"AI is a bad term. It's not artificial intelligence."

"The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious.

"I think people have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational. 

"People are so hypnotised. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means 'artificial intelligence.' Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about. .. call it Artificial Cleverness. How about that: AC, not AI. 

"You can see the difference when you have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing."

~ physicist Roger Penrose from a recent interview 

Ten brutally honest predictions about the future of AI [updated]

Observing that enthusiasm for so-called AI is diminishing by the day--a recent survey suggests 86% of the public distrusts AI--that tech "experts" over-promise again and again, and that most predictions about the technology have been proven dead wrong ("you could get more reliable information by consulting tarot cards or a Ouija board"), cultural commentator Ted Gioia jumps in to give in his own "ten brutally honest predictions about the future of AI."

The first is about where the tech might find a home. Because in the creative world, where it's been desperately oversold, despite all the hype it's seen increasingly as "the microwave meal version of culture."

Food is the useful analogy here. When frozen dinners and microwave meals were introduced, many consumers embraced them as the tech-driven foods of the future. But over time, the public figured out that more tech isn’t always better when it comes to food.

The same will happen with AI music, AI writing, AI art, and all the rest. Like the microwave meal, it will be cheap and easy. But anyone with discernment and taste will prefer handcrafted alternatives.

The slop is just too obviously slop.

Which brings him to money, which is where, here reckons, "the AI crisis will intensify the most" -- and mostly because there will still still be too little coming in to justify all squillions of capital spending ...

The cash getting invested in bots is beyond anything ever seen before in the history of capitalism—already $3.7 trillion has been spent, and the outlay is growing by another trillion per year.

This investment will never generate an adequate return. It can’t. The numbers just don’t add up.

Let me make a comparison. For less than that amount, Silicon Valley could have acquired every movie studio, every video game company, every major record label, and all the big publishers in the world—and still have plenty of cash left over.

So do you think the average person will pay more for AI each month than for all that entertainment? Is AI really worth that much? Not at all—at best, the true believers will pay roughly the same amount as a single Netflix subscription. But the market cap of Netflix is a tiny percent of total AI expenditures. So the mismatch between the level invested and the resulting demand is unprecedented. ...

This is an easy prediction to make. Get ready for write-offs and financial ugliness of the most extreme kind. It’s hard-baked into the business plans, and keeping the mess in the oven for longer won’t make it taste any better.

Why so little revenue? Because it's so increasingly unpopular.

Silicon Valley has consistently underestimated how much people hate AI. ... The public is shifting from passive grumbling to active resistance.

This is a problem even billionaires in their bunkers can’t ignore. They thought that the right response was to push harder. But they thought wrong.

They are still living in denial, but that won’t last for much longer. The public is getting more fierce, and the hyperscalers’ cash resources—which once seemed almost infinite—are dwindling. Silicon Valley has the weaker hand here, and nobody believes its bluffs anymore.

So what happens next? Read all ten brutally honest predictions on the future of these large learning models. 

'How to Lose $35 Billion with Philosophy'

"What are the odds that the clueless young bro who created the
biggest financial fiasco of the year is connected to the clueless
young bro who created the biggest financial fiasco of the decade?"

"In the last few days, you may have heard about Leopold Aschenbrenner—the wonder kid hedge fund manager who lost tens of billions over the course of a few days. It’s the biggest financial fiasco of the year.

"If you didn’t read about it in the news, don’t worry. Hollywood will certainly make it into a movie. This 25-year-old hot shot’s financial empire was literally collapsing while guests were showing up for his blowout wedding at a fake Tuscan villa in Carmel, California. The screenplay practically writes itself....

"This tyro’s investing strategy looks more like gambling addiction than high finance. Aschenbrenner borrowed to the hilt, using four time leverage to buy AI stocks by the truckload. Then he added to his risk by shorting companies he was sure AI would replace. In other words, instead of hedging his AI position—which is standard practice (and why they call them hedge funds), he doubled down, setting himself up for a failure of Biblical proportions.

