honestly, this shows how little you actually know. I work in the Data Centre's construction sector predominantly and within the UK, there is ATLEAST 200 of these being built as i speak and if pipelines and forecasts are to believed, there will be atleast another 2000 built by 2035 on old brown-sites where the grid can support the demand already. Computing power, Grid Power is not what you should be concerned about, it's the jobs that will be lost and a set of skills that will become irrelevant in the job market.
Capitalism will never "address risks" in terms of job losses. There will be winners and losers and no one will help the losers, or fill the spaces which are left.
'Capitalism' has for a long time though, when machines replaced hand labour in the industrial revolution, loads of new jobs opened up, when computers replaced a lot of mental labour, new jobs opened up. AI won't replace everything, it'll allow us to do a lot of things better, it'll be supplemental. Every generation has these people who doomsay new technologies and it just ends up being fine. The bigger one isn't automation, it's obsolescence, like when coal mining became basically obselete, it's hard to retrain people and a lot of the time it ends up just better giving them money instead, depending on age at least, there's a balancing act.
@@Dunebug6Does it end up being "fine" though? The rise of automation has led to new jobs and skills yes but it also increases inequality, short term unemployment, decreasing aggregate financial security, increasing power and political concentration, increasing surveillance and decreasing personal privacy, increased resource demand and thus air pollution and increased planned obsolescence are all major cons. I have nothing against automation inherently but I do think that the privatisation of that automation is a problem, the benefit goes to a few and the rest are shafted for no fault of their own. I think that automation minimally requires a UBI, shorter work week, strong labour protection and automation tax I think if the state erected a proportionate automation tax then I would praise automation since it would be paying for it's short term impacts instead of externalising them onto the state
@Betweoxwitegan Yes, the rise of automation (including the industrial revolution) brought many more people out of poverty. It may feel like inequality has increased, which it has in the short term, attributing that to automation is correlation, not causation. 'The more firemen you send to a fire, the more damage the fire does', it's true, but for a different reason. Prior to industrialization, political and financial power was even more concentrated amongst aristocracy. Until complete autonomization happens where anything a human can do can be done by a machine AND for less cost, it's not really happening. We all talk about how AI can do this and that, but when you use it, it requires more comprehension to realise that it often can't give you what you want and what it does give you isn't always true. But it can supplement things you do to help you do things quicker. Automization has always been something that supplements human ability rather than replacing it. We save time, effort and money utilizing it which allows time to spend on other problems. When we introduced agriculture, we stopped people having to spend all day hunting/foraging. When we introduced textile machines, we turned the ability of many people spending all day weaving into a single machine doing it in hours/minutes. This meant that with all this time opened up, new businesses and work opened up. I don't see this changing massively any time soon. Leisure will likely open up as a bigger part of the market the more people get time as it has in life for milennia. I'm optimistic to be honest.
You don't need a UBI necessarily but you would need an automation tax at the minimum, basically forcing companies to pay for their short term impacts upfront instead of externalising it onto the state
Anyone working in the financial sector if you haven't had your finger on the AI pulse will soon realise that while you are working doing your day to day job all your calls are being monitored so that AI can scrape call miner for information IVR is there for a reason so that customers calling discuss a particular product on that specific line therefore making it easy for the AI to train on individual products, those working on a webchat the AI is looking at questions asked and how the consultant answers the questions about individual products I could go further into it but I will leave you with a bit of food for thought and what this could mean for jobs in the future.
Reminds me of all the Brexit promises… The chap is bang on, AI MAY become helpful IF accompanied with the right policies and regulation. The same (basically) was said of Brexit….. In reality, the millions of young people who leaves uni with a degree and £50k in student debt, they today work in telesales and service desks. These jobs are all gone in a couple of years…..Completely !! Only idiots think the net result of AI will mean more jobs. I do mean a total idiot !!
That's true about Brexit but there are a lot of vested interests who will do everything they can to maintain the status-quo. I can't, for example, see the teaching unions accepting anything that would lead to fewer teachers. But you look around society and everything is so badly run that we need AI (we can start with the bloody traffic lights that are still on dumb timers). There's no shortage of jobs that need doing. I could be much more efficient in my job with an AI helping with the reports so I could the useful part of the job! I already use an AI but it's not properly integrated into what I'm doing but that could be done. The immigration debate will start to get eve trickier if 8 million jobs are lost, mind!
There is far more nuance to it than this. AI has been used in medicine for a long time already and it can absolutely continue to contribute (if not revolutionise) giving excellent healthcare. There are, of course, areas that it should not be used for or at least be treated with extreme caution. It should not be a free-for-all of giving our data away for pennies on the dollar. That doesn't mean we should also go the other extreme and not allow anything to happen.
