All Activity

I don't think it is realistic.either. Even with a stacked SCOTUS, it would he very hard for them to rule any law passed to do it as constitutional (hence my notwithstanding the illegality of it, above). That is the other reason it is clever. He doesn't need to blame it on the socialists - he knows he can't if the republicans win congress (both houses). He can then blame it on those judges that are a threat to America. Not that he knew it was illegal and wouldn't pass muster when he promised it. But should he get it passed, the rich won't stop him. More government debt ultimately equals more money for them even if it travels through the broader economy first.

I see Trump promising to bribe the nation and if he succeeds in the election, will then ensure the "Deep state and socialist left" are to blame for stopping him sending the cheques. Sadly, it's a extremely cunning plan, that might tip the mid term elections his way. Let's just hope the pain from the war and tariffs, allows the great unwashed to see clearly through the bullshit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666990024000132 Is one example. Of course, this may be biased because AI answered it but:

I understand - I was one that advocated that the desktop PC and normal automation won't because the jobs they create will cover the job losses. AI will become so pervasive, the only way I see it happening is that almosy everyone becomes a business. Running what we call today, side hustles.

Let's be realistic. It's not going to happen. Anyone read an Epstein file lately?

Re eligibility - all we have is every American adult.. That would imply that non documented migrants would not be eligible, that is it. There was no Republican voting, white, straight church going caveats. So, that is all we have to go for. In theory, that would include those American adults living abroad, but they are dedicated from the count - that that it makes a material difference anyway. If the Rich sense it is a likely outcome, there will be inflation swaps being written for them to get rich against. Also, most of the uber Rich have welath managers and treasury teams, and they will be working hard to make money off the rising inflation and interest rates. Say property prices crash again.. bargains to be had when it picks up. The rich rarely think just the current financial year.

That's what we said when desktop computers began being used in business. Mankind is adaptive. New technologies might eliminate old jobs, but they also create new ones. There are jobs in existence now that were never thought of 50 years ago. However, the problem is that the doers of those old jobs are maybe too old to retrain to do the new jobs. However, their children will train to do them. There are a lot of occupations that are necessary to keep society going and people will still be needed to do them. Not everyone has to be a paper-shuffler in an office. Someone has to be a barista.

They own Practically ALL the Insurance companies and toll roads.. Nev

Loss of order and predictability will bring the whole thing undone. Ask IA how it would go about bringing it about. I'm sure there are Plenty of ways. Whether we realise it or not we are Highly Interdependent, and take a lot of things for granted. Things don't JUST happen. It takes a lot of organising co-operation Order, planning. and sticking to agreements and rules. Nev

I remain unconvinced. I mentioned services that I figured were unlikely to be improved by A.I. because I was searching for a meaningful benefit. We plebs want to see tangible improvements to our lives before we see value in the new tech. I mentioned return on investment because nobody invests billions without an expectation of billions income from it. So far the promises are intangible. They have not been clearly defined in a way that we can look forward to any specific improvement to our life. Rather, the opposite; There will be less jobs, and no promise of a reduction in cost of living. But certainly someone somewhere will be reaping megadollars income - dollars which must be coming from the people.

Something like that would not go down well.. Clinton. Jerry the RICH want to be richer and they will organise that whenever possible . Some governments make it easier for them and also help themselves if we let them . It's pays better to serve the rich . It's always been that way. They have the means and can Buy Influence. Nev

It's a good question and I'm not sure that anyone really knows what it means or which part of humanity would be most affected. Presumably the most complex and highly ordered societies would be the most vulnerable, but the actual threat is unclear, at least to me. I imagine massive disruption to services that rely on digital systems to operate would be the biggest threat, but that wouldn't necessarily translate to massive loss of life.

There are many industries where job losses will be huge. No longer need camera operators, editors, directors, etc. A creative writer can generate something all by themselves. That motorbike club patch took me all of 2 - 3 mins to get to how I wanted it. An that was a general LLM/Generative AI tool. Imagine specialist ones. I can see the day you need a scan - walk into the radiogrpahers (or whatever they are called today), lay down; the machine automaticaly through AI determines the correct scanning angles, takes the shot, analyses the results are of sufficient quality to pass to the consutlant AI, that examines them and provides a diagnosis and treatment plan.. all before you get home.. Yeah, there will be the odd case where they have to have a nurse., radiographer, and consultant, but the vast majority will not be required. Copwriters, solicitors, accountants and may of these types of roles and supporting roles will all but evaporate (you still will need a few). If we are getting 15 - 20 times productivity increase, that means around 5 - 7% of the workforce needed. AI is not generating enough alternate jobs to pick up the slack. That is maths. Obviously, some roles will not be replaceable for some time yet - until robotics and AI are more advanced that what they already are. Trades, ambos, etc. Basically anything that needs physical capacity coupled with dexterity roles (watch maker/repair - although with electronics, I would say that has already died). But that time will come, too. And AI is helping.

