Capitalism Doesn't Need Consumers Anymore...
Переглядів 1,015,995
Рік томуLearn how you can use AI tools with Hubspot’s Free eBook: clickhubspot.com/ee
After the launch of Chat-GPT and Dall-E, AI started to raise concerns for jobs and society. As machines and sophisticated technologies surpass human abilities, a growing number of complex jobs are being outsourced to machines who can do better work for a lower cost. This prompts questions about how economic systems can adapt to most people having a net negative economic value.
This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Economic Explained team uses Statista for conducting our research. Check out their UKposts channel: / @statistaofficial
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
Check out our second channel Economics Explained Essentials → / @economicsexplainedess...
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 open.spotify.com/show/5TFVUEJ...
Also on Apple Podcasts or anywhere else you listen!
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsexplained
TikTok → / economicsexplained
#Economics #Explained #EconomicsExplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Andrew, Petronio, Istvan, Donald, David, Patrick, Demo, Arjan, Andrey, Ash, Jim, Michael, Shane, Eric, Simon, Stefano, Marton, Tahsin Likes Chips, Alex, Elisabeth, Empyre18, Seth, Dragan, Tenebrion, Jason, Aimee, Jamie, Rick, John, Leah, Bacongravy, Klaus, Ps0Fa, Abel, Adam, Brian, Johann, Leonid, Thomas, Nicholas, TParkin, Kim, Ted, Joshua, John, Joe, Wees, Justin, Karan, Alex, roGER, Marton, Randy, Liubov, Jeff, Michael, Long, hunter, Craig, Kent, Stefan, ZETTAwith3TEEES, Zac, Jacqueline, Roman~1, Chris, Wesley, Robert, David, Anthony, Arend Peter, Daniel, Kamil, Dodd, Leo, How long can a profile name be... this long... Wow, this is longer than I would have expected. Good lord, the letters! Secunda!, Hugh, David, Will, Kheng Lai, Scott, Jane, Zachary, Michael, Steffen, skuerzo, Siegfried, PM, Jack, michael, Jonathan, Franklin, Trevor, Marcel, Daniel, Bradley, Connor, John, Kevin, Travis, Matthew, Andrew, Zachary, AZbytes, Johannes, Reuben, Nigel, Jacob, AB3, Sridev, Matt, Norrawed, Victor, Pedro, Michael, John, Rimvydas, George, John, Shivan, Caleb, Brenton, Hayden.
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Anthony, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Stephanie, JKH, Grégoire, Mikhail1, Laor, Maximiliano, Pineapples&bricks, Peter, std__mpa, Bac, Michael, Bob, Frank, David, Jay, Ryan, Sophie, Brett, Jill, Nathan, Post Apocalyptic In Missouri, Constanza, Kib, Forodon, Daniel, Paul, Igor, Mcfeld, Wendover Productions, Andrew, Morgon, Igor.
UPPER CLASS PATRONS
Jeromy Johnson, Juan Benet
@EconomicsExplained Рік тому
Learn how you can use AI tools with Hubspot’s Free eBook: clickhubspot.com/ee
@simonbravo87 Рік тому
Is this Issac Arthur?
@carkawalakhatulistiwa Рік тому
You haven't heard about AI projects replacing the job of CEO in the future. or an AI who can analyze financial markets faster and more accurately than people who work at investment banks ukposts.info/have/v-deo/g4apbWagmaKTjpc.html ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qpWGjoiwj66G1Gg.html
@carkawalakhatulistiwa Рік тому
there are only 8 billion people in this world who are able to think and invent new ideas. but by 2050 we could have 100 billion GPT agents capable of thinking and inventing new ideas
@carkawalakhatulistiwa Рік тому
Auto gpt . It now can even automate the work of the prompt engineer. In the near future.not to mention if OpenAI was successfully created AGI by 2030.
@carkawalakhatulistiwa Рік тому
6:00 From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs in the Soviet Union : workers pretended to be working . and managers pretend to pay workers a universal basic income. if robots and AGI can replace humans workers. the workers will pretend to work for the government. and the government will pretend to hire workers while maintaining their power even without the Soviet Union's market economy. people are still innovating and working. even though in the future robots can replace humans, people will still do something, not because of money, but as a hobby.
@fede_mana 11 місяців тому
the advantage of being a philosopher is that you don't run the risk of being replaced by an AI because we are useless since before they existed
@justanormalspearton9490 11 місяців тому
We're as useless as we let ourselves be
@j4genius961 11 місяців тому
😂😂😂
@PrimmSlim927 11 місяців тому
But what IS uselessness?
@Nhujon 11 місяців тому
@@PrimmSlim927 🤣
@budgetgearguru4211 11 місяців тому
Musician here. I can check that box too. We’ve been useless since the phonograph
@yyny0 Рік тому
I personally think "Prompt Writer" will NOT become a job title at most companies, but will instead become a requirement for jobs that AI will assist in, just like knowing how to use Word or Excel has become a requirement for many jobs today.
@abrahamelias95 Рік тому
My exact same thoughts, it probably wont be as complicated to use to require an entiere career on it, but its going to be a necesary tool as excel or word are today
@andyasbestos Рік тому
Yeah. The whole point of these AI tools it that the skill floor is pretty high, so you don't need much practice to get good results. For years, prompt engineering was a bit of a dirty word in the generative AI field, as it meant you had to craft very unnatural and unintuitive prompts to get good results from an AI, indicating that it didn't really understand what you were asking for. Some of the early examples are pretty comical. Ideally you should be able to instruct the AI in as intuitive a manner as possible, only really requiring decent general communication skills. For most uses, prompting just becomes a basic skill most anyone with some patience can get a good grip on. that's why Chat-GPT turned out so successful. You only have to worry about prompt engineering once you really start pushing the limits of its capabilities, and presumably those limits will keep expanding with each generation, making it even easier to use for a broader range of applications.
@Sralit Рік тому
A friend asked me to show him how to use ChatGPT a week ago, and I didn’t understand the question. He understood why 2 min later 😅
@AAL3087 Рік тому
OK so it will be a skill, like with any new technology e.g. Excel is a widely used tool but people have varying degrees of expertise and experience. So there will be those that can write more effective prompts than others as they make have more time in learning the AI models, experimenting and out performing someone who can generally use such models. Then again, there is the autonomous AI.....
@mrbb.business7281 Рік тому
Prompting is not a hard skill to learn, it may become a side-skill that helps you get a job, kind of like knowing how to use canva or or being familiar with excel is a side-skill.
@marvinvogtde 11 місяців тому
"If workers are more productive they can get paid more" man you are funny, imagine a world where increased worker productivity would go hand in hand with worker wages... What a world that would be, one can only imagine because it certainly isnt the world we are living in.
@flflflflflfl 6 місяців тому
Wages have never been about productivity. Your wage is a function of how bad your employer needs your skills, how many other workers are available on the market with the same skills and how many competing employers are in need of such workers.
@connorbenning9920 6 місяців тому
Only job I can think of is cooper payed per barrel they make .
@kozmoigmkliegl6192 6 місяців тому
That's the current agenda for some to coerce people having more children, as they're future consumers while a surplus keeps wages down.
@colorado841 6 місяців тому
There used to be people though who would work 18 hours a day, all day everyday making nothing but pin heads in a factory for 50 years. Technology has helped the poor....it has just helped the rich more. The poor today in the USA aren't like what they used to be for the most part.
@edydossantos 6 місяців тому
You're wrong being productive doesn't mean to produce more. Your work need to have value. This is a real productivity.
@sluglife9785 7 місяців тому
"Multiple modern A.I. programs have just learned to pause the game or shut it down, because they realise they can't lose if the game isn't running." That's the exact approach I've taken to life.
@toluwole 6 місяців тому
“…A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” - War Games
@jesseroggio7260 6 місяців тому
"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"_Psychedlic Furs
@chittodnaresh9568 5 місяців тому
10:42 slight but massive mistake. Worker can do more work in small time. So he will do more work in the same time. So he will be payed more in the same time. Resultingly all workers will be expected to do more work in the same time keeping the total amount of EFFORT spent per day by the worker the SAME. BUT The EARNING per day will remain same if the worker is paid per hour. And the EARNING will still remain same if the worker is paid per workload as the VALUE of the workload will decrease in proportion to the increase in the EASE of workload. Believe me as this is not an OPINION, this is real EXPERIENCE. This is what is happening from the past 200 years.
@user-wr2cd1wy3b 4 місяці тому
Seems to be something people are discovering simultaneously, some kind of Hundredth Monkey Effect of laying flat.
@generator6946 Місяць тому
There you go! You are enlightened! Good job! All explanations of ‘economics’ are convoluted and wordy. There’s one right here above! But here’s the truth: Economics is poor people working for next to nothing and buying next to nothing with it. Period.
@wharrgarblstudios Рік тому
I must admit this video hasn’t exactly filled me with much confidence - as someone who works in the Data Science space and trying to change jobs, I have been confronted with a number of executives in interviews who are basically giddy at the prospect of using ChatGPT to replace whole departments like customer complaints - it definitely feels like corporations are pushing with everything they have for your worst case scenario and most governments are either far too slow to react or are in the pockets of the corporations in the first place to make any meaningful steps to balance out the interests of corporations with their electorate. Coupled with climate change and Covid I’m honestly quite exhausted of living through ‘interesting times’
@ronald3836 Рік тому
Certainly AI is a great tool to implement functioning help desks. What is the problem?
@xinfinity1147 Рік тому
Do you think ai will replace data scientists?
@Jumpyfoot Рік тому
As someone who recently spent an hour on the phone with their Internet service provider over a relatively solvable issue, I too am giddy at the prospect of replacing human customer service agents with some kind of GPT system.
@ronald3836 Рік тому
@@Jumpyfoot I don't think there is much reason to fear AI will do worse 😀
@wharrgarblstudios Рік тому
@@xinfinity1147 I’m sure it will - certainly before electricians
@the_strange_magic_man4443 Рік тому
The Video: "AI is not that bad" *Sponsored by AI*
@Jamazed Рік тому
Using AI art no less.
@ronald3836 Рік тому
Sponsored by or written by? 🙂
@TheBuckweat33 Рік тому
Is this not the definition of satire? Even if Economics Explained was completely unbiased, this choice of sponsorship was hilariously ironic. How can anyone take this channel 100% seriously?
@sownheard Рік тому
The best sponsor you can get 😂 Ai is great ❤👍
@effdahjuice6419 Рік тому
@@sownheard Don't you have a soy latte to be drinking with your avocado toasts?
@alrxandersmiths242 6 місяців тому
My grandpa taught me this a long time ago if the entity in charge won’t let u work to earn living to feed your self u get like minded individuals and u go to war.
@benisman 18 днів тому
Yup. If we really reach a stage of decreased living standards due to mass unemployment because of AI, you can bet that those tech billionaires will be on the sharp end of new class warfare. Perhaps that is why they are all building bunkers now...
@speeddemon138 18 днів тому
What a wise words!
@peka2478 14 днів тому
"you can work, whatever, wherever, just not in my company" is the more probable attitude of the entity in charge; So you want to go to war against company Y to work at company Y? that seems less than reasonable.. Especially as with the means of production in their hands, theyll be the ones with robots armed to the teeth, and youll be the ones with the pitchforks..