@@musicmikemn BS, these chatbots came online yesterday, you buffoon. Prior to that was just illegally sharing medical info with mainly American companies.
@musicmikemn I think you misunderstand me and that was my fault as I didn't give any nuance, yes they should be allowed to train on historical data and our healthcare system keeps us isolated from third party private interests such as insurance companies collecting that data, but I don't want my healthcare decisions, treatments or otherwise being delegated to AI
Dude has it wrong. What is at risk is *_unemployment_*. The number of jobs is vast, we wake up every day to severe labour shortages, and always will, regardless of how many robots we can manufacture. So it is not work/jobs problem! It is an unemployment problem. Totally different. The solution is to understand the source of all unemployment - defined as people seeking to exchange their goods or labour for the state tax credits - the _source_ is imposed government tax liabilities (and fees, fines and levies). The way to eliminate all unemployment is the government hires everyone they deliberately unemployed, both by expanding the public service sector and a Job Guarantee (fixed wage floor, a decent living wage, not a pittance of a ubi).
The fact that he opene with how AI is already at the equivalent of a Unicersity degree EXONOMICS student is and of itself not a promising outlook. Many of us have long understood that the economics being taught in our universities is absolutely not a positive thing for our actual economy.
To be fair, there is a fair number of hamsters with more knowledge of the economy than many economy graduates. Teach kids the Austrian/Chicago school and they've in fact lost a lot more than they've learned, even if they start as practically zero.
@@thomaswikstrand8397I don't understand how people can even remotely accept the teachings of the Austrian and Chicago school, like it's completely ridiculous and logically inconsistent. Then the neoclassical school is more sensible but still has glaring issues which Keynesianism solves evidently but then we realize Keynesianism doesn't magically make the economy perfect and it fails to fully address structural instability and so we get post Keynesianism which is where modern economics really is @ some would argue that post Keynesianism still has too many problems and the solution is socialism but that's at least much more of an interesting debate and more nuanced
AI Shouldn't be a Reporter AI shouldn't be a Politician AI shouldn't be a Weapon AI Shouldn't be a Judge/Jury/Executioner AI shouldn't be your leader AI should be a used as tool and a tool only, you cant have the good with out the bad. theres always a Yin to a Yang nothings ever going to be used as the ultimate weapon for good or evil, because it never works out for either of them. I believe AI should only help us with task that wouldn't need thousands of workers every day looking through notes and pages or anything, but helps to ease the load, gives workers a helping hand, while yes like humans, AI will make mistakes. but would you spend hours upok hours of pages every Day for 8hours? i wouldn't hell you probably got bored 2 minutes into this. only people who wants to use AI in the work place are big boy billionaires who won't pay taxes, finds loopholes in everything and then tells us to BUY BUY BUY, while we get poorer and suffer climate change and natural disasters.
...and of course people having income to buy those products. If AI removes that income, the real economy shrinks. I suspect what we're going to see is a vast acceleration of inequality at a time when our politics have already become divisive and toxic precisely because of inequality.
@@lindsaybruce1396 Austerity destroys economies and nations. And the politicians love it, and so do employers, because desperate workers work for cheap, and don't make silly demands of rights or fair conditions or pay.
That unfortuntely is not just a problem of the UK or Starmer's plan, but something that the entire world has to face eventually and ideally solve for the good of the people. And the current state of affairs with billionaires taking advantage of any tech advancement to earn more while common people struggle even more, is NOT encouraging in that sense. GOVERNMENTS need to regulate this globally. If you leave it up to entrepreneurs they'll ALWAYS chose the options that saves them more money regardless of the damage they might do to employees. And why shouldn't they? And last but not least, we should reduce the working days to at least 4 instead of 5. The 40-hour 5-day working week was adopted in the 40s, since then productivity has multiplied incredibly fast, but working hours have stayed the same.
"everyone who plays with AI sees how good it is". I whole heartedly disagree. I have used it and can honestly say that 9 times out of 10 it does not give me the correct answer.
Yes, invest in a few new jobs to remove as many other peoples jobs as possible. That's the plan, it'll always be the plan, seriously, know the mindset of the people that'll benefit. Then, after they've spent all the state money building the bit farms they'll sell them for peanuts. What's changed since the 70s?
It's all down to who programs the AI. The issue being the AI is controlled by the rich, so it won't give a fuck about the welfare of people, society, or the health of the masses, it'll be 'how do I operate to create the most profit for my owner, and keep the masses powerless'.
