Samantha Murphy Kelly writes this for CNN a few days ago ("Elon Musk says AI will take all our jobs," May 23, 2024).
"Elon Musk says artificial intelligence will take all our jobs and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
“Probably none of us will have a job,” Musk said about AI at a tech conference on Thursday.
While speaking remotely via webcam at VivaTech 2024 in Paris, Musk described a future where jobs would be “optional.”
“If you want to do a job that’s kinda like a hobby, you can do a job,” Musk said. “But otherwise, AI and the robots will provide any goods and services that you want.”
For this scenario to work, he said, there would need to be “universal high income” – not to be confused with universal basic income, although he did not share what that could look like. (UBI refers to the government giving a certain amount of money to everyone regardless of how much they earn.)
“There would be no shortage of goods or services,” he said.
A question within a capitalist framework: If in the future no one will be paid for maintaining the AI and the wealth will be redistributed, what's the incentive for anyone to work to develop the AI today?
A question outside a capitalist framework: If there's "no shortage of goods or services" and hence enough abundance or wealth for everyone to have a universal income to meet all their needs and receive luxuries too, while playing with "AI and the robots" as an unpaid hobby to help distribute the goods and services to others...why do we need to wait for new computers that are technically able to do this distribution? Why don't we begin enjoying that wealth right now?
She is talking about how AI has longterm certainty when they can barley afford the servers they run on and that AI generators are not being sued left, right, and center right now. If had this much delusion, I could be a NYT bestseller right now. š¤£
— Georgina Kiersten (they/them) (@ingloriousgigi.bsky.social) Jun 21, 2024 at 8:26 AM
[image or embed]
No comments:
Post a Comment