For workers wondering how far artificial intelligence could go, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has a straightforward answer — AI is going to change the job market, whether people are ready for it or not. Some jobs will disappear, others will change and new ones will likely emerge. But Dimon warned that the speed of that transition could matter just as much as the technology itself.
"As a business person, my view is don't put your head in the sand," Dimon said at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January. "It is what it is. We're going to deploy it. Will it eliminate jobs? Yes. Will it change jobs? Yes. Will it add some jobs? Probably."
They spend so much on eliminating jobs and social programs. The government enables this by giving them tax cuts with money obtained by taking food out of the mouths of children? We could never "afford" universal health-insurance, but we could afford to invest in eliminating human workers that just want to put a roof over their head?
Seems like a recipie for guillotines.
But, hey
I kind of disagree, but that's also an entirely different discussion.
There’s a big IF at the end of what you quoted. I’m not anti AI in its inevitability. But there’s a very real cost to creating it. And soon to be a steep barrier to entry to that knowledge, or at least the parts they’ll show you.
That's definitely a big if, I'm not even sure what that means, much less that it's true.
Regarding intellectual pillaging, that depends on your opinion of it. I'm of the viewpoint that it's no significantly different from any human learning from the works of those that came before. Also not a fan of copyright as it exists, so...
things like this.
Where they’re taking old books, which have a finite quantity to them, scanning the information, and destroying the books. That is literally destruction of information, and en masse, destroys what we have collectively gained in knowledge as a civilization. Because at the end of all of this, only a handful of people will truly have access to it. What the rest of us will see is what they will allow. And as it stands, I do not trust the current curators. I do not support the destruction or limiting of information.
I agree with you, that's a significant negative. Though it's as much on us as a society as anything else that we aren't valuing and preserving those books properly to begin with.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/worlds-largest-open-library-calls-for-volunteers-to-scan-and-preserve-physical-books-as-ai-companies-buy-scan-and-destroy-them-annas-archive-says-time-is-running-out-as-knowledge-is-permanently-monopolized-on-private-servers
Silver lining, it's prompting a speed up in digitisation.
My original comment wasn't about defending AI or its (lack of) ethics, though. Just recognising that AI is likely here to stay, and that we should be moving the discussion to dealing with the societal impact it brings instead of spending our energy tilting at windmills while the assholes in charge widen the wealth gap even further.