Every time I come across AI, it has been completely incompetent at best, and spreading misinformation at worst. This makes it seem that the number one mission is to make sure working class people don't have jobs that require thought or comfort.
We have the highest energy costs on the planet, and AI is the single biggest consumer of that energy. How is that even remotely attractive to AI devs and the enormous datacentres they require? You can build a datacentre any where in any country, why build on where energy is the most expensive?
Ain’t gonna help the average person is it only gonna be beneficial for the makers , so again the rich and powerful will just hoard this and the little guys loose
I don’t think people will really register the value and the job threat until self-driving vehicles butcher the taxi and haulage industries or house robots are able to do menial chores.
I think Joe needs a little rethink along with the rest of the looney left. We are seeing the wheels come off every single idea this government has put forward in real time.
The government will spaff tons of money all over the place. Large companies will get that money and move it off shore. That's what always happens. See also HS2 and Hinckley Point.
8 million jobs on the line... 5 years... don't panic? Look at the German car industry... 10 years to prepare... 10,000 jobs lost a month. We don't light regulation for the biggest disruption humanity has faced. We need huge social reform - universal basic services. The NHS should be using our data to make their own AI for the good of the public, not to boost profits for big corporates!
no, it can flag it then the report gets read and then passes through to legal team if the video impacts an infringement in laws. AI isn't that intelligent and never will be, it's a tool and unfortunately with tools they build and break things. when there's good, there is always some bad.. it's Yin and Yang
Given the title, "Economist explains how Starmer’s AI plan is changing the UK’s labour market," the interview feels misaligned with its stated purpose. While the discussion raised broad concerns about job risks and automation, it didn’t adequately address how Starmer’s AI plan specifically impacts the UK’s labor market. Instead, the conversation meandered into general observations about AI’s capabilities and potential. For an interview framed this way, you’d expect a focused analysis on: Which sectors will be most affected by Starmer’s plan. How policies might mitigate job losses and encourage job creation. What practical steps are being taken to retrain workers or support transitioning industries. The title sets the expectation for a deep dive into labor-specific impacts, but the interview remained too broad, missing the opportunity to deliver meaningful insights tailored to the UK labor market. This misalignment weakens the interview’s effectiveness and leaves the audience with more questions than answers
As of September 2024, the estimated number of jobs in the UK was around 36.8 million. Hands-on tertiary jobs typically include roles in sectors like healthcare, hospitality, retail, construction, and personal services. Based on available data, it's estimated that these sectors employ around 10 to 12 million people in the UK. So they may be fairly safe. If a factory owner worked out with AI, that they could literally move the warehouse around, could it make it worthwhile to remove say 2 workers out of 23? The cost savings, they efficiently have to be passed on. Otherwise the factory owner gets richer? Government taxes lower, well unless you tax the richer factory owner? The simple way, to put is that you can improve your health care, your basic legal doc. But, perhaps someone in customer service at the other end of the phone could be replaced, someone taking a 999 call. Used correctly, AI will improve food production, health, help fight crime or bring in new alloys, safer homes, who knows. Used incorrectly it could mean mass unemployment, or even more deadly weapons. The AI laws needs to be formed now.
Idealist entirely clueless about the capitalist society we exist in, once Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is commonly available most jobs are gone. 8M is a huge understatement. We’re heading for mass unemployment and going to need a universal income within the next 5-10 years or society collapses when most professions are gone.
Labour have killed growth dead with the budget. Businesses are restructuring to accommodate the ridiculous budget with NI changes. Energy prices are going to rocket with net zero zealotry, including power cuts. No AI firm will invest here with high energy costs and risks of power cuts. Never mind though we have lots of economic migrants to fawn over, free housing, healthcare schooling and benefits! All paid for by us!
Why do people with your sort of opinions always have no avatar, a random first and last name glued together and a - with a bunch of numbers at the end?
AI isn't going to build houses. We need investment in trades on a massive scale. The problem is youngsters are not interested as it's hard graft and poorly paid.
I'm amazed how casual this guy is about 8 million livelihoods (that's what they are -- they're not jobs!) Surely the better approach is to have people do the jobs that already need to be done? Why the hell do you need an AI to identify potholes when people can be employed to do it? That gives a person an income and the government some tax revenue, an AI doesn't pay tax and the companies that run the AI will try their damnedest to avoid paying tax. On the other hand, as a tool to enhance medical and scientific research AI could be very useful so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water but why employ it where it will just get in the way of ordinary people going about their lives when it could be employed in places where it might make a real difference? I can't see this ending well, and I could probably write several thousand words on the subject but I've leave it at that.
