Leaderboard

I had missed @Litespeed's post - sorry... I'll try and be brief (and this isn't only in reply to Litespeed's post) I don't know anyone who thinks AI is all upside; Everyone I have spoken to; all articles I read on it see many of the downsides and have grave concerns. I have said on these fora many times we are at critical mass with AI and certainly jobs are going to go. Leaving out the nefarious uses, the question is whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives. @willedoo is correct - the developments over the next few years are going to change (or reinforce) what we are discussing today. China was reported a few weeks ago to make it illegal to use AI to displace jobs in an existing company. Great, most companies will simply create new companies to do that; it will be interesting to see how China responds to that, or if it was a face saving thing for the plebs. But, if we look at the potential huge displacement of jobs and think about countries like Australia.. Our economies are set up so the population from the upper to lower middle classes largely pay. It is here where most of the jobs or SME businesses will be lost. The governments will be faced with a double fiscal whammy - collapse in revenue and unprecedented demand in welfare. It is how those governments respond that will determine the impact of AI socially. For example, to stem the fiscal oceans of red ink, they may simply clamp down on welfare payments. That would put a heck of a lot of people who are more educated, vocal, and canny than the usual people who fall victim to these vents on the poverty line, and that will not bode well for them. MPs will fear losing their jobs to the protest parties will heap pressure on the governing ministers and when they see they will be on a loss in the same way SFM back flipped on EVs, they will have to do something drastic. In other words, the foundation of the economy today is based on the middle income PAYG/PAYE take; that will massively fall; something has to be done. So, I would suggest rather than facing a revolt of its citizens and losing its job, the government will seek to rebalance how revenues are brought in.. and will have to think about the living wage. That will mean the bulk of the workforce become lazy idle bar stewards and society will collapse, right? Well, maybe not. There have been experiments of putting whole towns on the living wage, and it turned out, people are far more enterprising than we give credit for. But, now we have a situation of, if you are now taxing who we should be today, and they are covering the mass unemployment with the living wage, there could be another benefit. Believe it or not, this is now moving into the realms of privatised communism.. which is what I guess capitalism really is anyway. If everyone has a living wage, it was found in experiments that general health improved as people would exercise more and take more time to eat properly. They also found, just like communist states such as Yugoslavia were before those regions went to capitalism, the normal domestic crime rates were much lower than in our current societies because the population had (and felt) the security of a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, clothes on their back and enough left over to participate in society. Experiments were too short to determine impacts on mental illnesses that lead to drug abuse, homelessness and the like. And, it would necessitate a redistribution of wealth rather than concentration (although relying on that alone results in diminishing returns, but there are other industries, too). On the nefarious side, such as mass lethal weapons, etc.. we already have that.. Nuclear weapons were the fear of world destruction from the 60's to about the 90's. However, while it got close in Cuba, there were two main reasons world destruction hasn't taken place yet. Firstly, the deterrence effect.. The good side and the bad side (take your pick which one is which) both have them and they know that they will annihilated too if they were to use them. The second reason is neither side knows how good the other side's really are. They could could be bluffing, they could be as they are bragging, or they could be wildly understated. They may be well maintained and modern, or they may be rusted and unable to escape their silos, launch racks, etc. There have been many conventional and guerilla wars since nukes have been around, but apart from some tests, none have been fired yet. I don't see AI any different in this way. All sides will have it, they won't know what each other really has, but AI on each side is likely to monitor for attacks from the other side and launch accordingly. This could be traditional but unmanned weapons/vehicles, or could be through infrastructure attacks. Add nuclear into the equation, and I think countries will be too scared try it out on the other side for fear of what they will bring on themselves. What I find is more threatening is the state surveillance and violence on its own. Already in democracies, governments have used terrorism acts to suppress natural and transparent justice on its citizens. Facial recognition, etc. is already deployed. Deploying further AI technology can become quite invasive, and while it may be for good intentions (e.g. anti-terrorism operations), if they screw up they can cover up, or the government/enforcement agencies can become nefarious (think of Stasi, ICE, etc). And this can be private as well - criminals and criminal gangs, perverted rapists and the like.. This for me is the one downside I find very had to find a potential defence against. My point is AI is like guns.. AI doesn't do the damage.. it is the people in control that can inflict or protect from the damage. Time will tell.