Jerry_Atrick Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago There is an article in The Age on the subject matter today: https://www.theage.com.au/technology/kids-playing-with-a-nuclear-warhead-why-we-must-heed-ai-warnings-20260910-p60w2j.html I think the extinction thing is a little overkill (pardon the pun) unless robotics makes incredible strides over a short period of time. However, it won't be as Holywooders and Youtubers would suggest that roboits go rogue or swarms of drones. It will be their ability to crack the systems; of course, there would be real problems if they crack military systems and start guiding nuclear weapons, for example. But, if the world is going to end in 3.5 years for us, may as well take out a 10 year loan on that Ferrari, with a deferred payment for 5 years and live a little 😉
pmccarthy Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago I think any car pre about 1984 is ok as they have no computer on board. My house is a greater threat as my vacuum cleaner and pool robot could rise up against us.
Jerry_Atrick Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago I wish.. AI agents aren't (outwardly) so temperamental.. and they get the issues. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago (edited) Developing and implementing all risk systems for our whole European business. Edited 12 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick 1
nomadpete Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago Getting back to the cost/benefit equation. Exactly how is A.I. and data centres going to make life better for the common man? (i.e, the majority of people).
Jerry_Atrick Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago That does not depend on AI.. that depends on those who govern us. And history shows that pollies wait until the problems are well entrenched before they deal with them. But also, even if the governments finally swallowed the need to tax the corporates to fund more and more people with nothing to do.. what is the impact on those people effectively on the scrap heap. Yep, some enterprising souls will thrive, but we are mainly conditioned to go to school, get a job, work and then retire. So, the way we educate future generations will have to change, too. A friend of mine in a more senior position at another bank is telling me they have gone all in on AI for software development and it is giving them between 15 and 20 x the productivity. So he will end up implementing a decent swathe of cuts but hold enough to significantly improve rate of output. I have been saying for a couple of years that in the next now 8 - 13 years, there won't be many software programming languages left. People will type in their prompts and the run time will be generated directly from it. Yes, some of the lower level languages will still be around, but there will come a time where they are no longer needed as well. Certainly in software development - ironically the industry that gave birth to AI - there isn't much for the common software developer - they will need to be English (or other human language) graduates
nomadpete Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago In summary, you haven't listed any personal benefits to the masses. But you do hint that big business such as banking will make more profit than ever, and employ less humans than ever. Yet we are constantly told how great things will be after this revolution
old man emu Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago 12 hours ago, rgmwa said: What are you doing that needs 100 new hires? Simply complying with Parkinson's Laws: Parkinson's Law is the title of a satirical essay by the naval historian C. Northcote Parkinson which was published in The Economist in 1955, following the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. He proposed the following Laws: 1. "The Law of Multiplication of Work" (Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion). 2. "The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates" (The number of workers within administration tends to grow, regardless of the amount of work to be done). After observing that the promotion of employees necessitated the hiring of subordinates, and that the time used to answer minutes requires more work, Parkinson stated: "In any public administrative department not actually at war the staff increase may be expected to follow this formula" : where: x – number of new employees to be hired annually k – number of employees who want to be promoted by hiring new employees m – number of working hours per person for the preparation of internal memoranda (micropolitics) P – difference: age at hiring − age at retirement n – number of administrative files actually completed. Here's a video on this:
nomadpete Posted 11 minutes ago Posted 11 minutes ago Gee thanks for clearing that up, OME. So, maths holds an important place in every administration.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now