Am working on Ai to Ai hacking - already having fun with unintended consequences The future flexible areas are the place to be As to transition the areas of massive variability are insulated, Ai cannot deal with crap post war building and crap investment in housing stock and all the variance in electrical and plumbing systems ........its not good at low volume crap situations based on low volume information. .......so tactile practical stuff which is awkward is good Reversing into it , those who are "released" are going to need support so there's a whole new industry, then we need to protect the super rich who can't accept the redistribution of wealth ............
Whenever someone pops up and says that we need to solve climate change it is OK to say that you can safely ignore everything that person says on any topic.
If this isn’t some serious reverse psychology going on… Ai = Bad, going to take all the jobs… People = “Oh no my whole life is defined by my job and without it how will I live, I’ll just become fat and lazy then humanity won’t survive.
AI with regulation & a UBI can give everyone economic liberty , abolish poverty & enable benefits from technological advancements Love to you all God bless
A pittance of a UBI is a right-wing policy, hihgly regressive. So *_wake up!_* Most honest people do not want a government hand-out which generates massive intergenerational welfare dependency and entrenches a class divide. People need jobs, good dignified jobs, and this is something governments can always provide, it is a policy choice not to do so. The freedom is the government can always pay the wage, but does not have to dictate what people want to do, provided what they do has a public purpose. This make the job guarantee our claims on the state. A UBI and unnecessary welfare is the States claim on us, anti-freedom. (All welfare is a claim on someone else's labour.)
He does not have a clue what he is talking about and is all over the place with vague claims. You should find an AI technician. He seems to imagine AI is ChatGPT. AI is a lot of things. Even mundane things like your home heating controller can use AI.
We’ve made doing business here so expensive they have no choice but to cut costs the only cost they can control is the amount of people they employ. Therefore AI should surge the UK economy significantly reducing prices significantly in increasing efficiency. Fuck creating a load of grief along the way. Building a data centre is very laughable. It will be one of the most expensive dates to operate locally. Instantly at a disadvantage we need to be launching fundamental programs of retraining and education and forward forward with AI change and improvement. If the labour market stays still, we will have the economy disappear. People need to learn to adapt. You drive anything, get a new job, that will be done for Becca quicker Cleaner more efficiently and 24 seven. I currently label laws mean most companies have no chance of being able to do this.
Reminds me of all the Brexit promises… The chap is bang on, AI MAY become helpful IF accompanied with the right policies and regulation. The same (basically) was said of Brexit….. In reality, the millions of young people who leaves uni with a degree and £50k in student debt, they today work in telesales and service desks. These jobs are all gone in a couple of years…..Completely !! Only idiots think the net result of AI will mean more jobs. I do mean a total idiot !!
With zero commitment to lower energy bills good luck getting any large scale computing on UK shores.
We have this though? Basically every academic institution doing any kind of STEM research will have a semi-decent compute cluster
@@alextilson9741 in the UK? I don't know enough to know but I do have Google 😅
74 apparently
honestly, this shows how little you actually know. I work in the Data Centre's construction sector predominantly and within the UK, there is ATLEAST 200 of these being built as i speak and if pipelines and forecasts are to believed, there will be atleast another 2000 built by 2035 on old brown-sites where the grid can support the demand already. Computing power, Grid Power is not what you should be concerned about, it's the jobs that will be lost and a set of skills that will become irrelevant in the job market.
@@ksptm4 that's cool to know, but we do know power is a problem Microsoft and Google are interested in building power plants to fuel this stuff
This will end badly.
Capitalism will never "address risks" in terms of job losses. There will be winners and losers and no one will help the losers, or fill the spaces which are left.
'Capitalism' has for a long time though, when machines replaced hand labour in the industrial revolution, loads of new jobs opened up, when computers replaced a lot of mental labour, new jobs opened up. AI won't replace everything, it'll allow us to do a lot of things better, it'll be supplemental. Every generation has these people who doomsay new technologies and it just ends up being fine.
The bigger one isn't automation, it's obsolescence, like when coal mining became basically obselete, it's hard to retrain people and a lot of the time it ends up just better giving them money instead, depending on age at least, there's a balancing act.
exactly.
@@Dunebug6Does it end up being "fine" though? The rise of automation has led to new jobs and skills yes but it also increases inequality, short term unemployment, decreasing aggregate financial security, increasing power and political concentration, increasing surveillance and decreasing personal privacy, increased resource demand and thus air pollution and increased planned obsolescence are all major cons.
