The only way this is remotely palatable would be to ensure a universal minimum wage to safeguard citizens. the only thing that will happen will be for corporations to trim their wage bill by sacking people using the false facade of "productivity"
Well it’s hardly a facade. It is likely more productive, doing the job more efficiently. I think there should be an expansion of the welfare state to cope with job losses. This is one step closer to an ideal world where robots and ai do all the labour and processing, humans can be liberated from work and then do things they really enjoy.
@foldingglint1514 but then where do people earn their money if they're going to supermarkets 'manned' by robots? fundamentally, humans need to have something to do to feel useful on earth so you take that away and suddenly there's no point to life. You'll enjoy it for a bit, travelling everywhere and eating for free but ultimately you'll become bored of it and probably find the nearest tree on a 60 road once you realise that your existence is pointless to the planet
Everyone realises that they just hope that they will be one of the labourers who aren't automated and thus their pay will likely increase relatively speaking or they hope that mass automation will mandate a UBI, UBS or decrease their working hours
Thing is people accept systems that disadvantage them in the hope they will be in the lucky few to not be in the disadvantaged group. Especially if you get a few rags to riches stories in AI (we’ve seen that sort of thing promoted in industry, tech, finance and crypto). We see this with peoples views on inheritance taxes, wealth taxes and higher rates of income tax on higher incomes. They think this is wrong because they have aspirations to be in the top 0.1-1%, and a scarcity mindset that seems them resent paying their own taxes, even though statistically this privileged 0.01-1% is clearly not going to be many people - but it could be you! AI is the same - it will increase power of those that control it and people will accept it as for a while it may make a significant proportion of upper middle class people better off, people will think they can be one of them and accept the system that actually concentrates prosperity even more with the rich. Eventually it will come to the point where a populist leader points the blame for the resulting issues away from the rich and powerful running the advanced technology and collecting all the gains from it, to some scape goat. Sadly it’s so predictable and what should create a better world will no doubt result in misery due to human nature.
AI has already taken jobs from people, look at AI art. In order to train the AI you need to feed it the art made by real people. Those artists aren’t being compensated and didn’t give their permission for their art to be stolen in order to train a machine. It’s a huge issue at the moment. Disney in 2023 used AI to make the title sequence for Secret Invasion, artists work were stolen in order to generate a terrible title sequence. It also uses a lot of power to generate a single AI image. So in addition to corporations stealing peoples work in order to train a machine, it’s also extremely bad for the environment. AI is unsustainable
Could you explain how AI actually 'steals' the art of artists, if it doesn't result in an actual copy? What the process is that AI uses to generate images from the artwork of these artists? And what is the difference between this process and what human artists describe as 'influence' and 'inspiration'? The reason why I'm asking this is because there are so many people claiming that their work has been stolen, and so many more believing this, but the actual process of this 'theft' has not been established and the outcome is very definitely not some kind of collage of existing artist's work. You may be able to identify their influence but not their actual hand. The closest you are likely to get is if the prompt used makes specific reference to the artist involved and lists aspects of a particular work. This is important, because this issue will eventually be examined by the courts, and I don't believe that a solid legal argument exists to define this as copyright theft or theft of intellectual property. If it does, artists will have cause to be afraid, because somewhere down the line, some bright spark will use the same principles to sue anyone inspired by them. The reality is that we are living at a similar time to the invention of lithography or the photograph or of Photoshop. These are innovations that some artists suffered from, but which eventually just became a tool. Perhaps we should stop panicking and just see what AI can do to help us.
@@operationgoldfish8331that's a hefty amount of gaslighting. Your argument suggests that ai companies should not benefit financially from "creating" art either, if the artists it trains from don't. Or art galleries should be up front about fakes. One example is where ai repeated a nyt article verbatim, without crediting its source. Repeat a few chords on a song and you have to pay the original artist. Using original art to train an ai program is not going to create original work. It is a pastiche. It's an hallucination to believe otherwise. And ripoff is not something invented with ai models. Walk onto any beach in Spain and you'll see many such handbags.
I've heard this take but it doesn't make sense to me, the art is in the public domain and although it would likely be illegal to copy and resell it for commercial use, it is not illegal to add it to your unique data set (brain) to come up with a unique design, fundamentally this is natural and you cannot ban that, we have been copycatting eachother since existence and that's a good thing It's such a dumb point imho
My work at a factory has ALREADY used AI "art" instead of real art on the company magazine and thus have already got rid of the art staff. It's already making jobs disappear in return for INFERIOR products and services. Why do they keep saying AI is better when the results are always worse than human work?
Bright future for the company to increase profit. hopefully, you will benefit from a pay rise given lower labour costs. I wonder if customers are reluctant to inferior projects and services as long as it's competitively cheaper and acceptable.
@@seawavechau I, for one, am very happy to pay for superior products with higher design values and higher build quality, especially when made by a craftman or small company. Of humans. AI artwork is still obvious and looks fake and childish, and the designers losing their jobs won't be "benefitting from a payrise".
@ unfortunately, mediocre designers and artists will have to go. what's more. have you been to handcraft markets? observe and talk to the artists there. they either are struggling and complaining about poor business or simply are importing cheap industrial products from Asia and just tag their brands on it (and it sells). amid the cost of living crisis, one can always say "why don't they eat cake?"
Afraid it's not that simple. You're referring to recall petitions, and they can only take place if the MP has been convicted of a crime and issued a custodial sentence, or is suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days, or for fiddling their expenses.
@@TheCencoredGoat They don't won't us to figure this out. The media are completely covering up this. We can take control and boot everyone of them out that don't represent us! Note: Why doesn't the media promote this?