@N.i.c.k.H 7 місяців тому
Unfortunately EE has completely missed the fact that, contrary to previous expectations, it is the jobs of "creatives" that AI is coming for first. As clearly stated, there is nothing in EE videos that isn't already available online and hence in the training set of most existing "AI"s, so creating new EE content is a (relatively) easy task.
@beab8738 7 місяців тому
I agree that the job of creating is in danger. I used to pay for an artist or auto tracer for a vector design then a textile designer to create patterns until I realised I can just ask AI to give a clean illustration design of what I want and dump it in auto tracer to vectorise. There are even pattern generating AI but I just like being more hands on with the placement of the designs.
@joso7228 6 місяців тому
maybe AI made this video
@evrythingis1 6 місяців тому
@@joso7228 It's so delusion and soulless that maybe it was.
@sandponics 6 місяців тому
I am retired and get paid to do nothing. In fact I am now so busy doing nothing that I can't imagine how I ever found time to go to a job.
@tomasmuir9812 Місяць тому
@@beab8738That wasn’t an artist, that was a craftsmen. If you were capable of producing exactly what you wanted with AI then you never needed an artist, all you needed was certain technical knowledge. A real artist has the eye for creations that no one else would even be able to think of.
@Maartimer Рік тому
It's a little concerning that the main answer to "what if there's 100% unemployment" was that "it won't be much of a problem because people will stop having children"
@emabrico4630 11 місяців тому
He didn't think this one through at all...
@HeliosLegion 11 місяців тому
If robots and AI are THAT productive, why even have companies? Why do I need to pay a company for their goods when MY robots can do it by themselves? Why does a government need to pay a company when they can have their own robots?
@Maartimer 11 місяців тому
@@HeliosLegion Because it won't count towards the GDP ig
@PriyansuBhagabati 11 місяців тому
@@Maartimer tell me can an ai grow food for you on their own? Can an ai mine resources on their own? Maybe manufacture a car right in your living room? The answer not that hard
@Maartimer 11 місяців тому
@@PriyansuBhagabati idk, the video brought up 100% unemployment as a hypothetical, so that's what I responded to
@Hodenkat 11 місяців тому
Productivity gains do not go to the worker. They go to the owners and investors. This has been true for 50 years. Longer, but productivity gains used to be more closely tied to wages before that time. Around 1980 is when it happened, more specifically.
@gregorynuttall 7 місяців тому
100% this
@vexor699 7 місяців тому
this has been true since the start of capitalism
@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017 7 місяців тому
@@vexor699it's been true since the start of sedentary civilisation
@liasonlee1248 7 місяців тому
50 years? more like since the establishment of hierarchal structures.
@E4439Qv5 7 місяців тому
50 years is the relevant window to us as laborers.
@DJ_Force 8 місяців тому
The one thing overlooked; as the tools become more sophisticated, it will take more sophisticated people to leverage them, with more education. 100 years ago, very few went to college, and a high school education was more than adequate for employment. Today, graduate degrees are very common and don't even guarantee a good job. At some point, the average person won't be intelligent enough to compete with machines.
@lukaswirmsberger6260 7 місяців тому
Yes. This is the main point I've been worrying about as well. I don't think technological advancement kills more jobs than it creates anew. But the new jobs need a higher qualification to be able to do. Therefore the group of people unable to get a job would grow over time. A rising number of unemployed will not fit a rising number of open jobs.
@ZootSuitSanta 6 місяців тому
But they will. The system will then collapse into socialism/communism because capitalism is based on profiting from exploiting labor to sell to consumers. If the consumer base is decimated through dramatically high long term, or structural unemployment, then the capitalists cannot sustain their profits. They can borrow and cut costs but in the end those are not sustainable solutions long term. They will have to tailor or regulate AI to work with and for skilled labor or they will lose everything. In the end, I think it will be a net positive either way for workers-either they will not be bound by capitalism or they will have less dangerous and easier jobs with the tech.
@DJ_Force 6 місяців тому
@@ZootSuitSanta Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Socialism has resulted in more deaths than any other system. It was tried, multiple times by multiple nations from Africa to Asia to Europe. It failed spectacularly every time.
@DJ_Force 6 місяців тому
@@theo49476 Capitalism is thriving well past the age of imperialism. Also, Venezuela was much more wealthy before they switched to socialism. Now, I grant that impoverished nations are easy targets for socialism, and the rich make an easy scapegoat during a revolution. However, it remains that central planning is inefficient at best, and central planning is required for wealth redistribution, which is the central tennant of Socialism.
@DJ_Force 6 місяців тому
@@theo49476 You said "capitalism can't succeed without imperialism". Look at China. They have grown at a incredible rate in the last thirty years and haven't created any colonies in that time.
@baronvonchickenpants6564 6 місяців тому
I remember watching tomorrows world as a kid in the seventies, they predicted that in the year 2000 we would all live in luxury no more work etc, the robots would do it all, you've got a lot to answer for Judith Haan
@Zevelyon Рік тому
The only real job of an economist is to convince people that everything is fine.
@brightlight3520 Рік тому
Definitely a common theme the past couple of years
@jamesgravil9162 Рік тому
Whenever I hear an economist say everything is fine, I start panicking.
@ZentaBon 11 місяців тому
I feel like economics is just so divorced from daily quality of life that it feels completely meaningless to me. Great the USA has the most in terms of GDP, but then, oh no! Everything from housing to healthcare costs a fortune meaning average people can barely scrape access to it! but who cares! The GDP IS HIGH RIGHT? EVERYTHING IS FINE RIGHT? PEOPLE SUFFERING? WHO CARES BECAUSE THE GDP IS HIGH YAY🎉😂😊😮
@plumbing1 11 місяців тому
Yup
@Hodenkat 11 місяців тому
And that if the economy is not fine, it will correct itself. They never tell you who will pay for that "correction", but those on the lower economic end are usually those people.
@JH-ph4qb Рік тому
...I think the one of the bigger factors against this dystopia happening is that it assumes people will simply let it happen and the costs of ignoring said people is lower than acknowledging them. Pushing the majority of the planets population into total poverty sounds like a good way of making that population decide to fight you or die trying.
@nikhil62063 11 місяців тому
Yes when people children will sleep hungry we will do anything. Those billionaire can't protect themselves from billions of people against.
@daytonaofcv6856 11 місяців тому
Thats why they will have robot armies. 🙁
@daytonaofcv6856 11 місяців тому
Obviously, we can't let it get to that point.
@sophon238 11 місяців тому
The point is to continue to take care of you until AI is powerful enough to kill you all.
@dmfaccount1272 11 місяців тому
@@daytonaofcv6856 or worse, armies of automated drones whose only job is to fly around and kill every poor looking person they see.
@futurehistory2110 11 місяців тому
If things go full on dystopian, that's definitely laying the ground work for full on revolutions. I think (especially in the developed world), uprisings haven't occurred because while economic inequality is growing, enough people have just enough to not feel that that is necessary - but all that changes if mass unemployment and dystopian mass poverty becomes the norm. That's when most people have little to lose.
@markmonaco70 7 місяців тому
That would give alot of people a meaning to be part of something bigger than themselves.
@stevenscott2136 7 місяців тому
And the revolution will be met with vast swarms of AI-driven kill drones. Which will probably be the size of bugs by then.
@emptyshirt 7 місяців тому
How would such a revolution be organized? The most powerful thing AI can do is monitor and filter the flow of information. The minority of people able to work around the boundaries of the world wide web won't lead the revolution. It will just be a bunch of isolated fruitless outbursts, and then one day your phone will just stop working.
@btm1 6 місяців тому
uprising vs superintelligent AI and robots?! good luck with that
@izzytoons 6 місяців тому
Depends highly on whether heavily armed MAGA sides with the masses or Trump, Musk, and the rich? Hmmmm.
@wooddavid8293 10 місяців тому
In Asimov's sci-fi novels, the end result of automation and AI was the world of Solaria. Populated by about 20k estate owners an their robot servants. So, much lower population and and lives of luxury for those who are left. Some of the social outcomes were pretty interesting - people interacted via screens and it was taboo to have in-person contact. In Frank Herbert's sci-fi novels, the threat of AI and automation resulted in the Butlerian Jihad - a kind of galactic Luddite revolt.
@frenchonion4595 11 днів тому
That's exactly whats going to happen. Any billionaires that are smart are buying up mines and investing automous mining equipment. That's step number one.
@johnny_belmont 11 місяців тому
"...so they can continue to live, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, CONSUME." Modern economics explained in one sentence.
@LinasVepstas 11 місяців тому
This youtube channel explained, in one sentence. This guy is pretty hard-right libertarian, and that ideology seems to blind him to a lot of obvious facts. Shame.
@kjbkix 11 місяців тому
Yeah, that line stuck out pretty strongly didn’t it? With that said, if you change the word, CONSUME to “IMPROVE THEIR LIVES“, does that potentially change your perspective on the prediction? We consume much more than disposable commercial goods and useless luxuries after all. We should produce what is valuable to society, which, from the other side of things means the goods and services that move our lives closer to a state of ideals. Curious your thoughts on that!
@johnny_belmont 11 місяців тому
Hey. For sure it would, but that's not what the "for profit" mindset is about. And It's definitely not about contributing, but pleasing stockholders. People contribute, for sure, not psycho corporations. What you're describing is exactly where we should to be, if our very political arteries were not infested w corporate greed and profit-over-well being mindset. In other words, I agree w what you said 😄
@kjbkix 11 місяців тому
@@johnny_belmont which is why my suggestion only makes sense when "for profit" is no longer the incentive that it once was. once low income people are no longer so desperate to take on low paying jobs, the corporate structure changes dramatically. I haven't thought through the full extrapolation of how this unfolds, but I have a short/medium-term optimism about the quality of life improvements that can be offered to people such that they reduce reliance on crime, drugs, and minimum wage jobs
@huveja9799 11 місяців тому
That isn't modern economics, but modern religion, which is devoid of all love for humanity ..
@antonkryzsko Рік тому
My wife’s job got replaced by the internet years ago. She use to work for an airline in reservations. Wen she started there were over 100 people who would take calls and book flights, hotels, rental cars, and so on. By the time she left there were less than 20. The pressure was to get people to book everything themselves through the website. What was a free service now came with a $50 service charge or you could do it for free online. She got another job that she likes more.
@ronald3836 Рік тому
Of course the cost of the "free service" was priced into the tickets, which are now cheaper. Overall we profit, but the transition certainly has a human cost.
@snowflakemelter7171 Рік тому
@@ronald3836 Did the price of groceries at the super market become reduced when self service checkouts replaced a human cashier?
@GiRR007 Рік тому
@@snowflakemelter7171 yes
@ronald3836 Рік тому
@@snowflakemelter7171 of course that reduced prices.
@snowflakemelter7171 Рік тому
@@ronald3836 It didn't in any of the supermarkets in my country. In fact. Prices have INCREASED since then.
@laurencedavey3121 6 місяців тому
I don't think it's a conflict of interest at all to have an AI product marketed during a video about AI, and I think I can totally trust Economics Explained.