What does wiping out humanity actually mean? Does it mean killing every human (and possibly other living thing) on earth? Or does it mean so extremely disrupting the fabric and order of society that we will turn on ourselves in some Mad Max like civil war type thing (I have never seen Mad Max)? And what are the real chances of that happening? At the moment, they are saying 10%.. but if humanity is wiped out, so too goes the profits of the AI companies - and they are included in the wipe out anyway. My guess is then different AI models will turn on others and wipe each other out. In fact, a simple prompt to convince an AI the other AI is a human may well save humanity! Is it possible - yes... whatever the definition is.. Is it likely.. Not sure.

One example of job losses will be in the modelling industry. There will still be a need for physical catwalk models but almost all of the print and media advertising will go to AI generated models. That's a spin off from the graphics getting to the point where AI models can just about pass off as the real thing. A lot of photographers and modelling agencies will have to find something else to do. It's happening already; most of the online clothing retailers are using AI generated models now. It's not something that's going to happen one day; it's happening now and things will really accelerate, like a snowball effect. I can see the point of it though. If you were running a retail business or you were an advertising agency doing advertising work for companies, why would you employ a modelling agency when you can do it all with a few mouse clicks. No photographers, no studios, no booking venues and sets for model shoots. Unfortunately also no jobs for those people.

Eligible adult might be the catch, like the word from in prices. if you want to take a cruise in steerage class with no air or light it is from $1999.00 if you add a window it is $4999, a balcony is $7999. suddenly is cheap any more. i could just imagine his terms, no bad comments, no crimes, no ethnics, no gays etc. might just be him, Baron and Melania eligible at the end.

It's hard to keep up with banks these days. I've been with Suncorp since back in the days when it was Metway Bank, then Suncorp Metway, then Suncorp, so more than 35 years all up. They sold the banking arm to ANZ a couple of years ago and sometime over the next few months Suncorp Bank will vanish and I'll be an ANZ customer. There will be nothing to miss about Suncorp as they have zero loyalty to their customers. They shifted the credit cards off to NAB a long time ago, closed down almost all of their physical branches, sacked a heap of people and outsourced to 4,500 workers in third world countries to take their place. The only loans they offer now are business and housing loans, no more personal loans offered, so they've become a bank in name only. I've got this new thing going now where I want to try to deal with companies that employ Australians, but I don't know if there's any banks left like that.

I think that's going to be one of biggest problems it's going to create, although if it manages to wipe out much of humanity along the way, maybe it won't have that much impact.

I can remember watching the Canadian football grand final on the telly when I was in Alberta in 1985. There was a bit over four minutes left on the clock and the game finished about 35 or 40 minutes later. A lot of stops and big pow-wows. One thing I noticed during the MCG match was the coaches with a speaker/microphone headset covering their mouths with the playbook when they were calling a new play through to whoever it goes to. I'd never thought about it before, but maybe the teams employ lip readers to get a heads-up on what the opposite team is about to do.

Yeah, but a very clever one, notwithstanding the illegality of it. Everyone will see $5K in their eyes... many will see $10K (or more) to the household. It is not an amount to be sneezed out. Many people aren't taught basic economics (otherwise Chump would not have got in in the first place), so all they see is money money money - the stuff the very fabric of USA culture is made from. Even if the purchasing power of the USD halved overnight, 2.5K or 5K or more in today's money may well be quite an enticement to those on the bread line.. and the future is looking very bleak anyway, so looking bleaker is neither here nor there to them. That is why governments like keeping the masses poor.

