Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Second Machine Age | Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee | Talks at Google
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2014
- In recent years, computers have learned to diagnose diseases, drive cars, write clean prose, and win at Jeopardy!. Advances like these have created unprecedented economic bounty, but in their wake median income has stagnated and the share of the population with jobs has fallen. MIT's Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee reveal the technological forces driving this reinvention of our economy and chart a path toward future prosperity. Businesses and individuals, they argue, must learn to race with machines. Drawing on years of research, Brynjolfsson and McAfee identify the best strategies and policies for doing so. These include honing the ability to mix and match different technological resources and designing new collaborations that pair brute processing power with human ingenuity. A fundamentally optimistic book, The Second Machine Age will radically alter how we think about issues of technological, societal, and economic progress.
You can find the book on Google Play: goo.gl/vGaJ84
This is a very interesting and difficult topic. I actually studied at MIT Sloan for my MBA and remember Professor Brynjolfsson. I'm not as familiar with Andrew McAfee, but I'm certain he's every bit as astute and thoughtful. Framing the discussion as protecting the past from the future vs protecting the future from the past is a great way to distill the issue at hand. As I'm sure both authors are aware, however, there is no future without a past. Lobbying groups such as professional associations and other interest groups (for all their flaws) sometimes serve to keep society from breaking; and allowing artificial intelligence to rapidly supplant jobs involving high-level cognitive skills is something that could break society. The technology and dimensions of the risk are very different, but the scope of artificial intelligence's potential impact (good and bad) is somewhat analogous to that of nuclear energy. I agree that the technology should be allowed to develop, but I think a game plan needs to be in place. Otherwise, the animosity that these technologies might arouse could be incredibly destructive. Companies that develop these technologies need to acknowledge the severe disruptions that could ensue (thankfully, it seemed many of the employees at Google are well aware of the ramifications of such technologies). Hopefully, this will minimize polarization around the issue and foster constructive dialogue about how such technologies can be introduced in order to benefit society as a whole.
This has been the best 60 min + I have spent on youtube!! Mandatory discussion!!! Great minds! Just downloaded their audio book, 8 hours of intersesting stuff waiting for me
Interesting that very soon we'll be living Sci fi realities 😀.
I have to watch and take notes on this whole video for a global studies 2 honors class. it is 10 pm :(
This will lead to a future of working less. We need to get out of the mind set of working hard for a living when machines are more productive than us and we have more free time. However, the transition to this is incredibly disruptive because it requires sweeping changes to our way of life. We need to tackle the issue about this transition now.
These guys predicted the impact of ChatGPT.
I am surprised they didn't mention Basic Income. I know McAfee has mentioned it in other videos.
Looking at how technological advancement affected the work in my country based on experience, is not as daunting or as horrific as described, like the tax preparer example. Yes, you can purchase web applications that are cheap to help streamline accounting for businesses, BUT you need an expert in accounting to set up your chart of accounts in the system, understand how to input your transactions, and can give advice on how you can save/lower
taxes. Especially during tax map, the application cannot represent you in front of a human auditor who asks questions.
I find the topic interesting that this is the reality in some parts of the world and probably at some point it will be the reality in my country.
Hopefully, technology will move towards complementing humans so we can coexist and be prosperous (across all classes).
Love this ❤️have this conversation with my high school daughter. Going into the real world as a college student . Thank you for sharing . Love the book .
I think they were not telling what they really want to, that is that we can't learn that fast to keep up with how fast things are changing. Governments are going into deep debt subsidizing industries to just keep people employed.
One the best discussions I have heard in a while! Very Interesting!
40:00 here we are 😊
thanks for the video
Great stuff!
MEANWHILE, in the other video someone is bored because he has too much stuff and wants to tell us how this problem of having "too much stuff in your hands" is the biggest problem we face in the 21st century.
7 years later and it looks like we're going down the dystopian version.
The solution is automation socialism: let's all get paid simply for being alive. Work is a dated concept. Let the robots toil.
+PitchHeathen They'll take that solution when they have no choice. We will NEED to radically change our economies/social-structures/politics. Not changing isn't even an option. It's either evolve or go extinct....period.
+SavHub I have done lots of research and consideration on this and ultimately, I don't think there is any alternative that doesn't include a tragic humanitarian crisis. We need to disassociate human labor from economics and soon, or there will be tragic consequences.
They're talking about what already being talking about
-duh
i like the idea of inventing ways for humans and machines to work together to make new jobs for the future. lets re-invent the future of our society, agree with that. x-contests?
Outdated, shallow, ideological disappointment.
Their good intentions are obvious but its still disappointing. I (as literally nobody) could have given this lecture at least 8 years ago (when most "economists" still pretended they dont know what "structural unemployment" actually is), with better information (US wages, inflation adjusted, are stagnant from ~1970) and genuine, non-ideological tackling of topics (outdated, prostitution-based culture as real obstacle for application of technology). Thats not meant to show how great I am but how mediocre and disappointing this talk was. Today, when you only need the eyes to see what is happening "experts" are still holding their heads in the sand. Hopefully, only in lectures such as this one.
I don't think this rant of yours was written to show how great you are. But I'm curious, would you recommend any other talk that would be less boring or mediocre according to your views?
but did you give it 8 years ago?, nope - did you even listen through the whole discussion? doubt it, they raised and addressed questions that even your vice ass did not even think of 8 years ago. Your hippy, prefixed opinion has blurred your ears through the 15 minutes you tolerated of this great, educated discussion. (don´t bother making remarks on my grammar, English is my third language)
Logi Hrafn Kristjánsson I am sorry if my statement disturbed you.
+Marko Kraguljac Why didn't you actually respond to the points he brought up? Saying "sorry I disturbed you" addresses _none_ of the issues he actually raised. You seem to have a fairly high opinion of yourself. So...if you truly are as intelligent as you think you are, more capable of foresight than most people, and endowed with solutions....then why don't you write a book, make a documentary, start a speaking tour, run for office, start a company, etc etc? Why instead do you just criticize people who actually ARE doing all of the above...by complaining on the UA-cam comments section? Doesn't that strike you as a bit....embarrassing?
+avedic No. There is no point (beside making money) in explaining people things they are not ready to embrace. Its literally impossible. Even with one human being. So, why beating around the bush instead of trying to explain whole picture to those in position to understand? As I am one of those, I too have my own shortcomings and blind spots. For example, I am very bad at expressing whats really on my mind. What I manage to put into words is literally 1% of what I want to say. But what I wrote, I still stand by. I expected *a lot* more from someone speaking at Google talks about "Machine age". Depth is lacking. Accent in on *disappointment* not disagreement.
I reserve the right to evaluate how should I respond to specific people, I dont need your reminding. Write something substantial if you expect any further answer from me. I would be embarrassed if I knew what I know and still be obsessed with "success" in a way you seem to be.
The opening speaker has NO understanding of economics. If we were still on the gold standard (ended in 1971) we would be in great shape. When gas was $1/gal gold was $35.oz. 1 oz gold bought 35 gal. Now 1 coin wiould buy 390 gal. Gas is getting cheaper. The dollar is collapsing. The other problems are a result of that.
+George Saxman Gold has no value. It's just shiny yellow metal. That's it. It's every bit as _fiat_ as "the dollar." It has no value beyond what you can physically *_use_* it for. Anything else is purely abstract fiat value.