I have nothing against automation inherently but I do think that the privatisation of that automation is a problem, the benefit goes to a few and the rest are shafted for no fault of their own. I think that automation minimally requires a UBI, shorter work week, strong labour protection and automation tax
I think if the state erected a proportionate automation tax then I would praise automation since it would be paying for it's short term impacts instead of externalising them onto the state
"there will be winners and losers"
The problem is that the capitalists have rigged the system to make sure that they are ALWAYS the winners
@Betweoxwitegan Yes, the rise of automation (including the industrial revolution) brought many more people out of poverty. It may feel like inequality has increased, which it has in the short term, attributing that to automation is correlation, not causation. 'The more firemen you send to a fire, the more damage the fire does', it's true, but for a different reason. Prior to industrialization, political and financial power was even more concentrated amongst aristocracy.
Until complete autonomization happens where anything a human can do can be done by a machine AND for less cost, it's not really happening. We all talk about how AI can do this and that, but when you use it, it requires more comprehension to realise that it often can't give you what you want and what it does give you isn't always true. But it can supplement things you do to help you do things quicker.
Automization has always been something that supplements human ability rather than replacing it. We save time, effort and money utilizing it which allows time to spend on other problems. When we introduced agriculture, we stopped people having to spend all day hunting/foraging. When we introduced textile machines, we turned the ability of many people spending all day weaving into a single machine doing it in hours/minutes. This meant that with all this time opened up, new businesses and work opened up. I don't see this changing massively any time soon. Leisure will likely open up as a bigger part of the market the more people get time as it has in life for milennia. I'm optimistic to be honest.
Without an equal commitment to Universal Basic Income any country pushing AI is risking destroying their economy.
You don't need a UBI necessarily but you would need an automation tax at the minimum, basically forcing companies to pay for their short term impacts upfront instead of externalising it onto the state
Companies that displace workers with AI should be forced to cover the costs of UBI.
Anyone backing a.i is rona jabbed shills
Capitalism has served its purpose. It's time for fully automated luxury communism.
@Mark-ek2eo from you consenting yeah
Anyone working in the financial sector if you haven't had your finger on the AI pulse will soon realise that while you are working doing your day to day job all your calls are being monitored so that AI can scrape call miner for information IVR is there for a reason so that customers calling discuss a particular product on that specific line therefore making it easy for the AI to train on individual products, those working on a webchat the AI is looking at questions asked and how the consultant answers the questions about individual products I could go further into it but I will leave you with a bit of food for thought and what this could mean for jobs in the future.
Reminds me of all the Brexit promises… The chap is bang on, AI MAY become helpful IF accompanied with the right policies and regulation. The same (basically) was said of Brexit…..
In reality, the millions of young people who leaves uni with a degree and £50k in student debt, they today work in telesales and service desks. These jobs are all gone in a couple of years…..Completely !!
Only idiots think the net result of AI will mean more jobs. I do mean a total idiot !!
That's true about Brexit but there are a lot of vested interests who will do everything they can to maintain the status-quo. I can't, for example, see the teaching unions accepting anything that would lead to fewer teachers.
But you look around society and everything is so badly run that we need AI (we can start with the bloody traffic lights that are still on dumb timers).
There's no shortage of jobs that need doing. I could be much more efficient in my job with an AI helping with the reports so I could the useful part of the job! I already use an AI but it's not properly integrated into what I'm doing but that could be done.
The immigration debate will start to get eve trickier if 8 million jobs are lost, mind!
Vast amounts of jobs will vanish. And pretty quickly too. We'll have to see how long it takes to be depopulated.
I work in the space, giving our medical records to AI is ridiculous
There is far more nuance to it than this. AI has been used in medicine for a long time already and it can absolutely continue to contribute (if not revolutionise) giving excellent healthcare. There are, of course, areas that it should not be used for or at least be treated with extreme caution. It should not be a free-for-all of giving our data away for pennies on the dollar. That doesn't mean we should also go the other extreme and not allow anything to happen.
@@musicmikemn BS, these chatbots came online yesterday, you buffoon. Prior to that was just illegally sharing medical info with mainly American companies.
@musicmikemn I think you misunderstand me and that was my fault as I didn't give any nuance, yes they should be allowed to train on historical data and our healthcare system keeps us isolated from third party private interests such as insurance companies collecting that data, but I don't want my healthcare decisions, treatments or otherwise being delegated to AI
@@martinseal1987 Seems reasonable :)
@@musicmikemn giving medical data to private companies is illegal
Dude has it wrong. What is at risk is *_unemployment_*. The number of jobs is vast, we wake up every day to severe labour shortages, and always will, regardless of how many robots we can manufacture. So it is not work/jobs problem! It is an unemployment problem. Totally different. The solution is to understand the source of all unemployment - defined as people seeking to exchange their goods or labour for the state tax credits - the _source_ is imposed government tax liabilities (and fees, fines and levies). The way to eliminate all unemployment is the government hires everyone they deliberately unemployed, both by expanding the public service sector and a Job Guarantee (fixed wage floor, a decent living wage, not a pittance of a ubi).