There is no danger because it is not in any way acheivable - they'll build 1.5mio houses before any serious AI development takes place in the UK. The Starmoid should concentrate on practical stuff Labour can deliver before the end of this parliament.
OMG, these four have no idea what they are talking about. If you think Labour can make the UK an AI superpower, you are an idiot. Starmer has made an annoucement using words he doesn't understand (!) and, instead of pointing that out, the big brains at Joe Politics have to talk about the downside. AI's biggest input is energy, the UK has aome of the most expensive energy costs in the world - case closed
There are still ways. Like if we regulate the use of NHS patient data to be restricted to processing (including AI training) in the UK, whilst allowing trained models to operate abroad (some license kick back or something) it could work.
My company uses A.I, and it hasn’t taken anyone’s job-it’s actually done the opposite! Thanks to A.I, we’ve become far more efficient, and it double-checks our work to ensure we haven’t missed anything. It’s like having a super-nerdy intern who never sleeps and doesn’t mind doing the boring bits. In fact, we were considering layoffs at one point, but A.I has allowed us to keep everyone on board. For us, it’s been a game-changer in the best way. I run and own an IT/projects-based company, and honestly, A.I isn’t some job-stealing villain-it’s a powerful tool when used right.
I agree. I use AI for writing reports and it's been a complete game-changer in the areas where it can be used. I'd have to confess it's generally better at writing than I am! People are right to be worried about their jobs but that's progress.
The purpose of the economy isn't to create jobs but to provide goods and services, and if we can do that with fewer people then we can reallocate those people to the stuff we actually want (a lot of work is largely pointless). It might be we need a UBI or similar but that's a different argument. We should always want to increase productivity - if a nurse or doctor can be more productive using an AI then that's a clear win. If we can automate lawyers out of existence then that's a huge bonus!
I started laughing when Starmer made the AI announcement. UK has some of the highest energy costs on the planet and the GDP per capita of Mississippi which is the lowest in the US. Absurd.
AI data centres need huge amounts of energy that the UK failed to invest in over the past two decades. Furthermore the UK does not generate enough STEM graduates. There will be no AI industry except for financing in the UK. However UK jobs will still be destroyed by HPC data centres in other countries like the USA.
He does not care!!!!!! He has an £8 million fortune which will increase rapidly the minute he leaves office. Like the rest of them, he just has to play the game for a few years first 🤷♂️
@@NeonVisual except that AI will not create new jobs to replace the ones it will destroy, and we will end up in a situation where robots are talking to robots but not actually buying anything or contributing to economic activity which will lead to the complete collapse of our economic system as we know it. It will make the Great Depression look like a blip.
AI is basically plagiarizing other peoples work. It does have its' place in analysis of medical issues, such as MRI, CT Scan etc. But it still needs to be checked by a competent Human Being. Also in various mundane tasks.
The logical conclusion of AI is the loss of human work. You can argue economic growth, blah blah, all you want. But the elimination of human work is a given.
The UKs GDPR regs do directly impact AI in the UK. Article 22 talks about automated descition making for example, but it's does need to more robust to directly refrence AI.
AI should bring about the 4 day work week and Universal Income but our ruling class will make sure it just bring about wider wealth inequality in the country.
Last 5 mins on deep fake were fantastic, need more on this from politicians. Global media companies are putting two fingers up to individual country politicians and lawmakers and are doing nothing to control this. This global issue is going top be massive. Oh and Starmer is out of his depth as a political leader, he did not in any way address peoples AI employment concerns and has just alienated a fast chunk of Labour's voters.
AI will decimate the economy, it’s already begun. The big foreign AI players don’t need the UK to innovate. They need power, lots of power, and an environment of deregulation to overlook the vast theft of IP which is being employed to train their models, not to mention the monopolistic practices to undercut their competitors. There is no bright future here.
A friend of mine raised a good point just now that, like, one of the big things abt modern generative AI is that it consiumes a lot of energy, and at the same time one of the big things abt britain is that our energy grid is significantly renewables based and relies on fossil fuels to top it up, which notably we don't have a lot of in reserves. So connecting the two, if Labour are really serious about this push towards AI then it seems possible that we'll end up in a situation where either we're getting blackouts & price hikes due to the increased energy demand from AI or we're somehow finding the money to build a bunch more coal & gas plants and we're doing a complete 180 on the current climate policy to increase renewables. I'll admit, I'm a bit biased against genAI already because it seems to be a tech that's ultimately going to make society generally worse in the grand scheme even if it ends up being a booming industry. Feels like our govt could be investing into other industries in a more forward thinking way, but they don't seem to want to or maybe they don't know how to, and so they're just trying to hop on the bandwagon of the industry that happens to be growing the fastest atm because idk that's probably how you grow an economy
All new tech should aim to reduce human workload thereafter all people would have more time to enjoy their life. However companies are only interested in using AI to reduce human head count.
