/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.12808341]

Just watched this video discussing the collapse of traditional economics and human labor, what did I think of it?

https://youtu.be/SYsy6qbKp3Y

[Anonymous No.12808492]

>>12808341
How would any of us know what you thought of it

[Anonymous No.12808506]

>>12808341
chainlink $1000 eoy

[Anonymous No.12808540]

I can't stand this bloviating windbag. Everything he says carefully is designed to make him seem smarter than he actually is, like some insecure goth kid using obscure vocabulary not quite correctly.

[Anonymous No.12808565]

didn't know he was down with Thiel.
I knew the illuminati had infiltrated the "intellectual dark web", but this is a dot I can connect.

[Anonymous No.12808819]

About a third of the way through the video. Pretty interesting so far. I need to get more current on what AI can or can't do.

[Anonymous No.12808825]

>>12808341
this jew is in leagues with soros

[Anonymous No.12809053]

>>12808825
Thiel and Soros are rivals, you fucking /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.12809117]

>>12808540
>bloviating windbag

You need to go back

[Anonymous No.12809301]

Back.

So I think he's right in his endgame but wrong in his short term calculus. For starters he's correct in what this is going to do to professions, but his assumption on qualitative numbers is wrong. AI faces different levels of hurdles to accomplish supplanting labor. A deep learning algorithm is going to be less efficient at, say, putting together legal arguments in lieu of using a paralegal than it is at driving a car. But of those it drives out of their current workload some portion of them will attempt to move into those professions with barriers that keep AIs out for the moment, effectively driving up supply which in turn is another barrier to the cost of putting AI in those sectors. I see less of a total collapse of the labor market caused by the sudden onset of AI and more of a slow collapse of one sector at a time. I see something that is fundamentally manageable.

Now the political stuff is pretty interesting. He's onto something with inflation. The price of education goes up an average of 7% a year and the price of homes go up an average of something like 4% but inflation is scaled at an average of around 2%, last year it was like 2.8% iirc. Pointing out that there is a political economy for this and that economists are engaging in rent seeking behavior here is fascinating, particularly that he points out that it's a somewhat taboo question to ask. In and around that point of the interview I noticed the interviewer shifting her feet around uncomfortably, and I think it was an involuntary motion considering that she immediately made an effort to keep still and succeeded. To my eye that's quelling an involuntary reaction, most likely due to discomfort.

cont'd

[Anonymous No.12809316]

All of this tells me that economists more or less know the name of the game. What my takeaway is that yes, their patrons are the private sector, and yes the nature of the academic game that they are playing is unsustainable. They all have sufficient means of knowing this. My conclusion would be that they're sweating bullets right now because they aren't certain where the new economy is going for themselves either. If, as he states, the political economy behind money and financial instruments is either vanishing or shrinking, then economists in turn have increasingly limited room to maneuver in order to engage in rent-seeking behavior. So in a way the interviewer's obvious discomfort with the conversation sort of brought it home for me.

As it so happens to apply to me I am a creative. I have no issue dealing with other creatives and I think that he's being intellectually dishonest about something in particular. Namely the issue of "education". See, you can't teach somebody to be creative. You can teach them to be better at being creative, but creativity cannot be taught. It's an innate trait that the education system of many countries actually tends to stamp out rather than nurture, although we in the West do a better job of not stamping it out than say China or Japan.

So some of his anxiety, I think, comes from the realization that soon it will no longer be possible for daddy to secure you a future by getting you into the Harvard or Yale equivalent of school for creative people. It's no longer possible to advance by, as he puts it, sharp elbows over sharp minds. The economic game is changing to favor certain immutable traits and in doing so it will inevitably render a certain portion of the labor pool invalid, and this will extend all the way to rent seeking behaviors among capitalists. New and creative ways of doing things will inevitably eat older and weaker models as the need for infinite growth necessitates it.

[Anonymous No.12809327]

Not a single retard here understands what this kike is telling you. He's explaining what they are doing to get rid of most of you and enslave the rest of the low IQ fucks.

[Anonymous No.12809351]

>>12809316
Every single thing you said is wrong you egotistical fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.12809361]

>>12809053
I think he talked about Weinstein, who is fairly progressive in his political views.