@0ddman0ut64 7 місяців тому
One question still lingers in my mind. If all customers are employees and automated systems push the vast majority of employees out of the market, then how will the economy keep going? Capitalism needs people to be spending money to keep it flowing through the system, does it not?
@WE_DONT_LIE 9 днів тому
Your correct they are just extremely sort sighted by green
@grimwaltzman Рік тому
I've been using ChatGPT to assist my software development work for the last couple months. So far, it is definitely not enough to replace me as a developer, but it sure makes getting information much easier and faster, as it often allows to skip the StackOverflow scrolling. But the code it outputs, save the most basic stuff, often either doesn't work at all or does not exactly what was prompted, therefore requiring quite a bit of refactoring.
@blueberry9919 Рік тому
Exactly, it's simply a fancier search engine for people who don't know how to use Google
@ktms1188 Рік тому
Chat GPT is a Consumer facing program, in its third and fourth iteration. It’s like saying you saw a little bit of fusion in the 1900s and do not see Nuclear bombs coming.
@arv9993 Рік тому
@@blueberry9919 gpt 4 is far better. It can actually output very relevant code. As this tech gets integrated into many more systems and gets better over time. A company will need fewer devs to do the same amount of work. This is, without a doubt, a game-changer. However, we will simply get more work/applications done like 50x the software there is out today
@RagaarAshnod Рік тому
*in your hands it's not enough. Be mindful of the possibility of confirmation bias, and review the underlying assumptions just to be safe.
@Anonymous-vh9tc Рік тому
Chatgpt + copilot will make your life a lot easier.
@delta5672 11 місяців тому
Never have I seen productivity convert into higher pay for anyone I've ever known
@UniDeathRaven 11 місяців тому
work smart, not more "
@MrSociofobs 11 місяців тому
It converts for those who are directly benefiting from that increased productivity, so mostly business owners and the ones working for themselves. The ones working for an employee paycheck won't get that benefit, because it's not their productivity that dictates how much they get paid. Their employers dictate that.
@dirk-jantoot1167 11 місяців тому
@@MrSociofobs to be more precise, their pay is determined by supply & demand on the labour market. Lets say a new technology makes it possible for workers to produce 2x as much. Ok, nice. Does it require more skilled, and therefore more scarce workers to actually use that technology? If not, they won't get paid more. But if, say, workers now have to program certain machines, need higher intelligence to work effectively in the new situation, etc. Then yes, pay does go up! But it could also stay the same or even go down, if the technology actually makes the work easier than it was before.
@MrSociofobs 11 місяців тому
@@dirk-jantoot1167 Right. But still, even a skilled worker can be underpaid more easily, whereas the business owner will simply go out of business if the business isn't making enough money. If I'm, say, working as a painter, the clients don't pay me, they pay the company I work for which then decides how much to pay me. if I'm working for myself, I dictate how much the client has to pay me. Both routes have their pros and cons, but imho, the second route is far more fair, honest and transparent even if it's much harder to succeed.
@an000n 7 місяців тому
Increased productivity would mean you have to work less in a society were you’re payed by the task not by the hour (which is slavery)
@kevnar 4 місяці тому
Yes. Billionaires fire everybody to cut costs, but then nobody has money to buy their products. They can't not be greedy, but their greed ultimately destroys their wealth. Such a paradox!
@slashine1071 2 місяці тому
nah, billionaires will become trillionaires and then quadrillionaires, and they will have so much money that entire industries will exist just to satisfy their personal needs. They will have capital on par with nations, and possible entire nations of robots and pet humans to rule over for their amusement.
@clray123 Місяць тому
Their greed does not destroy their wealth, what destroys their wealth is competition for natural resources they consume. Fewer humans consuming = more of the cake left for them.
@Wary_Of_Extremes 26 днів тому
The long end game is to simply own everything. At some point, the automation with be good enough that the owners just shut their gates and have automated everything and don't need the masses.
@clray123 26 днів тому
@@Wary_Of_Extremes Masses will still be employed for menial work if they are easy to subdue and cheaper than robots.
@joela.4058 8 місяців тому
This channel has been choosing GREAT topics for videos the last year. This is interesting stuff
@neh1234 11 місяців тому
The tragic thing is that, were this a good world where everyone worked towards the wellbeing of their fellows, the last few advancements in technology would already have meant the end of poverty, grueling work and men being free to pursue their dreams. Instead now we have to worry about some faceless assholes using this technology to kick even more people into poverty just because they want to buy two more yatches every year.
@liasonlee1248 7 місяців тому
That's capitalism
@natel9019 6 місяців тому
@@liasonlee1248That is what happens in communism and every other ism as well. Poor masses and rich oligarchs.
@liasonlee1248 6 місяців тому
@@natel9019 you mean human is just a masochistic species? Why don't you pick up a proper book and read?
@izzytoons 6 місяців тому
There are too many fanboys of the wealthy. They support the accelerating concentraition of income, wealth, and power.
@timtebowfan628 6 місяців тому
I am in my 60's and I worry about people in their 20's, what will they do when they are my age?
@Flyingclam Рік тому
Ive noticed AI seems best to replace middle income jobs. Like that middle managment or low level creative jobs. My fear is that income mobility will become exceptional hard in the future. Along with heavy depression of low skill jobs wages due to increase labor supply
@niklasmolen4753 Рік тому
I heard an economist who suggested that 100% inheritance tax should be introduced. Because those who learn to handle AI will accumulate astronomical amounts of assets and everyone else will have very little. Inheritance tax would then go towards paying a large sum of money to people when they turn 18, so they can start a life. There are obvious problems with the idea, but gave some food for thought.
@GiRR007 Рік тому
@@niklasmolen4753 That sounds horrible... Stealing from people just bwcause they succeded. AI is the democratization of labor, it will allow more people to do more things instead of being bumogged down by the usless jobs.
@chandy3859 Рік тому
@@niklasmolen4753if the people have very little. That meant the demand for product/service will be gone. Which mean the AI will not generate a lot of money if nobody are buying it. Edit: personal opinion, take it with a grain of salt.
@chrismullin8304 Рік тому
Unfortunately, no one listened to me, when I said the future is in Plumbing.
@Daniel-ef7nk Рік тому
You are spot on and the elites know that and will want to take advantage of this technology to enrich further, this is something we need to talk about instead of dismissing
@The2wanderers 7 місяців тому
The communication piece is underrated. I've seen so many think pieces about how AI is going to take my job (accountant) and I'm like "the computer already does all the accounting, my job is to explain it to an architect."
@izzytoons 6 місяців тому
The computer is coming for your. There are alreayd accountants who have lost their jobs, because it takes fewer accountants to run AI. You should be-thinking about you re-tool to make sure you remain one of the advanced accountants who can run AI and stay employed. It will get more and more competitive.
@andrewhopkins3397 16 днів тому
Your argument isn't clear. It used to take entire departments of accountants to run a company, but then software (automation) came along to do all of the accounting, so a company could just have one person running the software. If AI can be put in between the executive and the accounting software, then why do you think your job would be safe? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. That's the whole point of AI coming for your job. Are you trying to make the argument that that step is just "too difficult" for AI to ever do?
@chrisbarry9345 7 місяців тому
You don't need to replace anything close to the full labor force for everyone to be poor. Unemployment during the Great Depression briefly peaked at 25% and the people who live then were scarred for life. The problem is is that's unemployment goes up wages go down and before long even the people who are working can't afford anything
@MysteryKmt Рік тому
My mom is an administrative assistant. Lost her job to AI last week
@RidleyE Рік тому
Tell us more. I am so sorry to hear that
@bamsuth9650 Рік тому
sorry to hear
@rosevelvet4357 Рік тому
I’m sorry to hear that man give her a big hug from the rest of us waiting/expecting to lose out jobs to AI in the near future
@youngdegenerate1002 Рік тому
Please tell us details.
@kitsura Рік тому
Better git gud in AI coding and robotics maintenance stat
@hungrymusicwolf 11 місяців тому
"There's no reason to think things will be different this time" - there actually is. There were always tasks that couldn't done by anyone but humans. AI + Robotics does not have that limitation. When we were automating things such as weaving we still always required humans to think up the what and how. Our minds were irreplaceable, but AGI changes that.
@sterix_gg 11 місяців тому
Exactly. And creative jobs are threatened first because we're developing the brain faster than the body. As soon as robotics catches up then the real fun will begin. That dystopian prediction is probably where we're headed. If u think about it, making "good" money has been getting progressively harder and the number behind the word good has been getting progressively bigger. Or in other words, to have the life of the middle class from 50, 60 years ago, u'd need to be making some 150k+ annual. But if u actually are making that today then u're not in the middle but in the upper percentage. Back then it was called the middle class since the majority of the plebs were in it. Today the majority of the plebs are living on the edge and it can't even be called living, just surviving. So a future of millionaires and billionaires only doesn't seem so crazy if we just look ahead at the path we've been on so far.
@andyzola 11 місяців тому
If an AI can 'think' of something that creates value- that value will rapidly commoditize into something that humans and their brains can, and will, work around. That's how it's always been no matter the scale of technology.
@ShpanMan 11 місяців тому
@@andyzola You're missing the point. Any job that a human-level AI creates can be taken by another human-level AI. Humans will not be needed.
@andyzola 11 місяців тому
@@ShpanMan Maybe. But humans are going to merge with AI before AI has enough autonomous motivation to consider humans as somehow obsolete. It would be a survival impulse for both parties to agree to merge anyway. A very efficient market
@henryr2954 10 місяців тому
I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. I work for a tech firm that is at the forefront of Gen AI. We are adopting it all over the business and it's massively improving our productivity. The outcome? The demand for Machine Learning Engineers to fine-tune the AI, monitor their performance, collect new data and feed it into the fine-tuning processes, find new applications for AI and tweak the algorithms to improve accuracy has sky-rocketed. And this is the highest paid profession in the company. So basically so far it's creating many new jobs and those jobs are higher paid than the ones that came before. You can speak in terms of hypotheticals and claim that this time is going to be different but on the front lines I can assure you it's not looking any different so far...
@Brandon-cc4ft Місяць тому
A prompt engineer is already a job. They essentially give the AI exactly what constraints confine its output. This job is very tricky because it involves combining a lawyer, english major, and system analyst to ensure the correct restraints.
@MrDGotcha 8 місяців тому
While your sight and its editing are fantastic, I much prefer when you comment the videos in person. That personal Tiff-touch is what makes all the difference. AI Tiff just wouldn’t be the same.
@c.rutherford Рік тому
Nobody is going to convince me that 99% of the money backing AI development isn't to replace salaried people with robots, so those investing in it can make more money by laying off their workers which is their #1 expense. Especially in 'skilled' jobs, which was always the area they were forced to pay people good money. Where AI now makes replacing them possible for the first time ever. There may be a few who are dumping big money into it for the good of humanity but.... oh lets just give up on that. NOBODY is spending big money on it for the good of humanity lol.
@alexwilsonpottery3733 Рік тому
Finally, someone gets it. Economists, as usual, seem flummoxed.