I'd like to thank the tories for fucking up so badly that labour couldn't lose, but i also think they need to apologise to the entire country for fucking up so badly that we let a dictator slip into power! And, i think that both labour and the tories should apologise for fucking up so badly that when the next (and very early) election comes, they have both guaranteed that reform will win by the biggest majority landslide in the history of politics!! So, well done to both labour and the selfservatives, you can definitely say that you changed politics forever because, after reform win, the opposition party will be the green party, therefore changing the face of uk politics forever by changing the 2 parties in the 2 party system forever! No tory or labour party member will ever have a say in how this country is run ever again. (I had been labour all of my voting life and genuinely believed in keir starmer and honestly thought he was going to be good for this country but, as soon as he got in power, he went full dictator and started throwing around hairbrained schemes to attack working (and those who worked all their lives and should be enjoying a well deserved retirement) english people, and everyones human rights, i have been pushed to reform and, i will never, ever vote for labour again)
@@adamduncan6172 To answer your question, by the people who write the news you consume. To address your original comment, you claimed Starmer is a dictator. How so. Did he not win a massive majority in a democratic mandate? Did we not watch the same thing? Secondly you claimed Reform would get into government next election with the biggest majority in history with the Greens becoming national opposition. As much as I like the Greens, I'll explain to you why this is absurd and has basically no probability to happen. Labour will probably remain in power whether you like it or not partly due to our electoral system. Vote share has no bearing in this country because we dont have proportional representation which is what most of the polls are based on making them unreliable in predicting any election result (they tend to be wrong also due to small sample sizes). There is also something much larger at play. Labour and Conservatives probably have more than 100 years of data on voter habits in every consituency in the UK. Reform (even if you take their predecessors into account) dont even have a fraction of that data which makes it very hard for them to break out of most consitituencies. This is the honest truth. Reform's vote share may be a substantial share of the vote but are spread far to thinly across the country to make a difference. As for the Greens, they neither have a large vote share or that many seats which makes any chance of them becoming opposition virtually impossible. If I am to make a prediction, I think in the next election we will see a 2005 style result where labour will lose over half their majority, Conservatives wont make much gains, the fringe parties may gain a few seats and the lib dems may make a slight surge. This is a realistic view of the next 10 years given our electoral system.
Your use of the term 'Luddite' is incorrect. Early 19th Century 'Luddites' were note against technology, they were against new technologies which 'offended commonality' -- i.e., which destroyed people's livelihoods and consigned people to worse employment standards in the mechanized factory system. Hence, everyone in this piece did at some time express a classical 'Luddite' position on AI.
What experts within the field are saying, is that the jobs that will be most at risk are the 'professional' jobs. You're inaccurately saying that it's the 'backroom' jobs. Something as complex as the New York stock exchange is completely run by AI. Why spend thousands consulting a solicitor, when a person can verbally interface with AI, and receive the best legal advice for a fraction of the cost? I guess the central issue is that AI requires a very different kind of economy. Does anyone know what it will look like or how it will be implemented? The political class just seems to be fumbling along in the dark.
I am over 50 so I must say this if AI could give me some new legs and arms that would be great , why is everyone focusing on the negative surely there is some positives
For two days running you have misnamed Carsten JUNG - yesterday in the descrition, today in the actual video. I find it pretty disrepectful that this keeps happening.
The AI plans are the first thing this government has come up with that is exciting and holds enormous potential for the U.K. If we don’t get in front of AI we will be steamrollered by those countries who do. People who are fretting about jobs haven’t tried using AI for a power use-case. AI will increase job specialisation because people using it for professional purposes need to know their subject area inside out both to prompt AI correctly and to be able to quickly assess output. Companies that blunder into AI without realising this will be at risk of failure but on a global stage there is no reason why the U.K. cannot come out on the winning side of the AI revolution. This is the opportunity of the century and now is not the time to be slamming the brakes on to protect a few jobs in the short term. Tbh I am very relieved that the government is not taking the Politics Joe approach to AI or the U.K. would be toast in a few years.
welcome to every single investment ever, do you think anyone outside of government every ever ever would put millions of pounds with at least thinking about a possible return?
This isn’t news though so there’s been plenty of time for the government to prepare. I do hope there’s going to be some really strong legislation to safeguard jobs though. Businesses will be interviewing AI software instead of humans, crazy
Never going to happen. AI is already replacing UK workers & all around the world, as we speak. If worker protections were going to be put in place, it would already have happened.
‘AI’ will be the same as the invention of the typewriter or the computer or the calculator. Will become more productive , and broadly life standards increase with productivity. There will be no UBI or socialist utopia. People who lose their jobs to AI will have to …….. get new jobs and move on, just like how 95% of travel agents have lost their job since the year 2000 they have all moved on. My taxes should not subsidise people whose jobs have become irrelevant because of technology. It’s on you to move on with your life.
You are being a little naive about AI. It's coming but nobody has yet evaluated the effects it will have on jobs, which are a problem anyway as we do not have a sufficient workforce to cope without mass immigration, or how the economy will cope when jobs are lost to it. But if we don't get a handle on it we will be left behind... as we always are!!!
Automation got rid of jobs, AI is automation x100. It will harm jobs, but also it will create jobs, but i think its clear it will do more harm than good. I think the only way society can survive with AI is if society gets smaller. This feels like population mitigation to me
It’s already taken away jobs from people, look at AI art. Disney used AI to make a title sequence for Secret Invasion rather than paying artists. Video game companies and film studios are using AI art instead of hiring concept artists, they’re using AI to read scripts. AI is already taking jobs. Also in order to train AI to make art you need to use art made by humans, and those artists who spent years of their life learning a skill are having their work stolen to be used to train a robot to make an inferior piece of art. These artists also aren’t getting compensated for the use of their work. So In addition to AI taking jobs it’s also stealing other peoples work. It’s also extremely bad for the environment
@@fireburn95rs I would't say AI will do 'harm'. It will hopefully make people more productive and that's a win-win for all of us. If AI can do 50% of my job and I won't miss that part in the slightest. The immigration issue will be a difficult one. If we do have to move towards a UBI type system then I can see people becoming even unhappier than now with immigration (it would mean sharing out!)