Everyone seems to see ai as a silver bullet, all solution. I just really don’t see it
The fact that he opene with how AI is already at the equivalent of a Unicersity degree EXONOMICS student is and of itself not a promising outlook. Many of us have long understood that the economics being taught in our universities is absolutely not a positive thing for our actual economy.
To be fair, there is a fair number of hamsters with more knowledge of the economy than many economy graduates. Teach kids the Austrian/Chicago school and they've in fact lost a lot more than they've learned, even if they start as practically zero.
@@thomaswikstrand8397I don't understand how people can even remotely accept the teachings of the Austrian and Chicago school, like it's completely ridiculous and logically inconsistent. Then the neoclassical school is more sensible but still has glaring issues which Keynesianism solves evidently but then we realize Keynesianism doesn't magically make the economy perfect and it fails to fully address structural instability and so we get post Keynesianism which is where modern economics really is @ some would argue that post Keynesianism still has too many problems and the solution is socialism but that's at least much more of an interesting debate and more nuanced
AI Shouldn't be a Reporter
AI shouldn't be a Politician
AI shouldn't be a Weapon
AI Shouldn't be a Judge/Jury/Executioner
AI shouldn't be your leader
AI should be a used as tool and a tool only, you cant have the good with out the bad.
theres always a Yin to a Yang
nothings ever going to be used as the ultimate weapon for good or evil, because it never works out for either of them.
I believe AI should only help us with task that wouldn't need thousands of workers every day looking through notes and pages or anything, but helps to ease the load, gives workers a helping hand, while yes like humans, AI will make mistakes. but would you spend hours upok hours of pages every Day for 8hours? i wouldn't hell you probably got bored 2 minutes into this. only people who wants to use AI in the work place are big boy billionaires who won't pay taxes, finds loopholes in everything and then tells us to BUY BUY BUY, while we get poorer and suffer climate change and natural disasters.
BREAKING NEWS: shock and horror as man with vested interest in punting AI says AI is the dogs danglies, people dont need jobs.
This is just going to hasten societal collapse. Mass unemployment as our crops fail due to climate breakdown, what a wonderful future awaits us.
A healthy economy is based on producing lots of products people want to buy. Starmer is clueless.
...and of course people having income to buy those products. If AI removes that income, the real economy shrinks. I suspect what we're going to see is a vast acceleration of inequality at a time when our politics have already become divisive and toxic precisely because of inequality.
@@lindsaybruce1396 Austerity destroys economies and nations.
And the politicians love it, and so do employers, because desperate workers work for cheap, and don't make silly demands of rights or fair conditions or pay.
That unfortuntely is not just a problem of the UK or Starmer's plan, but something that the entire world has to face eventually and ideally solve for the good of the people. And the current state of affairs with billionaires taking advantage of any tech advancement to earn more while common people struggle even more, is NOT encouraging in that sense.
GOVERNMENTS need to regulate this globally. If you leave it up to entrepreneurs they'll ALWAYS chose the options that saves them more money regardless of the damage they might do to employees. And why shouldn't they?
And last but not least, we should reduce the working days to at least 4 instead of 5. The 40-hour 5-day working week was adopted in the 40s, since then productivity has multiplied incredibly fast, but working hours have stayed the same.
"everyone who plays with AI sees how good it is". I whole heartedly disagree. I have used it and can honestly say that 9 times out of 10 it does not give me the correct answer.
Yes, invest in a few new jobs to remove as many other peoples jobs as possible. That's the plan, it'll always be the plan, seriously, know the mindset of the people that'll benefit. Then, after they've spent all the state money building the bit farms they'll sell them for peanuts. What's changed since the 70s?
People say this a bit tongue in cheek "when do we replace the politicians with AI" but really, politicians produce words, thats it. So do LLM's.
I'm of the opinion that government can be automated.
@DW-indeed so who's governing the AI that's governing you?
It's all down to who programs the AI.
The issue being the AI is controlled by the rich, so it won't give a fuck about the welfare of people, society, or the health of the masses, it'll be 'how do I operate to create the most profit for my owner, and keep the masses powerless'.
@@keithpanton on the other hand, anyone can build a bot nowadays and leverage a LLM.