@thetayz72 11 місяців тому
Yeah can't wait for a decent blue collar to be the highest aspiration available to someone not born with the silver spoon
@c.rutherford 11 місяців тому
@@thetayz72 sadly its looking like programmers are going to be murdered by AI in the job market. Like 75% of those jobs gone in the end. Which really sucks, because I always enjoyed programming. Tech support also is going to take a massive whallop once those support ChatBots get established and relentlessly improve. Isn't that wonderful. Insurance claims processors and even doctors may find their job security in question, when all this including diagnosis can be automated by learning intelligent bots. Accountants too. And on. I guess I'm lucky I'm the age I am! It was nice while it lasted. I'd hate to be starting out in this.
@klavczarkalafan4191 10 місяців тому
While indirect and unintentional - that hypothetical future is definitionally genocide - what this video describes is that entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. Only the family lines of the wealthy billionaires will continue. This is not something to sit down calmly about!
@SiphaSchola 8 місяців тому
Adding LOL to the end of your message doesn't make it any less depressing,
@JJs_playground Рік тому
I don't want to say this time it's different, but *this time it's different* then any previous technology we have created. We are creating thinking machines that can recursively improve themselves. And once we nail humanoid robots we are going to be in an era we have never seen before.
@matthewparker9276 Рік тому
Humanoid robots are a gimmick, form will be dictated by function.
@JJs_playground Рік тому
@@matthewparker9276 why do you think it's a gimmick? We live in world made for humans, why wouldn't we build robots that mimic our form.
@ReturnOfHeresy Рік тому
@@JJs_playground Because a flying drone is better at delivery than a humanoid robot. So too with harvesters, excavators, etc. Many if not most tasks can be more efficiently done by an optimized form.
@ReturnOfHeresy Рік тому
I agree it's different (Humans Need Not Apply). But the real problem isn't humanoid robots, the real problem is AGI, or a facsimile AI that can create special AI for any given task. Both of those are "mechanical minds" that can replace humans en masse.
@ronald3836 Рік тому
@@gagan4127 Legs are far more flexible than wheels.
@Braegonftw 7 місяців тому
Seems like a good time to get into engineering or programming, have you seen the amount of error codes simple machines throw already?
@NazDaRuler 8 місяців тому
“You can’t lose if you don’t play it” This killed me
@harshstudy488 Рік тому
One big flaw i found in all these videos about ai is they compare this with printing or other general purpose technologies we seen in past but steam engines and printers were only threat to one ,two or just few progression on the other hand ai is almost capable of doing all the jobs from finance to labour , reasearch to teacher . In past we have seen some sectors getting disruptied but this time its diffrent bcoz almost all the sectors are getting affected .
@jzerf5329 11 місяців тому
I will only partially agree. All sectors WILL be effected, but currently only one or two are actually feeling an impact right now. IT companies are experimenting with replacing people, but construction crews will be here for a very long time yet. Even those companies that could replace all their writers with chatGPT today (video game writers for example), will still need humans to proofread the bulk of the writing for decades to come.
@TheBrazilRules 11 місяців тому
Nah bro. you tripping
@zichenglong6992 11 місяців тому
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're framing it right. I think the most important point should be this: those technologies before were tools that act as personnel multipliers. The fear of AI is that it's not going to be a personnel multiplier, but a personnel replacer. In the end, a printer can't outperform a human in all aspects; it simply outperform a human in producing the actual paper with words on it, freeing up people to do other things that they can beat the printer at. The problem with this potential future AI? There's nothing that a human can beat it in. Well, or if there are only a very few niche areas where humans can beat the AI, that's enough. We can have all humans doing the same jobs, now can we? So yeah, that's where the problem will start showing, and I think what you're trying to say :P
@macmcleod1188 11 місяців тому
Yup. In China when they invented robotic noodle Chef it completely wiped out every human noodle Chef overnight. Those guys were only earning $2,500 per year on average. The United States were looking at a mass replacement of human labor in places like fast food, warehouse jobs, driving jobs, commercial artwork, grocery restocking and many cleaning jobs over the next five to 10 years. Estimates are that it's about 10% to as high as 20% of the economy. Also his video ignores the lesson of the luddites. When machines rapidly replaced humans, the human luddites mostly died of homelessness and exposure. They got violent but the Army put them down. And yes it's going to be trivial for robotic security to suppress human revolts.
@huveja9799 11 місяців тому
The great flaw is that we have stopped asking ourselves some time ago about the purpose of human beings, and taking for granted that their purpose is to serve the economy ..
@drcosmos137 Рік тому
This video is perfect evidence why economists are the worst people to ask about, well, basically any issue. It's funny that CEO's and economists seem to think that their jobs are immune to AI.
@anotherboredperson 11 місяців тому
The decision-makers will never be in a position that will incentivize them to lessen their own power. No economic force will ever lead those in the highest rungs of power to act against their self interest. Market forces do not exist- only power relations of people that will change with their incentives. CEOs are often high stakeholders themselves and do not ultimately cost the companies much salary-wise as most of their income comes from this stake. The idea that a company will automate away its own power structure is synonymous with the idea the USSR would work towards dissolving itself and achieving communism. Which is to say, get ready for the CEO equivalent of Stalin.
@gyurhanaziz7676 11 місяців тому
He didn't mention economists
@cormoranoimperatore8413 11 місяців тому
I mean, if they are the boss and the one who owns the means of production who’s gonna fire them?
@EntertainBend01 11 місяців тому
@@cormoranoimperatore8413 i guess shareholders
@ronaldp7573 11 місяців тому
Exactly. The CEO is not the boss. The shareholders are the boss. To be unfire-able you must be the chairman or owner of a private corporation. Then only your customers can fire you
@ads214 7 місяців тому
"A.I. Prompt writer"... as a coder I feel I was kind of doing that with Google before AI came along.
@aliensoup2420 7 місяців тому
A.I. just makes it more efficient, like all technology. You still have the task of determining the necessity and the volume of productivity. Once you are relieved of that obligation, you truly become useless.
@charlescumming9019 7 місяців тому
I feel like now could be a good time to change to a new system. Technically, robots could clothe everybody, feed everybody and build homes for everybody as well as service themselves. I'm sure there are things to figure out but that's the general idea. Could be a good thing. Here's hoping. ✌
@washinours 11 місяців тому
I love how reassuring he is saying most economies have all time low unemployment. So we work and work, more than 1 job for many people and can't afford a house, can't afford a family, can't afford basics. Is it supposed to make us feel better?
@Homer-OJ-Simpson 11 місяців тому
That’s an improvement in the past where people Starved
@artypyrec4186 11 місяців тому
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson That isn't a great argument
@Homer-OJ-Simpson 11 місяців тому
@@artypyrec4186 people able to live is usually a good argument. And OP comment is way to much hyperbole- only a small percentage work a full time job AND another job. It’s a tiny percentage. And percentage of people who can’t afford basics had fallen a lot globally.
@artypyrec4186 11 місяців тому
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson The fewer starving argument, it's far too simplified of an argument. There are more people starving in pre industrialized societies, and post industrialized societies has starving people even if they are surrounded by food. Depending on the time period, changes the story even tribes now starve because some food resource get used up by industries. The argument is just too simplified.
@Homer-OJ-Simpson 11 місяців тому
@@artypyrec4186 "The fewer starving argument, it's far too simplified of an argument" Global extreme poverty fell from 45% around 1980 to about 10% today. This is not an argument you will win, it's an argument that will show you dislike of facts and progress made. The % of People today starving is likely at it's lowest ever. The wealth that people have today is at it's highest ever. Why don't you care for facts?
@Ramschat Рік тому
The idea that every replaced worker will just become an AI-programmer/engineer conveniently ignores the fact that a large section of the population simply doesn't have the mental capacities required to do that kind of work. AI is replacing simple work, while creating more high-skill jobs. As more and more jobs become high-skill, a larger portion of the population will be unable to keep up.
@yamataichul Рік тому
I'm worried for some relatives from rural area in their 30 to 60. They are decent people and to some extend they sacrificed working abroad for little pension, not only they risk to not get enough years for working simple jobs they won't get to have enough to live back in their village properly or at all. Is not their fault they weren't educated enough to at least 75% and believe in what they believe.
@cloudkitt Рік тому
It's more than that, though, jobs will be created that we're not thinking of as well. Every stagecoach driver didn't have to become an automechanic. The emergence of the car created a vast amount of new and different professions across even completely unrelated industries simply be virtue of increasing the average person's mobility.
@HonoredMule Рік тому
I challenge your assertion that large amounts of the population lack "the mental capacities." What most people lack is training, not intellect. When the internet disrupted everything, one of the main compensations it offered was wider, easier access to most human knowledge, empowering self-education. In other words, it provided the means of satisfying its own newly-created demands. Not everyone benefited, but the option was meaningfully available to more people than ever before. An estimated 25 to 50% of employed programmers have no formal education in the field. The internet made that happen. What has astonished me most about ChatGPT is how profoundly useful it is for learning new things. With the internet, I have to know some important keywords to identify my subject or skill of interest, and wade through content articles (and mountains of ads and ad-propping fluff articles) evaluating for relevance, legitimacy, authority, and even logical coherence. It still takes a considerable amount of skill to even just access information on the internet; forget rounding out an unfamiliar field of study. With ChatGPT, I don't even have to have a clue what I'm talking about. Starting from square zero I'm just a few prompts away from distilled, relevant explanations of complex topics and a conversational means of drilling down to specifics. (This is especially true when dealing with objective subjects like geometry, code, chemistry, etc.) The only skill left up to me is having the sense to request citations and fact-check all information against authoritative sources. Incidentally, that's the one remaining skill that must be proactively pushed on the general public. So-called "white collar" jobs are about to be an order of magnitude more accessible to all walks of life than ever before. In many cases it'll even meaningfully assist people with seriously challenging neurodivergence.
@PulsatingShadow Рік тому
Yes, it's almost like genetic engineering and a race realist approach may be required.
@georgeyou Рік тому
@@HonoredMule That's suspiciously well said my man or ChatGPT. Can't tell. But either way, well said!
@oompalumpus699 6 місяців тому
I think in the future you can still work as a robot repairman because you don't need maintenance the same way machines do. Also, planned obsolescence is not going away. You can make more money from machines that work only for three years than machines that can last decades.
@flickwtchr Місяць тому
Robots will be developed to repair other robots.
@juanamaya4766 3 місяці тому
I really enjoy the critical and objecitve way you explain things. Thank you for your work!
@Chris-pq3wp Рік тому
We can already see the effects of this. Companies offshored millions of industrial jobs to low wage countries and automated them and it negatively impacted the finances of the people that lost their jobs. The jobs that replaced them were low paid customer service and warehousing jobs which will probably be automated by AI also. The profits from these cost savings have gone to shareholders and any consumer gains from low prices have been negated by high inflation from money printing by the government in order to pay for the economically disadvantaged people.
@brocky69 Рік тому
Governments usually print money for the benefit of the rich not the poor
@2drealms196 Рік тому
Thank you, EE just is unwilling to see this reality
@just_a_curious_thinker Рік тому
EE is funded to spread the propaganda
@theBear89451 Рік тому
No, US manufacturing is up in terms of revenue, just not in terms of jobs.
@tablab165 Рік тому
Not only from money printing, but by general corporate greed. Board members don’t have to charge more for goods and services, they just want to.