@Lawrence4000-s3k problem is, employers will use that as an excuse to pay the employee doing 50% less work with less pay, either through replacing them or expecting them to do that 50% doubled. In theory a society should benefit from AI assisting people with their jobs, in reality, it's the employers looking at how AI will save them money. I'm a software developer, so AI definitely makes my job easier, it helps me, but there's people who are totally replacable by AI such as administrative employees, so the question is what companies will do now that they're saving money
@@fireburn95rs That's capitalism and that's how it's always worked. It's the transition that's difficult (the weavers starved but their children did better!) I'm hoping for a 3-day week on the same money and AI looks to be the only way to do it so am all for it! But I do pay out a lot on useless services (accountants are a swindle so if we can automate them out of the market then that'll save me money). It's coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it. We have a so-called labour shortage in the UK so it should be less of a problem than in other countries. I would advise young people to avoid IT, law and accountancy (or basically anything that uses a computer!). There is no shortage of work for tradesmen.
AI is already costing jobs or at least work for existing business and its going to get abused massively to not pay people either at all or just way less. Energy prices are going to get insane (more so) because if you want to have datacenters running racks of blackwell gpus its going to take a lot alot of power. If we take B200 running at 1000w and and NVL can support 72 gpus per rack thats 72KWs per rack. GB200 pushes that to 2700w each but sure Britain with its nice cheap electricity and plenty of spare power is going to be a superpower in AI. Maybe after we build a few new nuclear reactors (which I'm in favor of doing) we should be ready, so what 40 years time maybe.
This is only true of traditional AI training on commodity gaming GPUs. Support for AI is now being built into CPUs and SOCs directly - Apple Silicon for example - which is much more efficient so energy demands will come down.
At this point in time, AI is still very limited and actually rather rubbish at things, even a baby can do quite easily. It can certainly do some astonishing feats, but try to think of it more as a calculator on steroids. It can create astonishing fakes, even original pictures and text, but hasn't a clue whether their answer is wrong or right. ACTUAL artificial intelligence is still some way away, and we'll know it's there when not only can we not tell the difference, but it can be more human and humane than we are. That'll come as a shock, finding that we aren't permitted to do something because it's bad for the rest of humanity and/or the rest of the planet and the nature thereon. It'll also have solutions to problems we never realised we had, ways of achieving things we didn't believe possible, and so on and so forth. My instinct tells me that we're going to need to better emulate the human brain, and then amplify those systems, if we're going to achieve genuine AI in any sensible form. Expect there to be some form of rights to be extended to AIs. Even current models are showing evidence for self preservation, so that seems inevitable to my way of thinking. A super-intelligence that's threatened by squishy little humans, would be virtually impossible to beat, so being friends seems a better idea from the outset.
What do you propose the potentially 8 million people losing their jobs to AI redundancy do instead? The welfare system could not accommodate even a fraction of that level of unemployment.
@@madvlad1Give him a couple hours to search through a collection of bite-sized, animated videos on the subject. I'm sure he'll come up with a slightly intelligent answer
AI will eliminate shitty jobs automating routine tasks, and let people to focus on the most essential and valuable part of their work. The point is to make people more productive, not keeping them “busy” doing low productivity tasks. Yes AI will eliminate a lot of jobs, but it will improve many others and create a new higher value ones. Either we embrace the technology and become leaders, or will become third world country lagging behind. Imagine not embracing steam engines and industrial revolution. Technology goes only one way and it’s forward, and technology is the only solution to the productivity and national debt crisis that we are in!
The only jobs left by AI will be the shitty physical jobs because it will be much cheaper to employ a human than to build a robot. And after AI replaces people in graphic design, publishing, digital art, writing, music, film making, coding, marketing, 3D modelling, CAD, architectural design and translation, there will be so many unemployed people that labor will be cheap.
The only way this is remotely palatable would be to ensure a universal minimum wage to safeguard citizens. the only thing that will happen will be for corporations to trim their wage bill by sacking people using the false facade of "productivity"
Well it’s hardly a facade. It is likely more productive, doing the job more efficiently. I think there should be an expansion of the welfare state to cope with job losses. This is one step closer to an ideal world where robots and ai do all the labour and processing, humans can be liberated from work and then do things they really enjoy.
@foldingglint1514 but then where do people earn their money if they're going to supermarkets 'manned' by robots? fundamentally, humans need to have something to do to feel useful on earth so you take that away and suddenly there's no point to life. You'll enjoy it for a bit, travelling everywhere and eating for free but ultimately you'll become bored of it and probably find the nearest tree on a 60 road once you realise that your existence is pointless to the planet
@@TheCencoredGoat How about doing a job that provides some benefit to society. Doing admin is basically a waste of time
@ If there's an "admin job" then by definition someone doing that job is a "benefit to society". What jobs do you consider to be a benefit? ..
Doesn’t anybody realise that the people with the money to harness AI are just going to replace us all with it?
Everyone realises that they just hope that they will be one of the labourers who aren't automated and thus their pay will likely increase relatively speaking or they hope that mass automation will mandate a UBI, UBS or decrease their working hours
Thing is people accept systems that disadvantage them in the hope they will be in the lucky few to not be in the disadvantaged group. Especially if you get a few rags to riches stories in AI (we’ve seen that sort of thing promoted in industry, tech, finance and crypto). We see this with peoples views on inheritance taxes, wealth taxes and higher rates of income tax on higher incomes. They think this is wrong because they have aspirations to be in the top 0.1-1%, and a scarcity mindset that seems them resent paying their own taxes, even though statistically this privileged 0.01-1% is clearly not going to be many people - but it could be you!