‘Buttle/Tuttle’
Every time I come across AI, it has been completely incompetent at best, and spreading misinformation at worst.
This makes it seem that the number one mission is to make sure working class people don't have jobs that require thought or comfort.
Absolutely right that is my experience with it too. It is more often than not absolutely incorrect. It hallucinates a lot. Don't fall for this hype
We have the highest energy costs on the planet, and AI is the single biggest consumer of that energy.
How is that even remotely attractive to AI devs and the enormous datacentres they require?
You can build a datacentre any where in any country, why build on where energy is the most expensive?
Ain’t gonna help the average person is it only gonna be beneficial for the makers , so again the rich and powerful will just hoard this and the little guys loose
Be fair Starmer said AI would cut down the amount of form filling at the job centre
I don’t think people will really register the value and the job threat until self-driving vehicles butcher the taxi and haulage industries or house robots are able to do menial chores.
I think Joe needs a little rethink along with the rest of the looney left.
We are seeing the wheels come off every single idea this government has put forward in real time.
You really think this Labour government are left. 😂
Governments have been bowing to their corporate paymasters for decades. Politicians are pretty much proxies at this point.
Signing on is gonna be a nightmare, look at united health, ai didn't end well there
In the absence of the PM and Reeves having natural intelligence A.I. couldn't be that bad.
This guy is defo right in terms of his concerns….
As a parallel, look at how (un)well the FCA regulates financial businesses 😂😂😂😂
The government will spaff tons of money all over the place. Large companies will get that money and move it off shore. That's what always happens. See also HS2 and Hinckley Point.
8 million jobs on the line... 5 years... don't panic? Look at the German car industry... 10 years to prepare... 10,000 jobs lost a month. We don't light regulation for the biggest disruption humanity has faced. We need huge social reform - universal basic services. The NHS should be using our data to make their own AI for the good of the public, not to boost profits for big corporates!
That guy is speaking yet not saying anything this is madness how is AI gonna help people?
IMHO, ARM needs to come back to the UK. It was born from the last British tech boom from government initiative in the early 80's. We can do it again.
Can ai take down this podcast
no, it can flag it then the report gets read and then passes through to legal team if the video impacts an infringement in laws.
AI isn't that intelligent and never will be, it's a tool and unfortunately with tools they build and break things.
when there's good, there is always some bad.. it's Yin and Yang
1984 is not fiction, wake up!
Given the title, "Economist explains how Starmer’s AI plan is changing the UK’s labour market," the interview feels misaligned with its stated purpose. While the discussion raised broad concerns about job risks and automation, it didn’t adequately address how Starmer’s AI plan specifically impacts the UK’s labor market. Instead, the conversation meandered into general observations about AI’s capabilities and potential. For an interview framed this way, you’d expect a focused analysis on:
Which sectors will be most affected by Starmer’s plan.
How policies might mitigate job losses and encourage job creation.
What practical steps are being taken to retrain workers or support transitioning industries.
The title sets the expectation for a deep dive into labor-specific impacts, but the interview remained too broad, missing the opportunity to deliver meaningful insights tailored to the UK labor market. This misalignment weakens the interview’s effectiveness and leaves the audience with more questions than answers
You do realise the you have spelled Carsten JUNG's name wrong in the description of this video, right?
Time to fire the intern!
As of September 2024, the estimated number of jobs in the UK was around 36.8 million.
Hands-on tertiary jobs typically include roles in sectors like healthcare, hospitality, retail, construction, and personal services. Based on available data, it's estimated that these sectors employ around 10 to 12 million people in the UK. So they may be fairly safe. If a factory owner worked out with AI, that they could literally move the warehouse around, could it make it worthwhile to remove say 2 workers out of 23? The cost savings, they efficiently have to be passed on. Otherwise the factory owner gets richer?
Government taxes lower, well unless you tax the richer factory owner?
The simple way, to put is that you can improve your health care, your basic legal doc. But, perhaps someone in customer service at the other end of the phone could be replaced, someone taking a 999 call.
Used correctly, AI will improve food production, health, help fight crime or bring in new alloys, safer homes, who knows. Used incorrectly it could mean mass unemployment, or even more deadly weapons.
The AI laws needs to be formed now.
I checked out with "it's as good at reasoning as...". That's someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, or someone who is not being honest.
AI and automation are coming regardless of who is in government. The question is how society adjusts. Basic capitalism is finished within 25 years.
Idealist entirely clueless about the capitalist society we exist in, once Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is commonly available most jobs are gone. 8M is a huge understatement. We’re heading for mass unemployment and going to need a universal income within the next 5-10 years or society collapses when most professions are gone.
