At least they are coming out and admitting that all of these texts are stored and ready to be mined…
I am sure this is good for every AU peasant, nothing can go wrong
Time to buy shares in postal services. They are bound to make a come-back
What’s the likelihood of AI companies respecting any new regulations?
Well we either accept this, get a movement going where we give the AI millions of deliberately false SMS to ingest, or start using a better messaging solution. Not WhatsApp or Signal.
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but why not Signal?
Yes, I know it has the disadvantage of not being decentralised, and it’s not anonymous as a phone number is required.
However, for the *vast majority* of people, it is the simplest and easiest solution to gaining E2EE comms.
Signal is objectively a far better choice than SMS or WhatsApp and all the options I’m aware of. I dunno what OP is angling at either.
The only easy to use E2E encrypted chats are centrally managed, eg: Signal - and even getting friends and family members to move to that is hard.
While a decentralized fully open source self-hosted solution would be great - that shits just not possible for 90% of people. Apps succeed or fail due to barrier of entry and ease of use, and the decentralized options typically have far less user-friendly apps, far fewer users, and often require tech know-how like choosing a federated server or even configuring your own online storage or server (egs: Matrix, Briar, StoneAge). Some bring up Session as another alternative while failing to realize it is also centralized if you want push notifications (which most users do).
Yeah! I hear you, especially regarding ‘onboarding’ often being a barrier. (Thankfully, Signal is bloody easy.)
My own attitude to family and friends is to say, “If ya wanna communicate with me, these are the acceptable options…”
If they don’t wish to use appropriate methods, that’s fine, but they can’t message me. Bugger 'em!
I encourage the use of Signal as a 'gateway drug"… I mean, “app,” and several people have subsequently added other private messaging apps as options.
Same, it’s fair to have means of communicating that you just don’t want to use - and I let that go both ways as is fair. But if both my boomer parents are ok on Signal (with some initial help with notifications) then it makes it a pretty weak argument when acquaintances much younger than them say ‘bro Signal is too hard, I uninstalled it’. For them I say ‘No worries: email, call or SMS me if you need me’.
There is no such thing as privacy.
Nice to see we are finally getting some regulatory movement here.
Let’s hope that either they come to the correct conclusion and do have some enforceable legislation; or the bubble bursts and the whole AI Bullshit Scam looses its funding.
Telstra can’t sell everyone’s SMSs if there is no one buying.
And Telstra can’t sell everyone’s encrypted messages if we can collectively move on from SMS.
PC modelling showed that even the most conservative estimate was that AI would deliver a $116bn boost to the economy over the next decade.
King said that this translated into a $4,300 kicker to the average Australian’s real wage in 10 years’ time, and that the actual benefits could be much larger.
fark sounds good
Sounds good but it’s all bullshit.
I can tell if that comment is in jest, he is for real drinking the koolaid with a straight face.
I think you’re forgetting we live under capitalism, every job that can be removed, will be removed.
Automation will only end up being a net positive for society if we radically alter our economic system.
Automation to this level is not the same as industrialisation or the motormobile, we’re not creating nearly enough jobs to offset those that would be lost in the process.
All at a time at which 2 incomes barely covers living expenses for many people, where 1 used to cover a house, a wife and 3 kids.
$4,300 extra over 10 years? Press X to doubt AI will have anything to do with it.
Automation to this level is not the same as industrialisation or the motormobile, we’re not creating nearly enough jobs to offset those that would be lost in the process.
I thought employment rate has been at record lows these last couple years?
All at a time at which 2 incomes barely covers living expenses for many people, where 1 used to cover a house, a wife and 3 kids.
If you take out housing payments/rents as they’re due to the housing crisis that’s definitely not true
If you’re on 2 incomes and struggling with a paid off house you’re doing something wrong
Standards were very different in the era you’re talking about, there was no eating out, there were no yearly holidays, there was no 8 different subscription services, 3 ipads, 5 tv’s, 3 computers, 2 cars, a huge house etcetcetc
Especially if you’re a tradie or mining related, you’re probably making absolute bank.
I thought employment rate has been at record lows these last couple years?
We are in a service economy, which hasn’t been as exposed to mechanical automation. You think there are still going to be as many jobs in the service industry of we automate it all? You think the market gives two shits about human dignity and keeping us employed?
We’re already shipping as many service jobs as we can to cheaper places. You think this doesn’t have an effect on our future employment prospects?
If you take out housing payments/rents as they’re due to the housing crisis that’s definitely not true
Are you hearing yourself?
If you’re on 2 incomes and struggling with a paid off house you’re doing something wrong
This is such a brain-dead, out of touch take.
How exactly are people, who don’t own a home, supposed to get to that point? With piles, and piles of debt, for houses that have gone up, way, way, way beyond inflation.
If they have no relatives who already own property, they are even more truly fucked.
I moved out of home in 2016. I worked 2 days a week on the weekend while studying. I did not apply for Centrelink and managed to get by because I managed to find a pretty cheap place to rent.
This shit is not possible today. And even in 2016 rent was already starting to become expensive I just got lucky.
Housing is THE problem of our generation.
I’ve managed to get “on the property ladder” but we’re quickly pulling it up behind us for many, many people.