AI is the same - it will increase power of those that control it and people will accept it as for a while it may make a significant proportion of upper middle class people better off, people will think they can be one of them and accept the system that actually concentrates prosperity even more with the rich. Eventually it will come to the point where a populist leader points the blame for the resulting issues away from the rich and powerful running the advanced technology and collecting all the gains from it, to some scape goat. Sadly it’s so predictable and what should create a better world will no doubt result in misery due to human nature.
AI has already taken jobs from people, look at AI art. In order to train the AI you need to feed it the art made by real people. Those artists aren’t being compensated and didn’t give their permission for their art to be stolen in order to train a machine. It’s a huge issue at the moment. Disney in 2023 used AI to make the title sequence for Secret Invasion, artists work were stolen in order to generate a terrible title sequence. It also uses a lot of power to generate a single AI image. So in addition to corporations stealing peoples work in order to train a machine, it’s also extremely bad for the environment. AI is unsustainable
Could you explain how AI actually 'steals' the art of artists, if it doesn't result in an actual copy? What the process is that AI uses to generate images from the artwork of these artists? And what is the difference between this process and what human artists describe as 'influence' and 'inspiration'?
The reason why I'm asking this is because there are so many people claiming that their work has been stolen, and so many more believing this, but the actual process of this 'theft' has not been established and the outcome is very definitely not some kind of collage of existing artist's work. You may be able to identify their influence but not their actual hand. The closest you are likely to get is if the prompt used makes specific reference to the artist involved and lists aspects of a particular work.
This is important, because this issue will eventually be examined by the courts, and I don't believe that a solid legal argument exists to define this as copyright theft or theft of intellectual property. If it does, artists will have cause to be afraid, because somewhere down the line, some bright spark will use the same principles to sue anyone inspired by them. The reality is that we are living at a similar time to the invention of lithography or the photograph or of Photoshop. These are innovations that some artists suffered from, but which eventually just became a tool. Perhaps we should stop panicking and just see what AI can do to help us.
@@operationgoldfish8331that's a hefty amount of gaslighting. Your argument suggests that ai companies should not benefit financially from "creating" art either, if the artists it trains from don't. Or art galleries should be up front about fakes. One example is where ai repeated a nyt article verbatim, without crediting its source. Repeat a few chords on a song and you have to pay the original artist. Using original art to train an ai program is not going to create original work. It is a pastiche. It's an hallucination to believe otherwise. And ripoff is not something invented with ai models. Walk onto any beach in Spain and you'll see many such handbags.
I've heard this take but it doesn't make sense to me, the art is in the public domain and although it would likely be illegal to copy and resell it for commercial use, it is not illegal to add it to your unique data set (brain) to come up with a unique design, fundamentally this is natural and you cannot ban that, we have been copycatting eachother since existence and that's a good thing
It's such a dumb point imho
UBI or bust.... if we bring AI in full force there won't be chance for people to retrain fast enough. We will 100% need UBI.
My work at a factory has ALREADY used AI "art" instead of real art on the company magazine and thus have already got rid of the art staff.
It's already making jobs disappear in return for INFERIOR products and services. Why do they keep saying AI is better when the results are always worse than human work?
Do you think that by 'better' they just mean 'cheaper'?
Bright future for the company to increase profit. hopefully, you will benefit from a pay rise given lower labour costs. I wonder if customers are reluctant to inferior projects and services as long as it's competitively cheaper and acceptable.
Greed
@@seawavechau I, for one, am very happy to pay for superior products with higher design values and higher build quality, especially when made by a craftman or small company. Of humans. AI artwork is still obvious and looks fake and childish, and the designers losing their jobs won't be "benefitting from a payrise".
@ unfortunately, mediocre designers and artists will have to go. what's more. have you been to handcraft markets? observe and talk to the artists there. they either are struggling and complaining about poor business or simply are importing cheap industrial products from Asia and just tag their brands on it (and it sells). amid the cost of living crisis, one can always say "why don't they eat cake?"
It is very simply, 10% of an MP's constitutes can start a petition to de-select their MP!
i had no idea about this
Doesn’t mean it will happen and what’s the alternative?
Afraid it's not that simple. You're referring to recall petitions, and they can only take place if the MP has been convicted of a crime and issued a custodial sentence, or is suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days, or for fiddling their expenses.
@@TheCencoredGoat
They don't won't us to figure this out. The media are completely covering up this. We can take control and boot everyone of them out that don't represent us! Note: Why doesn't the media promote this?
There is no danger because it is not in any way acheivable - they'll build 1.5mio houses before any serious AI development takes place in the UK. The Starmoid should concentrate on practical stuff Labour can deliver before the end of this parliament.
OMG, these four have no idea what they are talking about. If you think Labour can make the UK an AI superpower, you are an idiot. Starmer has made an annoucement using words he doesn't understand (!) and, instead of pointing that out, the big brains at Joe Politics have to talk about the downside.
AI's biggest input is energy, the UK has aome of the most expensive energy costs in the world - case closed
100%
Exactly
There are still ways. Like if we regulate the use of NHS patient data to be restricted to processing (including AI training) in the UK, whilst allowing trained models to operate abroad (some license kick back or something) it could work.
My company uses A.I, and it hasn’t taken anyone’s job-it’s actually done the opposite! Thanks to A.I, we’ve become far more efficient, and it double-checks our work to ensure we haven’t missed anything. It’s like having a super-nerdy intern who never sleeps and doesn’t mind doing the boring bits. In fact, we were considering layoffs at one point, but A.I has allowed us to keep everyone on board. For us, it’s been a game-changer in the best way.