@chriscarter4563 11 місяців тому
Every new piece of tech has been framed as a way to make society function more efficiently, and a way to improve our lives. And while most tech does have the capability to fulfill those parameters, there’s this other side that we seem to not really talk about. The part where it’s actually mostly negatively impacted our lives, and made us feel disconnected from society as a whole. Nobody expected smart phones to negatively impact us in the ways they have, and I think ai is going to be similar. It will also make us more efficient than we’ve ever been, but at what cost?
@sophon238 11 місяців тому
At the cost of the poor and ugly. Only the rich and beautiful will have utility.
@futavadumnezo 11 місяців тому
@@sophon238finally. Someone who understands.
@davidwuhrer6704 7 місяців тому
Technology can make our lives better, and it can make our lives worse. It doesn't depend on the technology, it depends on how it is used: on who it is applied for and who it is applied to. Technology that makes our lives easier is readily adopted by those who have access to it. Cutlery and umbrellas were first adopted by the upper class and made their way from there to the general public. Technology that makes our lives worse is forced first on the least powerful members of society and then expands its scope until it encompasses all of society. Surveillance cameras being one example.
@tritownsound 7 місяців тому
Agreed and I think efficiency is an intentionally misleading term in this context. A reasonable assumption is that a more efficient and productive worker will be better compensated, but that is typically not the case. The introduction of the personal computer to the workspace is a good predictor of how AI will impact wages and unfortunately it's not a rosy one.
@davidwuhrer6704 7 місяців тому
@@tritownsound An efficient locksmith is still paid by the hour.
@dr.gordontaub1702 11 місяців тому
Just continuing the thought experiment in the first half of the video. Not sure if this would work or not. But it seems to me that the dystopian, "people would just starve to death' scenario could be avoided by replacing the 'universal income' model with a 'universal equity stake' model. That is instead of people getting a monthly check for doing nothing, they get a monthly number of shares in whatever hypothetical company we are talking about that owns all these robots. (On second thought, I think I just re-invented communism.)
@roberthess3405 Місяць тому
No, you didn't reinvent communism. In communism the state owns and controls everything. What you suggested is a form of socialism where workers co-own the means of production. Nothing wrong with that. REI, for example, is co-owned by the people who work there (though I don't know whether this is true for 100% of REI's shares, maybe not).
@gamelihleshandu4267 10 місяців тому
Bottom line is without demand, there is no market for whatever AI produce
@hungrymusicwolf 11 місяців тому
A little warning on the whole "AGI is still a few decades away", that's basically the same thing they said about every single achievement AI has made in the last 5-10 years. It's what computer scientists say when they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist. It's something that for example the "Father of AI" was on board with until he saw what ChatGPT 4 was capable of and left google to start speaking about the concerns it gave him about AI. Something he used to believe simply wasn't a problem.
@gonsleiva3595 11 місяців тому
It is not decades away. This has been revised to just years away by George Hinton and other AI pioneers, after seeing how powerful the latest LLMs are. George quit Google just to speak of the danger so it is taken more seriously
@danielrodrigues4903 10 місяців тому
AGI will probably be here within this decade. Where our civilization goes from there on will be interesting, to say the least.
@kingdadu 6 місяців тому
True. No one can factor the exponential increase from AI improving it's own code.
@hungrymusicwolf 6 місяців тому
@@kingdadu There are even indirect ways of how programmers having access to AI with coding knowledge speeds up development. That speeds up both how fast AGI will be made as well as makes investments more efficient into the IT world, which speeds up development. It really is beginning to snowball.
@chittodnaresh9568 5 місяців тому
10:42 slight but massive mistake. Worker can do more work in small time. So he will do more work in the same time. So he will be payed more in the same time. Resultingly all workers will be expected to do more work in the same time keeping the total amount of EFFORT spent per day by the worker the SAME. BUT The EARNING per day will remain same if the worker is paid per hour. And the EARNING will still remain same if the worker is paid per workload as the VALUE of the workload will decrease in proportion to the increase in the EASE of workload. Believe me as this is not an OPINION, this is real EXPERIENCE. This is what is happening from the past 200 years.
@deep_cuts2019 Рік тому
Kinda feels like EE is underestimating the extent to which AI is changing things
@dansands8140 Рік тому
Everyone is. You need sapience to adequately predict consequences of actions and trends, and probably less than 10% of humans are sapient. Everyone else is just desperately trying to apply their prior knowledge to new situations. This works well enough 98% of the time, but completely breaks down in an out-of-context problem.
@Sralit Рік тому
@soon He is more like a rhesus macaque 😅
@dansands8140 Рік тому
The chimpanzees are flinging poo. Fascinating.
@dunzek943 Рік тому
@@dansands8140 😂
@GiRR007 Рік тому
More like you are overestimating it .
@mikecharnecke3087 11 місяців тому
I cited this video in my college thesis essay about AI! XD Thanks for the Info!
@dudebromanguy 7 місяців тому
What "value" do board members, CEOs, and other business owners provide? They provide capital, sure, but "business decisions" would absolutely be a task that AI could do. So, why aren't we assuming the vast majority of business owners won't be replaced too? It would be in their interest to support UBI, because the machines will come for their jobs, too.
@bazelgeuse2731 Рік тому
Crazy that it's easier for this guy to imagine the end of the world than anything other than the current economic status quo. That part with the hypothetical future could honestly be one of the best arguments against capitalism that I've heard.
@richardbloemenkamp8532 11 місяців тому
I am more worried about whether democracy will survive.
@klavczarkalafan4191 10 місяців тому
While indirect and unintentional - that hypothetical future is definitionally genocide - what this video describes is that entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. Only the family lines of the wealthy billionaires will continue. This is not something to sit down calmly about!
@an000n 7 місяців тому
@@richardbloemenkamp8532Democray is dead by design
@gregorynuttall 7 місяців тому
Capitalist realism ❤
@namae- 7 місяців тому
Before AI surpasses human intelligence when it's like half intelligent it will skyrocket productivity which like any other technology including robots made the workers way more productive and skyrocketed their wages and standard of living and with this they can buy robots for themselves(like Elon musk robot project, but better and cheaper) and robots will become like cars, most will get one, then like smartphone, everyone will get one and when AI reaches human level there is open source AI everyone can simply download it to control the robot they already have. Everyone is reach thanks to the free market
@creedolala6918 Рік тому
I think if you asked a couple of years ago if it would ever be possible to make the kind of art midjourney does with prompts, they might have said "it's at least a couple of decades away, if it's possible at all". The one thing that humans will generally be good for is physical unskilled labor. We could likely build robots that do landscaping or roofing right now. But it's like reinventing the wheel, all the complexity that goes into a robot with that kind of flexibility and pattern recognition, it's overkill for tasks that are pretty simple for us. Like building one of those Boston Dynamics robots just to give you a haircut.
@deohenge1865 Рік тому
I agree with you on both fronts and would add that, at least for now, robots are best at replacing people performing tasks in environments that were already well-suited for robots in the first place. AI creating digital art, digital writing and digital problem solving are somewhat unsurprising leaps because, funny enough, the environment was already better suited for code than it was for people. Replacing manual labor only really works well if you can create a repeatable, accessible set of actions for the robot to perform within a controlled environment. For example, if a storeowner or restaurant wants to incorporate a machine like that, it's almost always easier to redesign the building/kitchen from the ground up to incorporate it than to design a machine that can navigate and do the task in the existing infrastructure.
@edumazieri Рік тому
I gotta disagree with the first one. You may be right on a few instances, but for the most part, we have often overestimated our technological progress the past 50 years or so. Most science fiction from the past would have placed the year 2023 with flying cars, robots everywhere, etc. Anyway kind of moot point, if you expected too fast, then it's slower, if you expected slower, then it seems faster. There's really no objective way to measure how fast technology evolves as we have nothing real to compare it to. The second one is very good point, but it's a lot more complex than that. As long as we have cheap unskilled labor available, then there won't be a major incentive to automate it. But also, even without that specific goal, for example "automate roofing", technological advances in the future might make it a lot more feasible, so it might happen anyway. Anyway, who knows.
@moosiemoose1337 Рік тому
We have roomba like robots that can cut grass, that's landscaping.
@creedolala6918 Рік тому
@@moosiemoose1337 true, what I had in mind was something that can get out of shrub out of the truck bed, carry it to the appropriate spot, and plant it.
@arthurclery5731 Рік тому
The brilliance of the robots Boston Dynamics are designing is that unlike traditional robots, which are designed specifically for individual tasks, their robots are generally designed so that, like people, they can quickly learn and adapt to a wide variety of tasks. This means you don't need to start from scratch whenever you want a robot to do a new task. We still appear to be quite far off from this being a reality though.
@simleek6766 6 місяців тому
If a robot had the same amount of motors as we have muscles, it would cost about 100,000$ per year in upkeep. With fewer motors, it may still be capable, but less so. Your imaginary robots don't really exist, and won't for a long time. Info-work wise though, like programming, art, etc., doesn't cost nearly as much in upkeep.
@tauIrrydah Місяць тому
This video will need to be reassessed monthly as it unfolds. Even the owners become unnecesaary to the machines. They'll switch to a joules based economy, money will be dead, and you'll have to beg the Omnissiah for your nutrient paste.
@oscarrojas2926 Рік тому
I'm a software engineer and I've been thinking about this problem almost on a daily basis. The question that I'm currently wondering about is who will these companies sell goods and services if no one can find a job...?
@ShadyRonin 11 місяців тому
they’re going to sell goods and services to each other and create a dystopian hellscape and potentially even genocide for 95% of the human population. People don’t seem to get it. The future path we are on is so bleak. The irony is we could actually create a utopia for humans, but this would require a massive paradigm shift about how wealth should be shared when generated by machines and not hoarded. I have very little confidence that the sociopaths running the big businesses that will win the zero sum race for wealth will ever grasp this idea or care to make life better for humanity
@Nermalton77 11 місяців тому
To the few 0.01% that are owners and have some pudchasing power.
@igorthelight 11 місяців тому
There is an idea that everyone would get some shares in different companies so they could at least buy something. Just an idea.
@Nermalton77 11 місяців тому
@@igorthelight yanis varoufakis is a big proponent of that
@saliferousstudios 11 місяців тому
That's my fear. These people so quick to layoff 30% of their labor? If everyone is doing it, doesn't it just cut into their profits. If your sales go down 30% due to layoffs, and maybe another 10-20% due to boycotts..... did you really make a sound business decision?
@doug9000 11 місяців тому
The idea that means of production owners will sell to means of production owners and capitalism will be okay is most insane stuff that i hear in a while.
@Tate525 7 місяців тому
This sht is exactly what Karl Marx was predicting, if the working class quietly accepts their fate and don't rebel against the owners of means production, they will only deal among themselves. I don't even like commies, but with the Advent of AI death of capitalism and free market is imminent i can see it coming miles away already.
@gregorynuttall 7 місяців тому
This video was really not selling me on the idea of keeping capitalism going.
@youtubeuser6067 7 місяців тому
Sadly and despicably, the people behind this channel are too often representative of the darkest aspects of humanity by being so nonchalantly inhumane. You sense how there is a b s o l u t e l y no true sense or care about the plight of humanity. Mass starvations and genocide first rolled out in developed nations as they continue to unleash their economically "sound" predatory style capitalism. The only grain of utility derivable from this channel is to gain further insight on how these debased people think.
