Posts by Kumara Republic
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, new tech in itself doesn’t cause job losses. Rentier statists (such as Peter Thiel) that own and control most of the new tech do.
RNZ Insight: New tech won’t cause mass job losses in NZ – study
Automation and artificial intelligence may not cause the mass unemployment that is often predicted, according to new research shared with RNZ Insight.
The study by the AI Forum says many workers will lose their jobs due to technological change, but it suggests new types of employment and government support, mean most people should be able to adapt. But it does warn some individuals could struggle.
For the full story, tune in to RNZ Insight on Sunday after 8am.
-
Hard News: 1984, Cambridge Analytica and…, in reply to andin,
But whose moral compass will always align with what is more profitable for them.
Im getting tired of seeing the same behaviour over and over again.In other words, war profiteers but with big data instead of guns and bombs. Or should that be "information war profiteers"?
-
If George Orwell only got one thing wrong about 1984, it's that Big Brother can have tradeable stock options.
-
In light of Stephen Hawking's passing, here's a response by him from a Reddit AMA session from 2 years ago:
I'm rather late to the question-asking party, but I'll ask anyway and hope. Have you thought about the possibility of technological unemployment, where we develop automated processes that ultimately cause large unemployment by performing jobs faster and/or cheaper than people can perform them? Some compare this thought to the thoughts of the Luddites, whose revolt was caused in part by perceived technological unemployment over 100 years ago. In particular, do you foresee a world where people work less because so much work is automated? Do you think people will always either find work or manufacture more work to be done? Thank you for your time and your contributions. I’ve found research to be a largely social endeavor, and you've been an inspiration to so many.
Answer:
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Hawking later followed it up with a full-length commentary on how inequality and technology relate to the new wave of neo-nationalist demagoguery:
* Stephen Hawking - This is the most dangerous time for our planet
-
Up Front: Why a Woman is Like a Bicycle, in reply to ,
The Daily Galaxy is talking about all the human on robot assaults going on around the streets of San Francisco. The driverless cars in particular!
Just wait till people start resorting to blockades.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Bar None, and…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Holds the writer's credit for track 1, side 1 of what's indisputably the greatest album of all time.
Ah yes, the good old Music for Leisure compilations.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Bar None, and…, in reply to linger,
Also influenced-by, to the point of using his actual equipment: the Pet Shop Boys’ So Hard. It’s probably true to say Giorgio’s main contribution over the last 25 years has been his influence on other musicians, but that in itself is no small thing.
Harold Faltermeyer, Moroder's long-time session keyboardist/understudy, composed some gems in his own right.
-
Hard News: Trump 2018, in reply to Russell Brown,
Aaaaaaaaand … Bannon has stepped down from Breitbart.
When a monster breaks free from Dr Frankenstein's lab and runs amok...
-
Hard News: Trump 2018, in reply to Tom Semmens,
The GOP Gerrymander and the Tea party base was meant to entrench the Republicans basically forever. But Trump has mobilised the opposition like nothing else. Even a top 10 Gerrymandered state like Arkansas can’t resist a motivated turnout that has segments voting up to 98% against you.
The racist revanchists who rallied around Trump got lucky with the Democrat’s selection of Clinton. As Stephen Colbert so memorably put it, they were the only two possible candidates who could lose to the other.
Maybe the USA could do with a few outside electoral observers. Oh wait…
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/election-observers-united-states/506717/
-
Legal Beagle: If Australia Jumped off a…, in reply to Craig Young,
Family First, the Conservative Party and other referenda boosters appear to have nothing more than nihilist contempt for representative, deliberative democratic government.
So they basically want illiberal democracy instead. They'd be right at home with Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Netanyahu, Duterte, Modi et al...