"When you take chances like this, even a small downturn in AI stocks will wipe out your entire capital. That’s pretty much what happened last week.

"I wanted to learn more about the young man behind this collapse—so I went to his Wikipedia page. There I discovered his connection to fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried and the latter’s Effective Altruism philosophy.

"What are the odds that the clueless young bro who created the biggest financial fiasco of the year is connected to the clueless young bro who created the biggest financial fiasco of the decade?

"But there it is.

And—another coincidence!—the woman who assisted Bankman-Fried, and served 14 months in prison for fraud and money laundering, also helped run her college’s Effective Altruism club.

This is getting to be a trend.

"But, of course, none of this is coincidence...."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'How to Lose $35 Billion with Philosophy'

"If Effective Altruism was a movement that simply called on charities to more rigorously measure their impact, they would be an unequivocal force for good in the world. But that is not all that it argues for. Effective Altruism is a crusading movement that argues you have a moral obligation to 'do the most good' in the world, and it defines 'the most good' in strictly utilitarian terms.

"'The most good' means promoting humanity’s well-being. Morally, you are to be indifferent between your own life and the lives of others. Since those others vastly outnumber you, this means in practice a demand for radical self-sacrifice.

"No, Effective Altruists don’t take this to its ultimate, consistent conclusion. You don’t have to literally turn yourself into a meal for others to feast on. But the closer you can strive to lower your own standard of living in order to raise the standard of living of those worse off than you, the better. (See “Peter Singer is Truly Awful.”)

"And it’s not just your wealth that you’re supposed to sacrifice. You’re supposed to sacrifice the irreplaceable moments of your life: instead of choosing a career that you love, Effective Altruists urge you to choose a career that will maximize your earnings so you’ll have more wealth to give away. You’re even supposed to give away your internal organs to strangers. (See “How Many Kidneys Does Sam Harris Have?”)

"In short, the basic moral premise Effective Altruists crusades for is that you don’t have a right to exist for the sake of your own happiness—you exist as a tool to serve others.

"But that raises a troubling question: why bother saving lives in the first place? So that there are more servants to serve servants to serve servants? If more people exist, but exist in the soul-crushing state of living death Rand describes in [her early novel] 'We the Living,' is that really a victory? If the happiness of a single individual is not sacrosanct, if we are all to throw away our lives to maximise some 'general good' that is good for no one in particular, then what the hell is the point?

"Effective Altruists may be reducing deaths—but they are enemies of life. And, actually, it’s not even clear they are reducing deaths...."

~ Don Watkins from his 2023 post 'Has Effective Altruism done anything good for the world?' [emphases in the original]

Crypto scammer Sam Bankman-Fried in his proper place

"Sam Bankman-Fried [CEO of the fraudulent FTX cryptocurrency exchange], was a leading advocate for and financial sponsor of the 'effective altruist' movement. ...

"Whatever the role of Bankman-Fried’s philosophy in FTX’s collapse, effective altruism is increasingly influential and warrants scrutiny. In essence, effective altruism stresses the importance of using a [long-term] rational, scientific approach to calculate the most efficient way to help the most people, especially through charitable giving, as opposed to giving your money away for sentimental reasons. It attracts an audience of highly intelligent, scientifically oriented, secular people.

"But the more we learn about the causes the effective altruist leadership has embraced, the more we should question the moral foundation of the movement. As we’ll see, this is something that even the movement’s fiercest critics have been unwilling to do. ...

"[Some] critics of longtermist altruism claim that its obsession with sci-fi hypotheticals is inexcusable when there are real people suffering and dying in our world today. ... Still others claim the problem isn’t amoralism, but excessive idealism ... None of these critics seriously consider the intellectual content of the ideal of altruism itself ... [especially] longtermism’s call for all of us to sacrifice to the distant future. ...