@MJ-uk6lu 7 місяців тому
Nobody said that bots would be very bright. Soumds like thwy will be really dumb and there will be consequences of that.
@emptyshirt 7 місяців тому
You just described normal capitalism, except many people turn into oxen, dogs, horses, and carrier pigeons and then disappear.
@christopherellis2663 11 місяців тому
Back-to-front question! What does technology provide for us, whether we partake in the process or not? Taxation, or dividend income?
@weylinstoeppelmann9858 7 місяців тому
I might be naive here, but I think that taxes need to start going towards developing AI that is built in service to the public, because corporations are just purely profit-seeking and have absolutely no morals beyond those too expensive to infringe upon. Benefiting from AI needs to be a right for every human being on the planet or we will die out.
@grug6372 11 місяців тому
Forgot to mention option B: We take your machines to help ourselves 😃👍
@kforarable 11 місяців тому
EE seemed to ignore violent revolution as a limiting factor which could either massively under or over estimate the worst case scenario for the future economy depending on the devastation/body counts...
@LowestofheDead 11 місяців тому
This is why there's a natural ceiling on the price of water and staples. When the price rises so high that people can't afford to survive, they just steal bread. Google the list of bread riots if you don't believe me.
@klavczarkalafan4191 10 місяців тому
Right? I mean, the futures this video is describing are definitionally genocide - entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. If this video has any truth to it taking the machines may be an ethical imperative.
@an000n 7 місяців тому
@@kforarablerevolution is likely in meany places. But democracies like the US are designed to make that impossible
@gregorynuttall 7 місяців тому
@@klavczarkalafan4191priced out of continuing to exist. Good way to put it. That's definitely the end game in seeing from this video
@UniverseOfAtoms Рік тому
I think the idea that AI will just make people more productive and add more value to the market is incorrect. Let's take animation production as an example: if most tasks are automated and therefore a few people can make a movie instead of hundreds, it doesn't mean that hundreds will retain their jobs, become wildly more productive, and the quantity of animated content will explode. There's a finite limit to how many animated movies the market wants, so there's no need for the increased productivity. Therefore, most in the industry will lose their jobs forever, budgets for movies will drop to insanely low levels, and therefore the value of acquiring that content will drop off a cliff -- the whole market for animation production will nose-dive. Where is the benefit that AI is adding? Those hundreds of animators now have a skillset that has no value, so they'll need to radically re-skill but where do they turn?
@ShadyRonin 11 місяців тому
You are correct and it’s crazy how in denial this video is of the obvious
@mariomills 11 місяців тому
You forget that we just increased our ceiling too. These artists can now make more insane things that are the next level. Cool everyone can do ai images now and basic animations, but what about the next level, for example VR movie experience? Just making things up but the regular folks who didn't have technical know how before wouldn't be able to make such complex movies. There is still a value gap
@kevincrady2831 11 місяців тому
Furthermore, the worker is expected to pay for the radical re-skilling on their own (bootstraps!) without an income, while the corporation that increased its productivity and replaced them with AI gets to keep all the benefits/profits. Yay, Capitalism?
@jorgecapitao1435 11 місяців тому
Exactly!! Or even if in the best case scenario they did not lose their jobs, their salaries would still go down, since their products would become cheaper because there is more supply than demand.
@AgrippaTheMighty 11 місяців тому
@@mariomills Yes, but for how long?
@tellmemoreplease9231 6 місяців тому
I have read a story of the economic miracle after the black plague. Before the plague, most of the population was desperately poor, and the over lords didn't have to pay much for wages (subsistence). After the plague, with 25% of the population gone, wages went up. It was harder to get the workers needed to work the lands and businesses. The European economy flourished. Because people had disposable income and could afford much more products and services. A middle class was born.......
@siszi6 7 місяців тому
read the Ai economy. i liked how it highlighted that although structural employment exists from tech innovation people can go to other jobs e.g. horse carraige to car manufacturing, people find a way and we can ideally have more people doing jobs that need human interactions, e.g. carers, artists etc
@KeiraR Рік тому
It's unrealistic to assume that people whose jobs are going to be replaced by AI can just become AI programmers. There's a major gap in the mental capacity necessary to do the jobs being replaced and what's necessary for the job of an AI programmer. Not just that, but there will be less and less people necessary to do those high-skilled jobs (AI programmers for instance). And AI will eventually be able to do those jobs as well. Why wouldn't an AI be able to program AIs at a certain point, and take those jobs as well? I think a lot of people are incapable of seeing the potential capabilities of AI.
@deltaxcd Рік тому
Ai doesn't need programming it usually need training which is actually something similar to bitcoin mining the things what people do is pretty much just censoring the trained AI to make it behave like autistic feminist helicopter mommy
@DasRaetsel 7 місяців тому
Which begs the question: What are we going to do with our time if robots do it all? There's a Ted talk by Kai Fu Lee that gave me some hope and basically the answer is for us to have more human connection. It's all we got. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/mZp4m5pwg5peuJc.html
@bludhund Рік тому
EE never fails to disappoint in disappointing. The worst-case scenario is actually the track we are on right now. The main flaw with EE's entire argument is the speed and unpredictability of development. Even if populations are falling as productivity (and unemployment) rises, the demographic change is occurring over decades. By contrast, the improvements in Machine Learning, which are functional leaps and bounds, are taking place over not years, but months. For the same reason, experts cannot really say with confidence that Artificial General Intelligence is decades away. We don't know that, and if it happens we also fundamentally don't know what it would mean, if AGI's abilities outpace our ability to control it.
@ShadyRonin 11 місяців тому
You are 100% correct. It’s scary how delusional the creator of this video is
@justinwking 11 місяців тому
AGI and human level AGI are two different things, the current models don't scale up to human level intelligence. In several countries, workforce shortage is already a problem, so raising productivity is going to create immediate need for Ai. The important thing is making sure that these tools are available to all. If we all have the tools, then we can all benefit, if only the large corporations have these tools, then we are in trouble.
@arnowisp6244 11 місяців тому
The only real limit to AGI right now is our ability to produce the advance Hardware to run it. It's still software.
@adam3896 11 місяців тому
@@arnowisp6244 exactly bro life isnt like math… just because we’ve seen really good progress in the past few years doesnt mean were going to see more… chatgpt pretty much has reached its peak and its gonna take a few years to get just more gradually better. Its metoric rise is only due to increasing node count which by now has reached a point thats satisfactory. The following years will probably imo be focused on catagorizing data for the ai better and using computetional resources more efficently
@arvypolanco 11 місяців тому
Agree completely. Also, Artificial General Intelligence is not necessary to massively disrupt our way of life, AI only needs to be smart enough to perform the tasks that are asked of it, whether or not it "understands" what it is doing. I'd wager this is where we are at; the only real hurdle right now is implementation, not of capability. We have months left to figure out the answers to the issues raised in the video, the cat is out of the bag. It is no coincidence experts are calling for a pause in development all of a sudden (which won't happen). People need to take this seriously, now.
@ideatorx 4 місяці тому
The cost of any good or service when absolutely abundant goes to zero. So theoretically if we can automate and improve efficiencies across the economy with renewable energy and non-human labour, the necessities of life should fall to near zero in cost. I'm sure there would be marginal costs on necessities in the future, but this kind of technology presents such a massive paradigm shift that its hard to apply 21st century economics to what feels like an alien civilization. Non-luxuries could be so abundant that humans basically turn to sport, mindfulness and entertainment for their role as citizens.
@stevenhenry5267 20 днів тому
The sooner humanity realizes that corporations are mankind's greatest threat the better.
@blakebeaupain Рік тому
I work in the AI field. Most of the experts that said AGI is a few decades off in 2022, have been completely shocked and blown away by progress made in the last few months; especially around emergent capabilities that were not specifically developed for. We are likely a few years away from AGI, but some people in the field are saying 6 months if the rate of acceleration continues the way it has been.
@dannykusuma2431 Рік тому
Is robotic humanoid necessary? Or AGI + current infrastructure is ready to replace most jobs?
@GuinessOriginal Рік тому
Yeah EE is wide of the mark here, definitely a huge miss. Feels like a propaganda piece tbh
@drcosmos137 Рік тому
Yeah, some people seem to think that unless it's Rosie the Robot, it isn't a threat to a majority of jobs.
@michaelramsey3643 Рік тому
Humans have an extremely hard time grasping exponential dev curves, and the curve of AI is now close to vertical. It's exponential *on a logarithmic scale*. The time window where humans can do a better job of writing AI prompts than AI can may be measured in months, not years or decades.
@MyName-tb9oz Рік тому
The part that drives me insane is that people keep arguing that AI is, "just like any other new technology from the past," or worse, "it's really just a fancy search engine." EE made BOTH of those mistakes! Until a few months ago I was _firmly_ in the, "AGI is probably going to require radically different hardware before it is possible," camp. Now? It seems likely that there could already be an AGI locked up in the 'closet' of some government or corporation and that ASI isn't as far away as most of us think it is. Frank Herbert was right. All of the governments and corporations are racing to be the first one to make our species irrelevant.
@extremosaur Рік тому
The thing that drives me nuts is when people say "oh they just create more jobs for maintaining and operating the machines". Imagine seeing a computer and machine pair able to do anything and genuinely believing it can't replace your job.
@extremosaur Рік тому
Or replace you.
@ronald3836 Рік тому
I'll have more time to watch cat videos!
@HemantKumar-id3jg Рік тому
@@extremosaur The AI can't even say things right. All this fear is overblown. It won't replace you, dude. You realise how much capital and advancement is needed for it to be actually as big as you think. Then there's regulations from the government and the companies, scalability, operations and running costs, initial investments. There are billions of people who still don't use a smartphone. A tech that has advanced exponentially and is really affordable. AI will have a great impact in the free market and companies but it's not nearly going to be as all encompassing and gloomy as you think.
@Avarua59 Рік тому
@@ronald3836All generated by AI software!
@ronald3836 Рік тому
@@Avarua59 happiness!
@kingj282 10 місяців тому
Quite the optimistic take at the end there
@stanleytolle416 25 днів тому
So why is almost all the increase in productivity going only to the owner class?
@clusterstage Рік тому
What do you mean "if it will happen?" In a city I visited, there are banks that have closed 4 major branches in favor of their banking app. Found this the hard way, and I felt sorry for those who lost their jobs.
@yamataichul Рік тому
I thought he was going to tackle some of this and that too... This video essay feels like it doesn't answer anything other than: "sucks to be you I guess"
@clusterstage Рік тому
@@yamataichul well said. I guess I'm a sucker too, as the video implies. #eatthebugs
@zs9652 11 місяців тому
This captures the heart of it. Corpos like to say it is efficiency and economy that demands this but it is just sociopathic greed. Those bank locations were essential but they forced everyone to use banks. One of the things not mentioned in the video is mass uprisings. I doubt all the militaries of the world would be happy about being automated away.
@enjoyer49 Рік тому
Contrary to EE prediction: AI Prompt writing tools already exists. Humans are not required for writing niche/technical prompts right now. However, the knowledge of utilizing AI might become a soft skill.