I run and own an IT/projects-based company, and honestly, A.I isn’t some job-stealing villain-it’s a powerful tool when used right.
You are one of the exceptions to the rule the reality will be massive layoffs its inevitable.
I agree. I use AI for writing reports and it's been a complete game-changer in the areas where it can be used. I'd have to confess it's generally better at writing than I am!
People are right to be worried about their jobs but that's progress.
I literally lost my job of 14 years in 2023 because of AI.
Folks... data centres have 3 people in them over night and about 8-10 people in the day time. The do not create jobs.
The purpose of the economy isn't to create jobs but to provide goods and services, and if we can do that with fewer people then we can reallocate those people to the stuff we actually want (a lot of work is largely pointless). It might be we need a UBI or similar but that's a different argument. We should always want to increase productivity - if a nurse or doctor can be more productive using an AI then that's a clear win. If we can automate lawyers out of existence then that's a huge bonus!
I started laughing when Starmer made the AI announcement. UK has some of the highest energy costs on the planet and the GDP per capita of Mississippi which is the lowest in the US. Absurd.
"What are you doing, Kier?"
AI data centres need huge amounts of energy that the UK failed to invest in over the past two decades. Furthermore the UK does not generate enough STEM graduates. There will be no AI industry except for financing in the UK. However UK jobs will still be destroyed by HPC data centres in other countries like the USA.
this is an environmental catastrophe
He does not care!!!!!! He has an £8 million fortune which will increase rapidly the minute he leaves office. Like the rest of them, he just has to play the game for a few years first 🤷♂️
Imagine not learning "What not to do" after Brexit.
Brexit is just moving power from the EU Superstate to Westminster.
This is no different to the industrial revolution. We're moving into an automation revolution.
@@NeonVisual except that AI will not create new jobs to replace the ones it will destroy, and we will end up in a situation where robots are talking to robots but not actually buying anything or contributing to economic activity which will lead to the complete collapse of our economic system as we know it.
It will make the Great Depression look like a blip.
Every single day my respect for politicsjoe declines and declines....
Art and music has already been destroyed by AI, but that is not valued by the government
AI is basically plagiarizing other peoples work. It does have its' place in analysis of medical issues, such as MRI, CT Scan etc. But it still needs to be checked by a competent Human Being. Also in various mundane tasks.
I haven't invented a single thing in my career so I'm also just plagiarising by that reckoning.
AI is a bubble that will pop in the next 5 to 10 years. I really dislike that the UK gov is buying into the hype.
The logical conclusion of AI is the loss of human work. You can argue economic growth, blah blah, all you want. But the elimination of human work is a given.
I thought the government wanted us to work. Why on earth is he encouraging AI when we need to earn our money it’s just madness
best use of AI would be to replace all the politicians and decision makers in gov... i for one welcome our efficient new AI overlords.
Random edit in the middle of this video - the way that the inserted interview just pops up and then vanishes again with Eva mid-sentence.
The danger of labour making Britain anything 😂
The UKs GDPR regs do directly impact AI in the UK. Article 22 talks about automated descition making for example, but it's does need to more robust to directly refrence AI.
Retrain to what? Creating prompts? Any numpty can do that and as AI improves it will become more easier.
AI should bring about the 4 day work week and Universal Income but our ruling class will make sure it just bring about wider wealth inequality in the country.
Last 5 mins on deep fake were fantastic, need more on this from politicians. Global media companies are putting two fingers up to individual country politicians and lawmakers and are doing nothing to control this. This global issue is going top be massive.
Oh and Starmer is out of his depth as a political leader, he did not in any way address peoples AI employment concerns and has just alienated a fast chunk of Labour's voters.
Is everyone at the table using a disposable cup? (please prove me wrong)
I’m 2/3 of the way through Harari’s ‘Nexus’, fascinating read and clearly explained on the threats of AI. I strongly recommend it 🙂
What jobs are the working class and unskilled migrants going to do?
We could start with replacing the government, its obvious AI would significantly improve decision making?
AI will decimate the economy, it’s already begun.
The big foreign AI players don’t need the UK to innovate. They need power, lots of power, and an environment of deregulation to overlook the vast theft of IP which is being employed to train their models, not to mention the monopolistic practices to undercut their competitors.
There is no bright future here.
You people do not understand how the world works
A friend of mine raised a good point just now that, like, one of the big things abt modern generative AI is that it consiumes a lot of energy, and at the same time one of the big things abt britain is that our energy grid is significantly renewables based and relies on fossil fuels to top it up, which notably we don't have a lot of in reserves. So connecting the two, if Labour are really serious about this push towards AI then it seems possible that we'll end up in a situation where either we're getting blackouts & price hikes due to the increased energy demand from AI or we're somehow finding the money to build a bunch more coal & gas plants and we're doing a complete 180 on the current climate policy to increase renewables.
I'll admit, I'm a bit biased against genAI already because it seems to be a tech that's ultimately going to make society generally worse in the grand scheme even if it ends up being a booming industry. Feels like our govt could be investing into other industries in a more forward thinking way, but they don't seem to want to or maybe they don't know how to, and so they're just trying to hop on the bandwagon of the industry that happens to be growing the fastest atm because idk that's probably how you grow an economy
All new tech should aim to reduce human workload thereafter all people would have more time to enjoy their life. However companies are only interested in using AI to reduce human head count.
Let it happen
I'd like to thank the tories for fucking up so badly that labour couldn't lose, but i also think they need to apologise to the entire country for fucking up so badly that we let a dictator slip into power!
