“As an economist, I understand productivity; people lose jobs when technology changes. But the valuations of these AI companies are literally based on the assumption that hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs and employers will buy AI services instead of labour services.”

Dr Denniss said that while much of the attention was focused on the technology itself, he was more concerned about the broader economic consequences.

“What is the ATO’s plan? What are the state government plans?” he asked the committee.

“Again, all that money that Anthropic is betting on is coming from somewhere, and that’s going to have very real consequences for individuals, for communities, for the economy, for the way Commonwealth budgets are drawn up.”

Dr Denniss also challenged the argument that Australia risked being left behind unless it rapidly embraced AI, warning that national security concerns should not be used to justify an unrestricted rollout.

EDIT: https://thepoint.com.au/new/261022-not-an-unintended-consequence-mass-unemployment-is-the-ai-business-model

  • MalReynolds@piefed.socialEnglish
    6·
    6 days ago

    You’re not wrong, it’s a crying shame that increased productivity decoupled from the worker’s income. Now it goes straight into the 1%'s pocket. Even worse that the dream of an ever lower hours working week with automation got squashed. Shit, it’s gone into reverse, for no other reason than to make a number in an account go up. Those BS jobs should go, but they’re so linked to survival that it will do massive damage to society, not least by making people ever more desperate for the crumbs of jobs remaining.

    defining someone’s worth by how much they earn and looking down on those who don’t.

    Yup, although it’s more by how much wealth they have IMO, which is worse, especially when morality gets tied in.

    This is arguably worse as if everyone got laid off then there would automatically be a cultural reaction and real change would have to be made.

    Agreed, but they will inevitably circle around to trying again (and again if necessary) given the chance, hence ‘Heed the warning’. It’s (perhaps) just one significant advance in AI theory away. It would behoove us to lay the groundwork, build the community, and do the thinking so that when the real change has a chance it’s not a kneejerk away from the current hellscape, but a deliberate change toward a coherent positive. We’ve had our neoliberal two steps back, time for three steps forward.

    • Craig Lambie@fosstodon.org
      1·
      23 hours ago

      @MalReynolds @tuff_wizard we definitely need to have a national conversation about what type of society we want to love in.
      The uber rich need to fund it, surely there are some like Ray Dalio that can see the wealth inequality is why empires fell in the past.
      Rome to Britain and now the US… Greedy buggers use debt to over leverage then something like covid or Spanish flu, or a war (unrest from inequality) causes the whole thing to go tits up.

      Someone with a couple of million to spare…?