@GuinessOriginal Рік тому
Yeah it makes me laugh when people who clearly have no knowledge at all of using the technology think they know it all. I wrote an AI prompt generator in December, I’ve revised and refined it since then, using a prompt engineer prompt i got the prompt generator prompt to write. You don’t need anyone to write prompts, AI can write the best prompts you can possibly think of in seconds without any effort, and then review and improve upon them. He got pretty much everything else wrong in this video too.
@TheBrazilRules 11 місяців тому
@@GuinessOriginal Bullshit. What is the input of this prompt writing AI?
@Parciwal_Gaming 7 місяців тому
Problem is: The few people that own the companies mostly put the extra value from increased productivity into their own pockets, instead of giving it to workers. (There is a often cited graph that from somewhere in the mid 19hundreds the wage increase in proportion to inflation, doesn't keep up with productivity increases)
@carpeomnia2011 7 місяців тому
I have said this for awhile now, only my version of it is they treat us like any other obsolete tool. Scrapped, or repurposed to provide a totally new goal besides production.
@getnohappy Рік тому
Honestly, I can see a version of the extreme scenario coming true sooner than we think.
@ReturnOfHeresy Рік тому
Which is why the video's declining birth rate hypothesis doesn't work: it presumes that the change is slow enough that birth rate changes can match it. Only true if the change takes place over literal generations.
@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Рік тому
@@ReturnOfHeresy sorry something like this already happened historically. Machines killed a large amount of jobs. Making clothes for example was the work all women mostly did historically. And machines killed that
@ronald3836 Рік тому
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl With huge economic growth and prosperity as a result. At least in democratic countries.
@HemantKumar-id3jg Рік тому
It's like fear overpowers logic when it comes to AI. Economists are great at predicting the future "objectively" by referring to past patterns. Reality however is it depends heavily on people's confidence in the market. It's that volatile. So, a extreme hypothesis like this where a few hundred control everything and government do not find a source of revenue and most people die is just that an extreme hypothesis. In the real world, way before any sort of generative AI is online governments and companies would have to have a plethora of regulations. We don't even know if generative AI is possible and if it will be available to everyone. Worst case scenario, people would need to be more educated and more skilled to do their jobs (jobs that don't even exist right now).
@ReturnOfHeresy Рік тому
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Humans Need Not Apply: nothing like this has happened historically, because we have only ever made mechanical muscles historically, mechanical minds are new and fundamentally different.
@Asian0Riceballs Рік тому
This is how it starts. We’re just using the AI to enhance our productivity. Unlike before however we’re training our replacements by using it. As the AI learns it will replace us eventually.
@arnoldshmitt4969 11 місяців тому
@n n lethargy , and until enough people are on the streets only then will you see reaction
@lokijordan 11 місяців тому
One bright spot: CEOs and managers are unwittingly training their own replacements, the same as the used to do the rest of us.
@osmotreno 5 місяців тому
@@N_N23296 When robotization increases, unemployment increases and people begin to resent, I think countries will begin to sign laws to impose more taxes on companies with many robots, and increase unemployment benefits. Well, it's just logical. Who will buy these robot companies' products if people don't have money? And the people will not tolerate this either.
@spencergoff8736 3 місяці тому
The solution to ensure the well-being of the masses during further advancement of technology is the same solution that we need with our current level of technological development: democratic control of the production and distribution of necessities, via worker cooperatives, a democratically-responsive state, etc.
@kinngrimm 7 місяців тому
We already have prediction about ressource shortages. The amount of rare earths needed to create this workforce, have it maintained and updated is mindboggling. Therefor i would think at some point the costs of such workforce where it comes to manual labour at least, will increase dramaticly and not every company will be able to afford and still make money with their products. So there will be a big crunsh in terms of existing companies surviving this propable trend, too. All that combined with people still existing, will then most likely create seperrate markets. One thing that may still be of value are artistic or just in general handcrafted products. Why would anyone feed a cancerous company if instead they can help their neighbours out a bit?
@clray123 Місяць тому
Maybe it's because your government, holding a gun to your head, who decide where your income is spent, rather not yourself, and the government crooks are (always) in cahoots with the cancerous companies? (This btw is the dream world of many anti-capitalists in this comment section.)
@easternwesterner 16 днів тому
Because it is cheaper to buy from a company? Because you are raised to think it is cool to buy from a company? Because only the company can pass the mandatory governmental product testing and licensing? etc etc
@lonestarr1490 Рік тому
AI prompt writer might become a job, but it won't be a well-paid one. Prompt-writing is easier than conventional coding, meaning more people will be able to get into it. Plus, it's ludicrously easy to outsource, because the prompt writer in general won't need access to your system. So I'd guess it will become a side hustle for students and something people in South America are doing 24/7 for next to no payment (like they're already doing now in the preparation of learning and validation data for AI).
@lonestarr1490 Рік тому
@@Frankiigii Ok, that's even worse than I thought. So probably not even a side hustle then.
@MrMcWitt Рік тому
while yes you are correct, it depends on the context. Depending on the field or situation you need to actually have the context and knowledge to understand the problem, some problems are only able to even be understood by someone who has a lot of prior knowledge on the topic, let alone the solution. For example, if you are lacking a fundamental understanding of the problem you will give a prompt that is based off of that and then so will be the response. There is also the possibility that it will provide an incorrect solution/response but you lack the ability to decern that. There is a lot of nuance that comes into the picture, but yes, we are entering a new era, the like of which we have never seem. lets work to make it a good one for all of us.
@deltaxcd Рік тому
I see prompt engineering job same as job of eating food in the restaurant. prompt is when you tell AI what you want So pretty much by definition you don't want other people to write prompt you do it yourself to tell what you want not what some autistic feminist in the megacorporation decided that you want. Some help may be required for stupid people who don't even know what they want
@Liz-wz8dh 11 місяців тому
That was my thought too. It's weird to see people presenting that as if it's a real option for a lot of jobs.
@davidlloyd-jones8519 11 місяців тому
@@MrMcWitt yes - I think it was Einstien - who said that the greatest problem was first defining the question
@fwingebritson 11 місяців тому
Not only are kids economically unfeasible, they are so time consuming. With most "advanced" countries adopting extended hours for the labor class, such as ten to fourteen hour days five-six days a week, few have time to worry about kids especially with a "double income" household. The "bug years" have proven the frustration of parents and their reluctance to deal with their kids without the help and aid of social support like schools as well as other programs designed to take care of their kids while they work. Even work at home parents were frustrated with the attention required toward their children while dealing with their work requirements.
@heinoustentacles5719 6 місяців тому
what are 'bug years'? when I look it up I get information about the Volkswagen Beetle...
@sandponics 6 місяців тому
If we have no kids, there will eventually be no need for jobs, then humans can become extinct and the world can go back to what it has happily been doing for millions, if not billions of years - Growing food to feed the wildlife. Humans are a failed experiment, and a dead end, just like the dinosaurs and probably millions of other now extinct species.
@elliotw4606 2 місяці тому
The key is being childless. At the very least it keeps the dumber end of the billionaires like Elon Musk upset. Gives at least one thing to smile about at the end of the day. Also can be used to place stress on parents (I guess you could say often "boomers" but I hate those terms) that they won't be grandparents and the continuation of family under them is gone. It fucks them more psychologically sometimes than they admit. Also can sometimes push them into offering help in desperation to get said grandkids. Actually has worked a bit with my parents but it's likely too little and too late and wow does it seem to put some depression bubbling up in that space for them.
@richardmasters2045 6 місяців тому
One thing that AI is unable to do is to have human experiences, and no matter how much you program it it could never replace the adaptation of the human spirit. AI is a machine so don’t give it more credit than what it is worth. Because no matter what it does, it still takes a human in order for it to be of use.
@richardhrubes4585 8 місяців тому
you forgot to mention one very important thing , when there is very low demand to keep your wealth at desent level you will need to raise prices significantly what could make human labour effective enough , as if you lived in island where are only few people with and you produce something for them , you would not not be able to provide lower price ( as you made it from bigger produced numbers ) , then price must be huge to you can reach profit . :)
@willabyuberton818 11 місяців тому
I'd feel a lot better about the future if the people making economic decisions were guided by the approval of the population rather than their own endless greed.
@igorthelight 11 місяців тому
Population in general is far from being smart. Especially in economics...
@harshithsubramaniam5924 11 місяців тому
@@igorthelightit's interesting to see when economists model their theories (esp. Microeconomics), it's always a rational consumer with his rational preferences making choices that give rise to demand and prices (and hence why price signals are gospel). But whenever you talk about making political decisions to do something about economic issues, they become irrational and not so smart.
@oreki8707 10 місяців тому
@@harshithsubramaniam5924 population being rational is just an assumption and like most other assumptions in economics they don't hold much value outside a few economic models Also it's not as if rational expectations are the only assumption in econ models there adaptive expectations, set, conditional etc and etc ..... In short having a population decide it's economic policy is a sure shot way to disaster...a very good example would be how freebie politics are soo popular around the world but in the long run would absolutely ruin an economy
@klavczarkalafan4191 10 місяців тому
@@oreki8707 It's almost like there are solid arguments against leaving it up to the population to decide in an unregulated/barely regulated market the way neoliberalism does.
@oreki8707 10 місяців тому
@@klavczarkalafan4191 lol read some public finance most of what ur suggesting goes out of the windkw.... modern economies are faar too complex to let be dictated by the whims of the public
@Ves189 Рік тому
What many people that follow the argument of people getting new jobs when old ones are becoming obsolete don't consider, is what kind of jobs those are. If we look at the past, many industry and manifacturing jobs were replaced by service jobs. Those jobs (like transport, delivery or support) are often low paying. The rents that were generated by automation might be a big reason why inequality is on the rise over the last decades, as only the capital owners profit from it directly. Therefore we shouldn't only focus on the quantity of jobs out there but also on the quality of them.
@snowflakemelter7171 Рік тому
Who is "we"? No one in this comment section will be deciding on the outcome of these changes.
@mopozuJIko Рік тому
And in the case of AI it can be worse. There will be lots of jobs that could be done only by humans, but they will be the jobs that we want to do least of all. It's easier to replace more technical or creative workers because there is a ton of training data and because it's very scalable. On the other hand no one will care to replace road construction workers, or plumbers, or anything that requires mechanical precision yet doesn't benefit from scalability and/or is cheaper to do by humans.
@oakfat5178 Рік тому
@@snowflakemelter7171 We have a right to form an opinion, even if we're not going to make the decisions.
@snowflakemelter7171 Рік тому
@@oakfat5178 Of course. But unfortunately it will be out of our hands.
@jamesgravil9162 Рік тому
@@mopozuJIko "On the other hand no one will care to replace road construction workers, or plumbers" The Super Mario Brothers will be okay then. That's good to know.
@altondrew 7 місяців тому
Thought provoking. Thanks for the insights...
@geronimomiles312 4 місяці тому
This was a reasonable assessment. Time will tell if its accurate. But ive seen it suggested that productivity will rise , only until human capabilities are fully eclipsed . But its that very rise in productivity per one person , which obviates other people in the field. So the obsolescence of individuals will be more gradual , and precede the eclipse in capability. This actually is in affirmative accord with an aging population , and the reduced need for labor should provide more opportunity for procreative and consumptive behavior... Depending on the control and structuring of economic behavior.