And, i think that both labour and the tories should apologise for fucking up so badly that when the next (and very early) election comes, they have both guaranteed that reform will win by the biggest majority landslide in the history of politics!!
So, well done to both labour and the selfservatives, you can definitely say that you changed politics forever because, after reform win, the opposition party will be the green party, therefore changing the face of uk politics forever by changing the 2 parties in the 2 party system forever!
No tory or labour party member will ever have a say in how this country is run ever again.
(I had been labour all of my voting life and genuinely believed in keir starmer and honestly thought he was going to be good for this country but, as soon as he got in power, he went full dictator and started throwing around hairbrained schemes to attack working (and those who worked all their lives and should be enjoying a well deserved retirement) english people, and everyones human rights, i have been pushed to reform and, i will never, ever vote for labour again)
I think you have been radicalised. If you are on twitter i'd suggest getting off of it cause only then will you see things through an objective lens.
What a complete load of clap trap 😂
@aslantech52 by whom? And, i don't have twitter, never have, never will. UA-cam is as close to social media as im willing to get!
@leeshepherd6512 but you wasted 30 seconds of your time reading it, and commenting 🙄
@@adamduncan6172 To answer your question, by the people who write the news you consume. To address your original comment, you claimed Starmer is a dictator. How so. Did he not win a massive majority in a democratic mandate? Did we not watch the same thing? Secondly you claimed Reform would get into government next election with the biggest majority in history with the Greens becoming national opposition. As much as I like the Greens, I'll explain to you why this is absurd and has basically no probability to happen. Labour will probably remain in power whether you like it or not partly due to our electoral system. Vote share has no bearing in this country because we dont have proportional representation which is what most of the polls are based on making them unreliable in predicting any election result (they tend to be wrong also due to small sample sizes). There is also something much larger at play. Labour and Conservatives probably have more than 100 years of data on voter habits in every consituency in the UK. Reform (even if you take their predecessors into account) dont even have a fraction of that data which makes it very hard for them to break out of most consitituencies. This is the honest truth. Reform's vote share may be a substantial share of the vote but are spread far to thinly across the country to make a difference. As for the Greens, they neither have a large vote share or that many seats which makes any chance of them becoming opposition virtually impossible. If I am to make a prediction, I think in the next election we will see a 2005 style result where labour will lose over half their majority, Conservatives wont make much gains, the fringe parties may gain a few seats and the lib dems may make a slight surge. This is a realistic view of the next 10 years given our electoral system.
Your use of the term 'Luddite' is incorrect. Early 19th Century 'Luddites' were note against technology, they were against new technologies which 'offended commonality' -- i.e., which destroyed people's livelihoods and consigned people to worse employment standards in the mechanized factory system.
Hence, everyone in this piece did at some time express a classical 'Luddite' position on AI.
its easy productivity boost when brexshit is impacting productivity and gdp growth so terribly - kindva a free win if you ask me
What experts within the field are saying, is that the jobs that will be most at risk are the 'professional' jobs. You're inaccurately saying that it's the 'backroom' jobs. Something as complex as the New York stock exchange is completely run by AI. Why spend thousands consulting a solicitor, when a person can verbally interface with AI, and receive the best legal advice for a fraction of the cost? I guess the central issue is that AI requires a very different kind of economy. Does anyone know what it will look like or how it will be implemented? The political class just seems to be fumbling along in the dark.
I am over 50 so I must say this if AI could give me some new legs and arms that would be great , why is everyone focusing on the negative surely there is some positives
For two days running you have misnamed Carsten JUNG - yesterday in the descrition, today in the actual video. I find it pretty disrepectful that this keeps happening.
The AI plans are the first thing this government has come up with that is exciting and holds enormous potential for the U.K. If we don’t get in front of AI we will be steamrollered by those countries who do. People who are fretting about jobs haven’t tried using AI for a power use-case. AI will increase job specialisation because people using it for professional purposes need to know their subject area inside out both to prompt AI correctly and to be able to quickly assess output. Companies that blunder into AI without realising this will be at risk of failure but on a global stage there is no reason why the U.K. cannot come out on the winning side of the AI revolution. This is the opportunity of the century and now is not the time to be slamming the brakes on to protect a few jobs in the short term. Tbh I am very relieved that the government is not taking the Politics Joe approach to AI or the U.K. would be toast in a few years.
I have never liked the "investment" argument. Investors always want to take out more profit than they put in. Venture capitalists are leeches.
welcome to every single investment ever, do you think anyone outside of government every ever ever would put millions of pounds with at least thinking about a possible return?
This isn’t news though so there’s been plenty of time for the government to prepare. I do hope there’s going to be some really strong legislation to safeguard jobs though. Businesses will be interviewing AI software instead of humans, crazy
Never going to happen. AI is already replacing UK workers & all around the world, as we speak. If worker protections were going to be put in place, it would already have happened.
‘AI’ will be the same as the invention of the typewriter or the computer or the calculator.
Will become more productive , and broadly life standards increase with productivity.
There will be no UBI or socialist utopia.
People who lose their jobs to AI will have to …….. get new jobs and move on, just like how 95% of travel agents have lost their job since the year 2000 they have all moved on.
My taxes should not subsidise people whose jobs have become irrelevant because of technology. It’s on you to move on with your life.
Starmers rubbish!
PA! Who is gonna make the drinks 🤔
Islam out
"AI superpower"? Oh dear. More b/s an an attempt to grab headlines. It's meaningless.
