The coming productivity boom


#119

Hmmm, 1. A list of points 2. That is continuations of the same short paragraph 3. to make it look like they have more to say 4. Than they really have.


#120

The same IEA behind Thatcherism. Fine for a bit in theory, broad mass appeal in 1983 but n.b. finish the course. They didn’t and the World has just moved on now.


#121

Brief and incisive
Bullet point deconstruction.
It’s almost Haiku.


#122

8DD

(Closest thing to clapping)


#123
  1. for the money
  2. for the show
  3. to get ready

If I remember right it was Thatcher who invented the annoying practice of always having three points, even if everything beyond the first was superfluous.


#124

bbc.com/news/av/technology-4 … irst-shift

newyorker.com/magazine/2017 … super-rich


#125

9to5google.com/2018/12/31/waymo … -attacked/

nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/w … tacks.html


#126

Deep learning is hitting its limitations, the robocalypse is cancelled 8DD

towardsdatascience.com/is-deep- … 1826082ac3


#127

Good article, thank you! Now how do we stop those who are already invested in the bandwagon continuing to waste resources on dead ends?


#128

cepr.net/publications/op-eds-col … robot-myth


#129

I wonder does this have any connection with falling productivity, not sure myself

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs


#130

There isn’t a single bullshit job in the rte hands series. Lots of hard jobs, physically hard but no do nothing work


#131

Jobs are being lost in manufacturing and primary production, where humans are productive, but less productive than machines and displaced to being created in low end services, where often neither humans nor machines can possibly be productive, because many of the jobs are fundamentally useless.

If you really want to see productivity growth per hour of human labour as a result of automation, the way to get it is through mass unemployment. :smiley:

The blunt truth is that humans are worse than machines at most jobs that are worth doing. :smiley:


#132

Anna is an actual AI powered data scientist

medium.com/@hyperanna/hyper-ann … 4c960788de

hyperanna.com/about-team/


#133

Anna is almost certainly an actual crude machine learning decision tree operating very fast. Anna is almost certainly programmed to answer the sample questions better than Watson and fed better data to do it. Watson is also almost certainly a crude machine learning decision tree.
theregister.co.uk/2019/02/2 … real_yeah/


#134

The interesting thing to take away from all this is not that machines can think, but that much of the time, humans don’t need to. It’s amazing how far humans can get away with just operating as crude organic learning decision trees, particularly in professional affairs. That’s why even something as dim as a typical AI can end people’s careers. :laughing:


#135

:slight_smile: Well, that is certainly true of the robots HR employs - bbc.com/news/technology-44561838


#136

So AI is stupid … but not quite as stupid as the people it replaces? :smiley:


#137

No, it’s a bit dimmer but works 24/7, doesn’t take sick days, sleep with co-workers, bring egg sandwiches in for lunch or bitch about parking…


#138

When is AI not AI? When it’s just a buzzword to get VC funding