"Remember, 'the future is big.' If altruism is to be understood in the popular utilitarian way, by looking to consequences of one’s actions for the largest number of people, why wouldn’t one look to the very long-term future where most of the other people will be? ... [after all] a utilitarian concerned with the impersonal consequences of our actions should regard distance in time as no more morally significant than distance in space.

"Although they’re criticised for reaching absurd conclusions, longtermists like MacAskill and Bankman-Fried are just following the logic of the path that’s been laid down by eminent moral philosophers. To simplify that path: morality is really about caring more about others than about yourself, since there are so many more others than you who need your equal attention. And the best way to be concerned with the most others who are far away from your rather insignificant, fragmented self is to concern yourself with the vast future beyond your interests.

"If longtermism is absurd, but the longtermists are just following the logic of the altruist moral ideal, we should take seriously that this ideal is the real source of longtermist absurdities. ...

"In the wake of the FTX scandal, [Bankman-Fried's teacher] William MacAskill himself weighed in on Twitter to condemn Bankman-Fried, arguing that serious effective altruists do not use naked 'end justifies the means' reasoning, and instead value integrity and honesty. Yet, as one philosopher responding to MacAskill noted, utilitarians who see some utility in “common sense morality” can be reliably counted on to say we can suspend it when there are big enough stakes.

"Any philosophy is subject to cynical use and manipulation by insincere advocates. But a philosophy that gives a pass to anyone who is not acting for his own sake but only for the sake of others is uniquely subject to abuse. A philosophy that says give up what you love and work for others is a tool in the hands of anyone who is willing to speak on behalf of others to gain power over those willing to give up what they love. It’s an especially dangerous tool when those who gain the power convince themselves that it is noble to use it, not for their own sake, but for the sake of a nameless, faceless future [for which they claim to speak].

"How, indeed, would one apply such a philosophy without abusing the lives of the people who practice it? Ayn Rand put her finger on the essence of the altruist morality long before advocates of altruism began to make their meaning as explicit as the effective altruists now have. In her novel 'Atlas Shrugged,' she puts these words in the mouth of one character whose workplace has adopted a similar philosophy: 'Do you care to imagine what it would be like, if you had to live and to work, when you’re tied to all the disasters and all the malingering of the globe? . . . To work — on a blank check held by every creature born, by men whom you’ll never see, whose needs you’ll never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question — just to work and work and work — and leave it up to the [altruists] of the world to decide whose stomach will consume the effort, the dreams and the days of your life. And this is the moral law to accept? This — a moral ideal?'"

~ Ben Bayer in his 2023 explanatory post 'Effective Altruism’s Faith-Based Sacrifice for the Future'

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."

~ Ayn Rand from her chapter '"The Soul of a Collectivist,' in her 1963 book For the New Intellectual

"The 'AGI-is-near' community keeps committing the same logical fallacy over and over. Every time there’s an advance, I see the same error."

"Astra, a new model that OpenAI is testing internally, is amazing. No denying that:

"But at the same time, a whole raft of people, some fairly prominent, are running around making a deeply flawed argument about the implications. ...

"[One] tweet went so far as to claim that “the species just crossed a one-way threshold”; Elon Musk took it as evidence that we had reached The Singularity.

"Each is making essentially the same error.

"The fallacy has a name; it’s called the fallacy of composition. ...

"What’s the manifestation of the fallacy in the current case? Thinking that a system that is great at a certain kind of maths problem is great at all maths, great at science or even quite possibly great at everything. The 'AGI-is-near' community keeps committing the same logical fallacy over and over. Every time there’s an advance, I see the same error.

"Here’s how the fallacy works.

1. Someone pretends that all cognition is created equally. (Totally untrue.)
2. Whenever AI achieves success on some form of (fancy) cognition, they want you to believe that success on all forms of AI is imminent. 

"You don’t have to be a cognitive psychologist to realize that this inference just doesn’t follow."

~ Gary Marcus from his post 'OpenAI’s amazing — but vastly oversold — new model Astra'

Something for (almost) nothing?

