnificent show of human ingenuity. The problem with ptolemaic astronomy are not the numbers -ptolemaic astronomy can offer very precise numbers; it is the axioms: the Earth is not even near to the center of the solar system and there's no specific reason for orbits to be exclusively based on circles, so it is not a matter of how good its numbes are, just like there's no absolute coordinate system as Newton thought, no matter how good his numbers are.

As I see it, it's not that it would be mindblowing for the students to understand the basics of relativity or quantum mechanics but a matter of laziness from the teachers to find the proper way to teach them instead of "doing it as it has always been done".

2 days ago
top

The GPLv2 Goes To Court

turbidostato Re: might not be as good as you think (173 comments)

"Well, it is one way to eliminate compiler bugs. By definition the compiler doesn't have any."

Yes, *a* compiler can be considered to be bug free per definition. But then, two different compilers will render two different outputs. What's the good one then?

2 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

turbidostato Re:No one gets the oil! (184 comments)

"Over 100 years old is a bit of a stretch"

IParent is not specifically talking about quantum mechanics, just non-classic physics. Special Relativity paper comes from 1905 and the general one, 1915.

Classical physics can be pointed back to Newton: 1687.

"is basically "correct" for 99.999%"

It is not. It is utterly wrong. It just happens to throw the right numbers most of the time.

"until then the classic approximation is pretty good for high school work."

It is not. It would be much better to explain non-classical even without the maths (but two dimensional and statistical approach can be offered since the maths are in the curriculum) and throw the classic maths as what they are: a (very) useful approximation.

2 days ago
top

The GPLv2 Goes To Court

turbidostato Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? (173 comments)

"Not necessarily, anyone can contact the software authors"

Key word being "can" which is neither "should" nor "must". The user either contacts for renegotiation/clarification of the license, in which case there will be a paper track and it will be the paper what counts, or the user won't contact, in which case, it will be the paper what counts.

In neither case the licensor will have the chance to further explain his intent to the court.

"The reason what licensor actually said that counts is because the licensor is the entity that initiates legal proceedings to remedy perceived violations of the licence."

Taken to the extreme, the only thing that counts is what the court says about the meaning of the paper but, being not so extreme, the court will hear the meaning both the licensor and the licensee understand out of the paper and, as long as both interpretations are fair, it will be the interpretation of the licensee -NOT the licensor, the one that will be supported by the court.

"Any way the terms of the GPL are essentially a non-concern until you distribute."

It depends on "who" you are. If I get a GPL-released binary it will be me the one asking for the sources while still I didn't distribute anything.

2 days ago

Submissions

turbidostato hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

turbidostato has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?