Labour have killed growth dead with the budget. Businesses are restructuring to accommodate the ridiculous budget with NI changes. Energy prices are going to rocket with net zero zealotry, including power cuts. No AI firm will invest here with high energy costs and risks of power cuts. Never mind though we have lots of economic migrants to fawn over, free housing, healthcare schooling and benefits! All paid for by us!
Why do people with your sort of opinions always have no avatar, a random first and last name glued together and a - with a bunch of numbers at the end?
I smell bullshit
AI isn't going to build houses. We need investment in trades on a massive scale. The problem is youngsters are not interested as it's hard graft and poorly paid.
Never seems to be a positive for workers to modernisation. Jobs get easier? Cut workers. Jobs not needed, sorry you’re fucked. It’s madness
just re import Russian fuel... next problem.
I'm amazed how casual this guy is about 8 million livelihoods (that's what they are -- they're not jobs!) Surely the better approach is to have people do the jobs that already need to be done? Why the hell do you need an AI to identify potholes when people can be employed to do it? That gives a person an income and the government some tax revenue, an AI doesn't pay tax and the companies that run the AI will try their damnedest to avoid paying tax. On the other hand, as a tool to enhance medical and scientific research AI could be very useful so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water but why employ it where it will just get in the way of ordinary people going about their lives when it could be employed in places where it might make a real difference? I can't see this ending well, and I could probably write several thousand words on the subject but I've leave it at that.
Am working on Ai to Ai hacking - already having fun with unintended consequences
The future flexible areas are the place to be
As to transition the areas of massive variability are insulated, Ai cannot deal with crap post war building and crap investment in housing stock and all the variance in electrical and plumbing systems ........its not good at low volume crap situations based on low volume information. .......so tactile practical stuff which is awkward is good
Reversing into it , those who are "released" are going to need support so there's a whole new industry, then we need to protect the super rich who can't accept the redistribution of wealth ............
who's the chick?
Whenever someone pops up and says that we need to solve climate change it is OK to say that you can safely ignore everything that person says on any topic.
If this isn’t some serious reverse psychology going on… Ai = Bad, going to take all the jobs… People = “Oh no my whole life is defined by my job and without it how will I live, I’ll just become fat and lazy then humanity won’t survive.
ua-cam.com/video/UoquS5uXOKs/v-deo.htmlsi=ZEnqIwEjIsAvAIkK
Luddite
Reform🇬🇧 100%
They want private healthcare. Not good for anyone frankly.
AI with regulation & a UBI can give everyone economic liberty , abolish poverty & enable benefits from technological advancements
Love to you all
God bless
But in reality it will be used to drive down wages.
Yh..... No
The ideal would be to get a great UBI, so I can follow my dreams and do fuck all for capitalism.
A pittance of a UBI is a right-wing policy, hihgly regressive. So *_wake up!_* Most honest people do not want a government hand-out which generates massive intergenerational welfare dependency and entrenches a class divide. People need jobs, good dignified jobs, and this is something governments can always provide, it is a policy choice not to do so. The freedom is the government can always pay the wage, but does not have to dictate what people want to do, provided what they do has a public purpose. This make the job guarantee our claims on the state. A UBI and unnecessary welfare is the States claim on us, anti-freedom. (All welfare is a claim on someone else's labour.)
Maybe in a different reality
He does not have a clue what he is talking about and is all over the place with vague claims. You should find an AI technician. He seems to imagine AI is ChatGPT. AI is a lot of things. Even mundane things like your home heating controller can use AI.
We’ve made doing business here so expensive they have no choice but to cut costs the only cost they can control is the amount of people they employ. Therefore AI should surge the UK economy significantly reducing prices significantly in increasing efficiency. Fuck creating a load of grief along the way. Building a data centre is very laughable. It will be one of the most expensive dates to operate locally. Instantly at a disadvantage we need to be launching fundamental programs of retraining and education and forward forward with AI change and improvement. If the labour market stays still, we will have the economy disappear. People need to learn to adapt. You drive anything, get a new job, that will be done for Becca quicker Cleaner more efficiently and 24 seven. I currently label laws mean most companies have no chance of being able to do this.
More Tory clap trap.
Reminds me of all the Brexit promises… The chap is bang on, AI MAY become helpful IF accompanied with the right policies and regulation. The same (basically) was said of Brexit…..
In reality, the millions of young people who leaves uni with a degree and £50k in student debt, they today work in telesales and service desks. These jobs are all gone in a couple of years…..Completely !!
Only idiots think the net result of AI will mean more jobs. I do mean a total idiot !!