You are being a little naive about AI. It's coming but nobody has yet evaluated the effects it will have on jobs, which are a problem anyway as we do not have a sufficient workforce to cope without mass immigration, or how the economy will cope when jobs are lost to it. But if we don't get a handle on it we will be left behind... as we always are!!!
Automation got rid of jobs, AI is automation x100. It will harm jobs, but also it will create jobs, but i think its clear it will do more harm than good. I think the only way society can survive with AI is if society gets smaller. This feels like population mitigation to me
It’s already taken away jobs from people, look at AI art. Disney used AI to make a title sequence for Secret Invasion rather than paying artists. Video game companies and film studios are using AI art instead of hiring concept artists, they’re using AI to read scripts. AI is already taking jobs. Also in order to train AI to make art you need to use art made by humans, and those artists who spent years of their life learning a skill are having their work stolen to be used to train a robot to make an inferior piece of art. These artists also aren’t getting compensated for the use of their work. So In addition to AI taking jobs it’s also stealing other peoples work. It’s also extremely bad for the environment
@@fireburn95rs I would't say AI will do 'harm'. It will hopefully make people more productive and that's a win-win for all of us. If AI can do 50% of my job and I won't miss that part in the slightest. The immigration issue will be a difficult one. If we do have to move towards a UBI type system then I can see people becoming even unhappier than now with immigration (it would mean sharing out!)
@Lawrence4000-s3k problem is, employers will use that as an excuse to pay the employee doing 50% less work with less pay, either through replacing them or expecting them to do that 50% doubled. In theory a society should benefit from AI assisting people with their jobs, in reality, it's the employers looking at how AI will save them money. I'm a software developer, so AI definitely makes my job easier, it helps me, but there's people who are totally replacable by AI such as administrative employees, so the question is what companies will do now that they're saving money
@@fireburn95rs That's capitalism and that's how it's always worked. It's the transition that's difficult (the weavers starved but their children did better!)
I'm hoping for a 3-day week on the same money and AI looks to be the only way to do it so am all for it!
But I do pay out a lot on useless services (accountants are a swindle so if we can automate them out of the market then that'll save me money). It's coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
We have a so-called labour shortage in the UK so it should be less of a problem than in other countries.
I would advise young people to avoid IT, law and accountancy (or basically anything that uses a computer!). There is no shortage of work for tradesmen.
AI is already costing jobs or at least work for existing business and its going to get abused massively to not pay people either at all or just way less.
Energy prices are going to get insane (more so) because if you want to have datacenters running racks of blackwell gpus its going to take a lot alot of power.
If we take B200 running at 1000w and and NVL can support 72 gpus per rack thats 72KWs per rack.
GB200 pushes that to 2700w each but sure Britain with its nice cheap electricity and plenty of spare power is going to be a superpower in AI.
Maybe after we build a few new nuclear reactors (which I'm in favor of doing) we should be ready, so what 40 years time maybe.
This is only true of traditional AI training on commodity gaming GPUs.
Support for AI is now being built into CPUs and SOCs directly - Apple Silicon for example - which is much more efficient so energy demands will come down.
At this point in time, AI is still very limited and actually rather rubbish at things, even a baby can do quite easily. It can certainly do some astonishing feats, but try to think of it more as a calculator on steroids. It can create astonishing fakes, even original pictures and text, but hasn't a clue whether their answer is wrong or right. ACTUAL artificial intelligence is still some way away, and we'll know it's there when not only can we not tell the difference, but it can be more human and humane than we are. That'll come as a shock, finding that we aren't permitted to do something because it's bad for the rest of humanity and/or the rest of the planet and the nature thereon. It'll also have solutions to problems we never realised we had, ways of achieving things we didn't believe possible, and so on and so forth. My instinct tells me that we're going to need to better emulate the human brain, and then amplify those systems, if we're going to achieve genuine AI in any sensible form. Expect there to be some form of rights to be extended to AIs. Even current models are showing evidence for self preservation, so that seems inevitable to my way of thinking. A super-intelligence that's threatened by squishy little humans, would be virtually impossible to beat, so being friends seems a better idea from the outset.
Lol. This is luddite central. Whining about losing admin jobs
Don't stay up too late, school in the morning champ.
A lot of people have admin jobs.
@HalfDomeIndustries maybe we should try to retrain them to jobs that benefit humanity
What do you propose the potentially 8 million people losing their jobs to AI redundancy do instead? The welfare system could not accommodate even a fraction of that level of unemployment.
@@madvlad1Give him a couple hours to search through a collection of bite-sized, animated videos on the subject. I'm sure he'll come up with a slightly intelligent answer
🥱
AI will eliminate shitty jobs automating routine tasks, and let people to focus on the most essential and valuable part of their work. The point is to make people more productive, not keeping them “busy” doing low productivity tasks. Yes AI will eliminate a lot of jobs, but it will improve many others and create a new higher value ones. Either we embrace the technology and become leaders, or will become third world country lagging behind. Imagine not embracing steam engines and industrial revolution. Technology goes only one way and it’s forward, and technology is the only solution to the productivity and national debt crisis that we are in!
If it were to eliminate any shitty job, it should be warehouses
The only jobs left by AI will be the shitty physical jobs because it will be much cheaper to employ a human than to build a robot. And after AI replaces people in graphic design, publishing, digital art, writing, music, film making, coding, marketing, 3D modelling, CAD, architectural design and translation, there will be so many unemployed people that labor will be cheap.
Joe Joe liar.
I’m 2/3 of the way through Harari’s ‘Nexus’, fascinating read and clearly explained on the threats of AI. I strongly recommend it 🙂