And the fact you think corporations, who clearly do not have humanity’s best interest at heart, will actually drive real wage growth, with AI, is frankly hilarious.
yes but the housing crisis is a whole problem in and of itself not related to ai
houses were unaffordable and increasingly unaffordable as you said years before chatgpt3.5 was even released
somehow we have a larger population than ever, more immigrants than ever but still
Mr Crost said Australia needed many more skilled tradespeople — including carpenters, electricians and plumbers — if it was to have any realistic hope of meeting the 1.2 million new homes goal.
“We are currently 83,000 tradies short,” he said.
if we can get house prices back down i think we’d in far better nick than we were previously
Post-war Australia posed its own set of challenges such as housing shortages, continued rationing, economic instability and general unrest.
https://www.homestolove.com.au/the-block/1940s-houses-australia-21692/
lol seems like some things never change
Whenever a technology has increased productivity, the extra profit made hasn’t been passed on to increase the workers’ real wages. Why would it?
We’ve already seen AI preemptively treated as a way to make workers redundant and not pay their wage at all, with some idiot bosses having to rehire entire teams they had fired because they bought into AI hype and thought it was capable of replacing them all. They’ve shown what their financial incentive is - increasing shareholder value by outsourcing to cheap markets or removing jobs. And in fact, removing jobs through automation could be a great thing if we had a market capable of retraining those workers to perform the jobs that society needs most. We don’t. Our political-economy is run for profit, not productivity, and it’s important we recognise how contradictory those goals truly are in the real world.
Whenever a technology has increased productivity, the extra profit made hasn’t been passed on to increase the workers’ real wages. Why would it?
Where did you read this? It certainly did in the past:
It stopped when a combination of the mining boom taking off, Australia being too expensive to be a manufacturing hub anymore and it’s difficult to measure how many widgets we make when the widgets are hard to measure according to:
spoiler
This article by Ian Verrender examines the concept of productivity in Australia and challenges the common narrative that our productivity is in crisis.
Key points:
Misunderstanding Productivity: Many people, especially in business, confuse productivity (output per unit of input) with profitability and offer simplistic solutions like cutting red tape and lowering taxes without fully understanding the issue or measuring it accurately.
Wage Growth’s Role: Contrary to common belief, stagnant wages growth isn’t necessarily bad for productivity. Higher wages incentivize efficiency improvements and labor-saving technology (as seen in Australia’s historical shift from agriculture to manufacturing/services), which wouldn’t happen with suppressed wages.
Productivity Measurement Challenges: Measuring productivity is difficult, particularly in service-based economies like Australia’s. It’s hard to quantify output accurately for sectors like education or healthcare. This makes interpreting statistics and identifying true trends complex.
The Mining Boom Effect: Periods of high mineral prices (like the GFC aftermath and pandemic years) can appear to lower productivity figures, not because the economy is less efficient, but because mining companies become profitable digging harder-to-reach resources, taking more time and labor per unit. This isn’t necessarily a sign of economic decline.
Investment, Not Just Taxes: While tax cuts might increase profits, they don’t automatically lead to investment in productivity-enhancing equipment or techniques unless coupled with wage growth that makes such investment viable for businesses. Encouraging investment through targeted incentives could be more effective.
Complexity and Interconnectedness: Economic issues are complex. Solutions often have unintended consequences. The author questions the practicality of drastically changing policies (like abandoning mining) to achieve potentially easier-to-measure productivity figures, suggesting a deeper analysis is needed instead of assuming a simple fix exists.
In essence, Verrender argues that Australia shouldn’t be in a panic about productivity, that wage growth isn’t inherently bad, measurement methods are flawed for our service economy, and the mining boom’s impact is often misinterpreted. He suggests focusing on encouraging genuine investment rather than relying solely on tax cuts or wage restraint.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-27/productivity-wages-growth-australia-mining-boom/105338488
removing jobs through automation could be a great thing if we had a market capable of retraining those workers to perform the jobs that society needs most
Maybe we should use AI to train them :D
I’m not convinced that the ABS graph shows that productivity and earnings were closely coupled before or during the 90s. As it says in the graph title, they’ve set 1991 as a starting origin (setting Productivity equal to Earnings), so it doesn’t imply the two were already as closely coupled as they look. They only appear so close because the graph sets 1991 as the common point to compare both axes.
To demonstrate, I’ve edited the graph to show what would happen if they made that same graph start from 2009. I’ve done this by copying the orange line up (and colouring it red) so that both lines begin at the same spot in 2009 instead of 1991. And just like the 1991 line, they appear to match each other for a few years - apart from one major dip around 2016, they align very closely for the first 10 years just like in the full 1991 graph.
But we know from your original ABS graph that the wages were already significantly diverging from productivity by 2009. So, I suspect that if we had a longer graph, then we’d learn that wages were already decoupled from productivity in the decades before 1991, but at the very least this graph doesn’t imply close coupling existed in the past and shows evidence of regular uncoupling.
Maybe we should use AI to train them :D
Sure. Although like all tools, AI can only help if used properly. It’s not a panacea, and it can’t replace most training techniques by itself. Similarly, we can’t just “use the internet” to train them or “use books” to train them.
Translated how.
https://aussie.zone/post/23393953
like this, it allows gps to spend more time on the patient than writing up documentation
https://www.heidihealth.com/au
less time writing up documentation, more time spent helping patients and improving their lives, that’s a productivity boost
How does that translate to wages
well when people are less sick, they can work longer, which means they can be more productive, which means they can make more money
That’s not a wage increase though. That’s simply more hours for the same pay
do you want to chat with an ai to clear this up lol
No.