Councile rates - unlikely - that is a monopoly. That has nothing to do with technology - that is economics and politics. Car Rego - same.. Especially if you live in Vic as potholes need fixing. Groceries - hard to say.. so many factors. AI can greatly assist with all sorts of things to minimise the cost, but if you have a diminishing habitat, increasing input fueld costs, etc. then any gain of AI will be offset by those. Rent - almost entirely an economic question of supply and demand. Maybe the question is not if AI will reduce the cost - but what is the difference between the cost with or without AI? I would expect software costs to materially depreciate over time for example as a) more suppliers will come to market through necessity and b) it will be cheaper. Demand should remain relatively constant. If we use AI in demand predication, medical diagnosis, treatment specification and monitoring and even rostering optimisation, then it should. Again, other economics come into play. We still need all of the tech (scanners, etc) which is very expensive. Will AI help bring down those costs? We still have remote v urban considerations etc. That is an inecitability because it depends on human deployment. The cost with our without AI should be a better gauge. We have many such projects where the cost benefit analysis is called into question during or at the end of delivery. And the comparison is not quite analogous. If I build a road, it is a product to allow vehicles to travel with safely. It has a specific use, and by itself it does not guarantee safety. It is up to those governing us to put in place the necessary laws and enforcement to ensure practical safety, to stump up the money to maintain the roads, etc. It could be considered a tool for travel, but it is more akin to an end product in itself. AI is a tool.. it is not the end product in itself. It can be an incredibly general purpose tool such as Chat or Claude or Mistral; or it can be very specific (e.g. autonomous driving AI). Autonomous driving and specific AIs are more like end products in the same way as roads are. And, assume they work, they will bring a massive benefit to the masses.. in easier, safer driving, more efficient driving and hopefully lower ecological costs through that. The generic AI models are purely tools, list like, I dunno, a jigsaw. In skilled, competent, and conscientious tradespeople, they can produce great things. Sadly, in the hands of cowboys, they can make life quite miserable.

Correct. ?

I can see you have tried to answer my question. Thanks for that. But you seem to be struggling to name any definite benefit to the people. What is the prospectus? Will my Council rates/car rego/groceries/rent, etc, go down? Will the hospitals definitely deliver faster/more accurate/cheaper health care? Seems the promises are all couched in terms like 'might' or 'should' do lots of the above. In the past, multibillion dollar projects were only approved when there were specific itemised measurable deliverable values that warrant the investment. So far I only see wishy-washy vague half promises. And little sign of addressing any of the risks. Is it just 'build it and the world will beat a path to your door, bearing gifts of gold' ?

In my case, not quite. I am the last to request hiring more people. I am not a natural manager/coach of people and I prefer to do more with less. I was never captain of a team nor raise to any heights at school, etc. I am the literal version of falling upwards. We genuinely have a lot of work to do. And I am still interviewing people this morning for open roles we need to fill to get work done. Believe my, I would rather be using AI.. problem is our organisation is extremely risk averse and we are prohibited from using it in an agentic or generative sense for anything other than presentations and the like. But that will not last forever. Also, much of our workforce is sub contract - one this massive program is over, if it goes to plan, many of the contractors will not be renewed and the sustainable head count will reduce to something like 20 - 30 for ongoing support and maintenance - assuming no AI. Like all tech, there are advantages and disadvantages. In theory, once profiteering has been done and firms try to outcompete each other, assuming there is enough competition in the AI space, prices for many items will reduce - and if they are virtual services, massively. Of course, no competition in the AI space will simply drive up AI prices as an input and those cost savings will not flow down. There are already benefits. I used AI to help with the motorbike - I had to end up sending it to the shop for lack of tools and workshop space (and time), but it did save me quite a bit on labour and also helped me learn more about the bike. I am a terrible artist, but with a simple prompt was able to get AI to design for me exactly what I imagined in my mind for the Halse Angels motorcycle "club": I could not even come close to producing something like this, even if I had all of my remaining time to do it. Technological advances in all fields will improve massively - we are seeing early cancer diagnosis that human doctors struggle to spot, remote assisted surgery in remote regions, etc. leading to much better outcomes than previously defined.. All achieved only with the help of AI (or more accurately, much better achieved with the help of AI). This is a massive benefit to the masses, well except in the USA where universal health care isn't a right. Once autonomous driving kicks in properly, roads will be a lot safer and you will still be able to have your personal bit of real estate on the road when driving. But of course, there are downsides. AI, as has been seen in the Ukraine war, can result in cheap and super effective lethal force. My view is that the jobs it will create will not be absorbed by the jobs it will displace. And of course, there will have to be a living wage or similar coming from the coffers of somewhere or else there will be civil war. We have seen AI being able to go rogue, but have to remind ourselves these are in !carefully controlled" situations.. i.e. they are not generally the models that are released to the public (even if while the experiment - or more accurately testing is taking place, they may break out of their cages and ho rogue). Like everything, it is up to humanity to reap the rewards of it. Sadly, the bulk of the "good" humanity is passive and compliant... so when the rogue elements of humanity get in as leadership (look at what we have today and worse, how people will still elect them), AI becomes a dangerous weapon. It is a bit like "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" Even my daughter is now thinking about moving to Aus... somewhere like Finke to get away from it all. (Well, not Finke... but you get the idea).

Indian had an electric start motorbike in 1914, with full electric lights and horn and rear wheel springing by swinging arm. Nev