nomadpete

Yes, on that issue, I can see advantages in better computing capability. But I cannot see that one issue providing the profits that are demanded by billion dollar investments. I see it as a new toy that the tech billionaires are playing with. They must be expecting to reap more wealth from their new toy. And they are already so wealthy they can to gamble on it because at worst, if it doesn't pay off, they still won't ever go hungry.

Nah, there's plenty of push button electronic baristas already - and they don't use A.I.

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.

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' ?

Nowadays reality can be created while you wait. And history has become an evolving story, when it was once a record of the past.

I understand Parkinson's satire. I pointed out there is a real process that is not satire. My point is that in real business, real people are doing it without seeing the silly side. To me, real life contains a lot of laughable events. Real life is my comedy. For instance, most politics cannot be taken too seriously, and is best laughed at.

A long time ago, I subscribed to several 'Business Management' periodicals. Although I did this primarily to upset my paranoid manager, there were numerous interesting articles. For instance, There are long mathematical formulae for the prediction of absenteeism by workers. Much like your Parkinson's Law one. Maths indeed are used by big business for some curious reasons. BTW, my manager never subscribed to such magazines. He simply 'knew' everyone was after his job. Character flaws in my workplace were a constant source of amusement. Most of us were not harmed by this.

Gee thanks for clearing that up, OME. So, maths holds an important place in every administration.

In summary, you haven't listed any personal benefits to the masses. But you do hint that big business such as banking will make more profit than ever, and employ less humans than ever. Yet we are constantly told how great things will be after this revolution

I always wondered how many folks actually read my posts. Now I know. Thanks!

Ok, older than a WLA. OME knows I was only joking about his ride. No offense intended. I know he has broad shoulders.

Let's see, about 200 million adults x $5 = a billion dollars. (less if Palantir gives him the names of those voting Republican). Did he mention where he intends to find that moolah?

Well it can't be called a bribe, can it? Everyone knows he won't actually pay up.

Getting back to the cost/benefit equation. Exactly how is A.I. and data centres going to make life better for the common man? (i.e, the majority of people).

Not mine. But OME's might qualify