[Anonymous No.12809382]

>>12809327
He figured it out guys. *Clap**Clap**Clap*

[Anonymous No.12809407]

>>12809327
>>12809351

I understand what you think and why that's your takeaway. You just happen to be wrong. Now it's entirely possible that some of the actors think that they are getting rid of us high IQ people and enslaving the low IQ fuckwads, but it's not going to go that way.

What IS going to happen is a gigantic knock-down, drag-out fight when they realize that it's not going to go their way. Think Mega-Capitalists vs Technocrats instead of Capitalists vs Communists.

[Anonymous No.12809413]

Go back to leftypol or /x/

[Anonymous No.12809468]

>>12809413

>/leftypol/

Edgelords practicing dead ideologies in order to grasp at intellectual credibility or pretensions of ethical correctness are the lamest people to talk to.

>/x/

There are some interesting people there, but it's hard to figure out who's just schizophrenic sometimes.

[Anonymous No.12809503]

>>12809301
They've already developed an air or program to help people with legal cases.

[Anonymous No.12809518]

>>12809503

I don't know much about this. Is it any more insidious than, say, "Tesco Law"?

[Anonymous No.12809541]

>>12809327
We're already enslaved.
I actually listened to this dork's incoherent ramblings and he's not really saying anything that r/futurology hasn't been masturbating about all decade.

[Anonymous No.12809555]

>>12808341
LOL no magical thing is going to come and save you fucking cunts.

YOu are going to have to get a job and work for a living just like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.12809568]

>>12809541

Oh I am glossing over and handwaving some things that happen to be inconvenient for my position. But it's nothing that anybody has directly touched on so I'll keep my powder dry.

[Anonymous No.12809571]

>if I specialize in buttsex instead of going to college, I will have an edge over the future's AI overlords
>like kung fu panda
>a strong hairy bear

[Anonymous No.12809576]

>>12808819
Clif High is the best at dispelling the myth of artificial intelligence, and the reality of Expert Systems.

[Anonymous No.12809592]

>>12809518
>I don't know much about this. Is it any more insidious than, say, "Tesco Law"?
No that's ridiculous. It's something I saw on a documentary. They gave it to some lawyers or whatever to try out and it basically ends up making their job 10 times easier because they don't have to schower through books to find whatever law or ruling or whatever the fuck they do to help build a case.
They were saying this kind of programme/air(I say cause I forget) would even be able to help people build their own legal defenses and such.
It's was some documentary about ai now that I remember. It was discussing all the areas that ai's could actually take over other peoples jobs. Even some people wouldn't expect. Like you brought up law.
Though I can't imagine the justice system would like the idea of dealing with air rather than people. And judgement would still have to be with a judge whose conversing with robots.
Some jobs for that reason could be maintained. There are alot of areas that people just prefer personal human communication/contact in services.

[Anonymous No.12809605]

>>12809468
>Edgelords practicing dead ideologies in order to grasp at intellectual credibility or pretensions of ethical correctness are the lamest people to talk to

So basically earnestly studying what most do not study and to feel intellectually superior because of others ignorance instead of genuine intellectual discussion. No lefty board exists without the large disclaimer: "NO TROLLING" the definition of trolling changes on a whim or as they are genuinely challenged.

You showed me something here anon.

[Anonymous No.12809611]

>>12808492
lmao

[Anonymous No.12809623]

>>12809576

Where do I find this?

>>12809592

So it basically does the job of law clerks, which is pretty much the problem of "Tesco Law" except with paralegals. Nothing uniquely insidious, but it does eliminate low level law jobs for people trying to make it into the legal profession by doing their mandatory years of clerking.

[Anonymous No.12809637]

>>12809605

You might be conflating extremist social liberal SJWs with Leftists, but I can't fault fault your conclusion otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12809705]

>>12809623
Yeah I guess you correct. But your basically saying it ribs them if those years cause they learn quite abit during them. I think using it like that just hampers the profession.

