RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:02 pm Banquo will know loads more than me but it won’t be long, relatively, until all/the vast majority of surgery and analysis of scans etc will be undertaken by AI. We could find we’re training and importing a load of doctors and nurses that will be surplus to requirements in the future. I suppose they can fill the yawning void in social care staffing but they won’t like the pay cut.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:31 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:02 pm Banquo will know loads more than me but it won’t be long, relatively, until all/the vast majority of surgery and analysis of scans etc will be undertaken by AI. We could find we’re training and importing a load of doctors and nurses that will be surplus to requirements in the future. I suppose they can fill the yawning void in social care staffing but they won’t like the pay cut.

Of course, with UBI, there's be a smaller yawning void in social care, as more people would be able to afford the time to look after granny.

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:12 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:43 am

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:03 am

While I agree with the idea it cannot take the actual jobs, it can take 80% of the actual work quite easily.

Remember, AI doesn't mean ChatGPT, et al. It can also mean self driving vehicles in mines, ports, and so on. In fact, these are all actually a reality now. It can mean AI generated fertilizing patterns for farms, which are generally more accurate than manually create ones, saving time for the farmers. It can mean automated check in systems at airports, so instead of needing 4 check-in staff, you need one to help anyone who can't follow simple instructions. It can mean warehousing robots that collect the product, meaning you now only need a QC person and not a team of shelf pickers.

And because that latter exists already, it could quite easily be ported to take care of other work, such as fruit picking.

As Banquo said, most pension teams could be turned to AI. The same can go for insurance, for many industries, with only customer service a needed human presence.

While a human is needed at some stages of most AI journeys, the robots can still take 80% of the work. And that's a good thing.

Healthcare will be massively impacted by AI....eventually.

That's a lot of "customer" facing, though. That's where we need humans, imo.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:31 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:02 pm Banquo will know loads more than me but it won’t be long, relatively, until all/the vast majority of surgery and analysis of scans etc will be undertaken by AI. We could find we’re training and importing a load of doctors and nurses that will be surplus to requirements in the future. I suppose they can fill the yawning void in social care staffing but they won’t like the pay cut.

Of course, with UBI, there's be a smaller yawning void in social care, as more people would be able to afford the time to look after granny.

padprop wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:37 pm Fundamentally, British 2022 GDP was 2.2 trillion. UBI at 1600 per month for those over 16 would be 7.8 trillion by my maths. Do we really expect to more than triple quadruple GDP in a generation of demographic change and prolonged stagnation? I’m not saying its impossible but it just seems like such a utopian view its akin to computers meaning people will have to work 10 hour work weeks.

I am pro the idea of UBI, but do worry it will be used as a crutch from AI companies to justify business.

*please correct my maths if I’m wrong, but the numbers seem so far away to be taken seriously*

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:14 pm Don't get me wrong it'd still be a yawning void; just a smaller one.
How much smaller would be the question.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:31 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:02 pm Banquo will know loads more than me but it won’t be long, relatively, until all/the vast majority of surgery and analysis of scans etc will be undertaken by AI. We could find we’re training and importing a load of doctors and nurses that will be surplus to requirements in the future. I suppose they can fill the yawning void in social care staffing but they won’t like the pay cut.

Of course, with UBI, there's be a smaller yawning void in social care, as more people would be able to afford the time to look after granny.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:15 pm

padprop wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:37 pm Fundamentally, British 2022 GDP was 2.2 trillion. UBI at 1600 per month for those over 16 would be 7.8 trillion by my maths. Do we really expect to more than triple quadruple GDP in a generation of demographic change and prolonged stagnation? I’m not saying its impossible but it just seems like such a utopian view its akin to computers meaning people will have to work 10 hour work weeks.

I am pro the idea of UBI, but do worry it will be used as a crutch from AI companies to justify business.

*please correct my maths if I’m wrong, but the numbers seem so far away to be taken seriously*

This is a useful link to explain the affordability of UBI: https://basicincome.org/news/2020/09/th ... -4-of-gdp/

It is based around a figure a hell of a lot lower than £1,600 per month (£7,706 for adults and £3,853 for children) - I suspect partly because it was written in 2020 before Truss fucked everything and partly because £1.6k is massively generous - but it should give you a bit of insight into how these kind of things could be afforded.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:40 pm From what I've read, £1600 pcm is because this trial is explicitly seeing what happens if UBI is set way above subsistence level.
That's by design.
Generally, UBI is discussed in the region of £800-£1000 pcm

But it's a sample size of 30, which is utterly useless, and no valid conclusions will be able to be drawn from this trial.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 2:48 pm www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_povert ... ck_of_cash