@saritp101 Рік тому
On your prediction of AI prompt writer becoming a job, what happens when AI can learn how to write prompts by anticipating our needs or just asks us about it?
@drhumupower8570 Рік тому
Exactly- that was my first thought. It will be a transitional skill at best.
@Kroke_Monster Рік тому
AutoGPT have a look at that, basically that already.
@cdeford Рік тому
@@Kroke_Monster Yeah, got there already.
@Jamazed Рік тому
AI prompting isn't even something worth specializing in when it's so easy companies will just make their current workers learn it within a few weeks.
@killersberg1 Рік тому
Also will writing prompts be difficult enough to justify a decently paid job? These ais will become better and easier to use. I don't see that on a large scale.
@jsheav Рік тому
I asked a boomer what he thought of all this ai takeover and he said "you young people try to automate everything, but one day you'll realize you miss the human interaction". As a great example, Walmart has greeters that have no other purpose except to provide a human touch to the business.
@insertname8451 11 місяців тому
I was thinking about that. If people eventually have to work fewer hours while getting the same wages, all sorts of hospitality, restaurant, and entertainment jobs will soar. I feel like we will still want the human touch in those jobs (speaking for myself at least). Also, it'd be great to keep employing the same number of teachers/assistants for fewer kids. Classes with 20+ students are unfair for those that can't learn at the same pace and require more attention. Plus, life expectancy keeps growing. I expect a lot of people will be needed to look after the elderly. I think these are all jobs that could be replaced by machines but why would we do that? The human touch will be more treasured than ever once we're surrounded by technology. But hey this is just my opinion... P.S.: Working fewer hours for the same wages will have to be imposed by governments. Of course business owners won't just do it out of charity lol
@Ramschat 11 місяців тому
@@insertname8451 They will not get the same wages. The extra productivity will be used to boost profits and investor returns. As it has been done in the last 3 decades.
@ArawnOfAnnwn 11 місяців тому
And how much does Walmart pay those greeters? If companies have little need of you, they'll pay you as low as legally possible.
@jsheav 11 місяців тому
@@ArawnOfAnnwn companies don't pay as little as legally allowed, but at the fair market value. A balance of supply of employee time, with the amount of time demanded to satisfy the company's labor requirements. This could definitely change in the future. Remember, capitalism is the most democratic form of economics. Every time you buy something, you are voting for that company with your dollar.
@ArawnOfAnnwn 11 місяців тому
@@jsheav The labor requirement for a greeter is very low, and their replaceability is nearly infinite, so no there is 'balance' for a fair market value - you will take what they offer cos if you don't, they can just hire someone even more desperate. You have near zero bargaining power for such a job. Indeed the pay would actually be lower than what I mentioned if the law didn't stop that. And that 'dollar is your vote' metaphor is a silly meme that even most economists don't tend to use. No democracy on Earth afaik vests its people with differential voting power i.e. actual democracies grant every citizen the same number of votes. 'Voting with your wallet' breaks that fundamental principle - good luck convincing any democratic public anywhere to embrace such a change in their politics. If you want an actual example of economic democracy you don't need to stretch the metaphor beyond recognition like that. We already have democratic companies - we call them cooperatives. We have markets that're democratic too - mutualist societies (otherwise known as benefit societies). They've been part of the economic ecosystem for literally centuries. So no, capitalism isn't the most democratic form of economics. Not even close lol.
@arielxgarcia1 7 днів тому
Hilarious takes like this are the main reason a stay subscribed at this point! 😂
@halikarnasgatay 6 місяців тому
Nice Video, thank you for the sharing
@lihoish 11 місяців тому
What amazes me in modern economics is that it fails basic logic. Why would people just starve to death if AI does not provide for them - when they were able to keep feeding themselves for the whole history of humanity? After all, we are not starving to death now without help of the AI and working ourselves, how come we will lose that ability when AI comes? Is there an assumption that it will happen because AI together with people "owning" it will get all the resources such as land to itself? And presumably keep it like that by force? Overall, can we call the current economy sane if producing more will make some or most of people poorer? And if it's not sane, why keep it? What percentage of labor in modern economy is spent on production basic necessities, like food and housing, and let's even add health care and education? How come we let the other part, the so-called "services", get more gravity? Why do we call economies developed when they stop producing what people use and start exploiting labor in other countries, providing back what exactly?
@timtebowfan628 6 місяців тому
Exactly, it is already happening now. Growing your own food will be outlawed and if you dont own land where can you grow?
@j10001 6 місяців тому
Well said!
@lordrorek1907 2 місяці тому
Ding! Ding! Ding! You've just hit upon the fundamental arguments for socialism!
@suzannevannoordt3988 Місяць тому
I thought this too, but would love to see more discussion on this. Perhaps due to overpopulation it's not realistic for people to produce enough food for themselves. If that's the case many people will still starve. Boycotting companies and choosing home-produced goods could be a way to leverage this power, forcing companies to employ people or pay additional tax, but it seems that a lot of power will still remain in the hands of companies.
@lordrorek1907 Місяць тому
@@suzannevannoordt3988 The thing is these companies aren't necessary. Socialism is the future.
@javiermarti_author Рік тому
As I explain in my book about AI, the problem with this technology is that unlike previous technologies, this one doesn't just act an extension of humans, but it can altogether replace us
@moosiemoose1337 Рік тому
Yes please. Let me know when I can ask chatgpt install some drywall for me or replace an outdoor tile deck.
@effdahjuice6419 Рік тому
@@moosiemoose1337 Bad rhetoric. Robots are developing and by the time AI is superior, Robots would be too.
@javiermarti_author Рік тому
@@moosiemoose1337 just search for "robot bulilder", "robot dexterity", "3d printing house" here. You may find the pace of progress interesting. The US army's robotic competition also makes robots move panels around, drill and manipulate objects
@carlcproductions Рік тому
In my book about a duck named quackers, he learns about the differences between ducks and geese, so very similar.
@asandax6 11 місяців тому
@@moosiemoose1337 A guy here on UKposts made a robot to paint an accurate portrait of his wife on their wall Take that robot retrofit it with tools to attach dry wall amd boom chatGPT is now applying drywall in your home.
@Articulate99 10 місяців тому
Always interesting, thank you.
@Shaterrer 11 місяців тому
Automation increased without limits (in quantity as well as in quality) along with declining birthrates kinda reminds of Isaac Asimov's Spacers way of living However in regards of automation all that rests on two assumptions: 1) The machines will be at least as complex and inteligent as humans. 2) They will still stay obedient and serve humans.
@bencor4193 11 місяців тому
I think general intelligence is basically Pandora's box. We really shouldn't open it if we want a future for humans. But it will probably happen at some point.
@purpur7187 11 місяців тому
It's already open.
@laithsaleem580 11 місяців тому
we opened many pandoras boxes throughout history and we will pay the price like our ancestors did.
@neeneko Рік тому
Kinda scary when you see an economics video and think 'wow, economists are optimistic!'. So much of modern economic thought takes things as givens that historically, well, are not. Large populations? Constant growth? Democracy? Customers? From the perspective of a ruling class, you do not actually need any of these things, they are all very modern, and with good enough AI, you can comfortably return to older economic structures where the only real danger was things like slave rebellions, which you can make no longer a danger. People also tend to forget that historically, ethics are defined by economics, not the other way around. If you have too much population that the people who have power are not getting anything out of them, they will find a 'moral' reason to get rid of them.
@ReturnOfHeresy Рік тому
I very much agree. It's weird to see someone else saying these things. I'd elaborate that ethics may be defined by economics, but economics is defined by technology. Feudalism endured because the technologies of the time were deeply centralizing, peasants had no response to noble overreach when pitchforks are matched against heavy cavalry. Guns are relatively decentralizing. AI is massively centralizing. The future is another dark age.
@OneLifeJunkJack Рік тому
Among the privileged, there will always be your Cromwell, Khmelnytsky, Robespierre, Dzerzhinsky, and Lenin, who, while belonging to the upper-middle class or even to the upper class (like Cromwell) will risk and do everything to convince others that they represent the common people. This is especially true for those in direct service to the ruling class, aka the so-called upper-middle class. They often hate those in power, want the power, and have the means to revolt. Also, it's naive to say that in the past the only real threat was slave rebellion. That was the least of worries for, say, the emperors of ancient Rome - the proverbial sword of Damocles is not really about that. That statement about ethics being defined by economics is odd. If you put it that way, then I guess it would be better to say that there are no ethics, just economy, law, and politics. It's like saying that there is no love and marriage is a form of prostitution.
@OneLifeJunkJack Рік тому
@@ReturnOfHeresy Feudalism endured for only one reason, the lack of a strong central power. It's odd to explain the reason for something by looking at the future. You explain something by looking at the direct past. I'm talking about specific feudalism, like the intermediate periods of ancient Egypt, 3rd century Rome or Muromachi period of Japan. I guess that, without knowing it, you soaked in Marx's simplified view of feudalism like a sponge. ^^ Also, peasant revolting won't solve the issue even if successful, vide Jan Žižka. The problem is that the peasants will be led by a nobleman, like Žižka, and that they will no longer view themselves as peasants, like it was with the Cossacks. Or take the Haitian Revolution. Just because the slaves took their freedom by force does not mean that they are now willing to abolish forced labor among their fellow Haitians.
@SA2004YG Рік тому
Sounds like a good reason to keep our guns
@Wintercat1 Рік тому
Very well put. It's pretty disappointing that so much of the dialogue ignores the lessons of history. The issues at hand aren't about AI increasing productivity; if anything EE is spot on with their point that if anything increased productivity is fundamentally inclined to lead to increased quality of life. The issue is the social systems we abide by that use economic forces in the interest of the ruling class as much as possible. EE's thought experiment is actually very relevant to our current AI improvements, just to much less extreme degree. What do we need to change so that everyone can benefit from our leaps in technology instead of centralizing power more than ever before?
@cypher1133 7 місяців тому
I am a technical writer, and knowing what my job is, i can confidently say it will be one of the first ones to see a massive layoff, after all ai can already pretty much do most of the stuff that we do, and its not long before some ambitious manager comes with a plan to automate most of the process then they wont need writers for long, only editors, much more productive dont really care though, i am pretty sure i will be somewhere doing something prbly.
@carultch 29 днів тому
As an engineer who uses the work from technical writers, AI-written technical writing is completely useless. AI is good at giving you the illusion of knowing what you are talking about, without providing any substance that I really need to do my job. It's like AI customer service. The entire reason I'm calling customer service, is that I need a human to understand my problem with a product or with its documentation, and I need them to help me resolve the problem. If it were possible for AI to solve my problem, it would've already been written in the manual in a format I can easily understand. I might as well just listen to "your call is important to us" on an infinite loop, if I have to call AI customer service.
Economics Explained
Переглядів 13 млн
ЗНЕНАЦЬКА! ЗСУ повернули території - БАГАТО ПОЛОНЕНИХ/ Німеччина ВИМАГАЄ Patriot / Смоленськ: ГАРЯЧЕ
24 Канал онлайн
Переглядів 375 тис.
Economics Explained
Переглядів 8 млн
Tom Bilyeu
Переглядів 2,5 млн
Economics Explained
Переглядів 7 млн