[Anonymous No.12810046]

"software does loops"
"humans do jobs that are repetitive"
"software will replace humans"

dude.... fuckin lmaoooo hahahaha
holy shit niggers what kind of argument is this hahahahaha
dude WEEEDDD
dude who fucking believes this shit

"my fave movie is kung fu panda"
wtf geeeeeaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy literally the arby's of pixar movies

>economists think about things
they dont, obviously

>macroeconomists dont get grants so macroeconomics isnt real

the only thing he mightve said thats real
>people abuse mathematics to make things more complicated
>we need more prose explanations
>we need more regional data and less massive generalized averages

>crypto can be expanded when fiat has recession
dude weed

overall it's a massive pile of retardation. dont show forward it to anyone else if you dont want to embarass yourself, except that many people probably think this is dope.

[Anonymous No.12810192]

>>12809571
Don't forget to invest in Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.12810532]

Bump.
This thread's butthurt must be preserved

[Anonymous No.12810619]

>>12809327
>replace all menial labour jobs with machines
>tax machine generated profits at 20%
>reduce income tax by 10%
>use 10% remainder for UBI
This is the world I want to live in

[Anonymous No.12810625]

>>12810619
Or whatever the math is, you get what I mean

[Anonymous No.12810631]

>>12809637
Nah he's right. They purport to invite debate but they change their mind pretty quickly when it becomes bothersome to them. They stifle criticism on their home boards and then come to raid other boards with free discourse like /biz/ in the hopes that at least a few disaffected brainlets will be taken in by their surface level "dialectic".

They're humorless pedants living in the wealthiest societies of the world role playing as illiterate turn of the century Russian peasants instead of looking at how state, socio/cultural phenomena and international relations of the recent past have lead to some of the economic malaise of today and the steps we can take to address them.

[Anonymous No.12811124]

>>12808341
This guy is bullshitting.
The shit he said about scalars and field in economics didn't make any sense. For the rest of the interview he raised questions without proposing answers. Typical bullshitter

[Anonymous No.12811161]

>>12809637

Give me a break. Any time a "Leftist" tries to distance themselves from "liberals" I kindly remind them that they are on the chopping block too when some louder nigger decides they are now the "liberals"

Fuck off, you're all the same

[Anonymous No.12811298]

>>12809705

It does, it means that you have fewer clerking opportunities so you have fewer lawyers overall.

[Anonymous No.12811316]

>>12810631

Sort of. But they're different groups of people.

>>12811161

Not remotely. You inability to distinguish what a leftist is from what a liberal is merely a description of your inability to understand politics.

[Anonymous No.12811325]

economic academic establishment desperate to remain relevant

oopsie- you've been replaced

[Anonymous No.12811348]

>>12808341
>What did I think of it?
Most honest thread on 4chan

[Anonymous No.12811385]

Can you improve your iq with training?

[Anonymous No.12811397]

>>12809301
-driving industry is the largest employment sector in the world

[Anonymous No.12811406]

>>12811316

OK keep telling yourself that, "Leftist", I don't really care to argue. You're a LIBERAL

[Anonymous No.12811410]

whatever linkpool is going to pay the bills anyway

[Anonymous No.12811426]

>>12811385

You may be able to improve your performance in certain types of tests but only to a limited degree, but the underlying g-factor would not, in theory, change.

>>12811397

Yes. It'll be the major test case.

>>12811406

Conservatives are Liberals. "Liberals" are also Liberals. Leftists are not Liberals. Go back to /pol/ the adults are talking.

[Anonymous No.12811440]

>>12808540
>coming out and admitting you don't understand the big complex words
fuck

[Anonymous No.12811478]

>>12811426

Kvetch and abstract more kike, you have nothing interesting to say. Every single liberal I talk to says this same fucking thing, like broken records.

As I said, have fun larping as a "Leftist" until some louder, more progressive nigger comes along and calls you a liberal.

[Anonymous No.12811493]

>>12811426
>>12811478

And you should seriously take to heart the wisdom I've just imparted anon, it will save you YEARS of hassle and cultural/existential strife. I've seen many friends fall for this scam over the years.

[Anonymous No.12811494]

>>12811478

I'm not a Leftist you greasy moron, I'm a Globalist. You're at the point where it's obvious that you're just trolling though, so here's a >you.

[Anonymous No.12811531]

>>12811494

I rest my case

[Anonymous No.12811838]

Completely autonomous self driving cars/trucks/aircraft would put a third of the country out of a job and create basicly zero new jobs.

[Anonymous No.12812012]

>>12811838

Cars/trucks yes. Aircraft is a definite no because of a variety of barriers that remain in place.