"There is a very brief window in which mostly American hyperscale data centres could massively expand renewable energy generation in New Zealand, at their own expense, to the country’s much broader benefit.

"I worry, though, that the country will miss the opportunity. ...

"Right now, hyperscale datacentres are willing to pay a high premium for immediacy. Grid connections in the US can take years. Paying more for electricity via standalone generators off-grid makes sense when compute *now* is really valuable.

"If NZ could be the place delivering a rapid yes or no on new generation, with processes running a couple months rather than up-to-years, unbelievable amounts of money could drop here and build out generation capacity.

"That window will not be open forever. ...

"Hyperscalers are willing to pay a lot if they can get access to energy in a hurry, without large fishhooks along the way. ... Over the past two years, the scale of that opportunity has increased considerably. ... At the scale at which these investments are made internationally, the New Zealand Government’s current support for developing next-generation supercritical geothermal generation looks like spare change.

"The companies that would fund the energy and data centre buildout could very plausibly fund a hastening of current work on next-generation geothermal.

"If the work on supercritical geothermal pans out, the country would have near-limitless, low-cost electricity for generations to come. Some of it would power data centres; the rest of it could power everything else....

"All of it could be funded by the companies who *right now* are willing to pay a substantial premium for power that can be online quickly enough to matter in the current AI race. Whether or not they are right about the stakes in that race, more generation here would be valuable.

"The opportunity is real, but the largest part of it is time-limited."

~ Eric Cramptom from his op-ed 'The Americans are on the march! Will Wellington welcome them again?'

Chlöe cries crocodile tears

NEWS: 'Greens push for pause to big data centres consents, citing rising power prices.'

"Net Zero and the deployment of wind and solar generation put far more upward pressure on power prices than AI data centres do. The NZ public have never had a say on whether NZ should pursue Net Zero or not. How about we have a referendum on this?"

~ Zaphodd BB

"You'd think the Greens would want more data centres in NZ serving the world, given our electricity is 95% renewable and therefore better for the planet. Guess popularist derr brainery is more important than lowering carbon emissions eh..."

~ Lewis Holden

"The instinct is 'capitalists are doing something we don’t understand and didn’t think of, so it should stop until we think we understand it and can tie it up in rules so it looks like something we can tolerate grudgingly'.”

~ Liberty Scott

"Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says massive power-hungry AI data centres risk driving up electricity prices for the impoverished. Yet, as she knows, her push for Net Zero makes rising electricity prices a 100% certainty. She cries crocodile tears."

~ Peter Cresswell 

"Artificial intelligence may be the most transformative technology of our lifetimes — and a graveyard for the companies built to own it."

"Artificial intelligence may be the most transformative technology of our lifetimes — and a graveyard for the companies built to own it. 

"That isn't a contradiction. It's economics. The railways remade the world and ruined the people who financed them. Aviation shrank the planet and destroyed investor capital for a century. The pattern is old and the reasons are precise: when a productivity gain becomes available to everyone, it stops being worth anything to anyone who sells it. It becomes a gift to consumers. ...

"AI could deliver staggering welfare gains and barely register in GDP — [because] 'transformative' and 'profitable' are two very different words."

~ Pedro Santa Clara from his article 'The Vanishing Value '

JIM GRANT: 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

 

"Q:We heard a stat recently that if you combine SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic potential IPOs, inflation adjusted, these are so large, they're as big as all the IPOs in the nineties combined. What do you think about that?

"A: I think that the excitement surrounding the potentialities of artificial intelligence dwarf the excitement generated by the worldwide web and by the internet and by fibre-optic cables. And I think the dollars, of course, even when adjusted for inflation are larger today. And I think that the role of the Fed[eral Reserve Bank] is more intrusive, more problematical than it was then. And I think that a great deal is riding on the efficacy of the technology on which the world's hopes are hanging. And a great deal is also contingent on whether we collectively have correctly calculated (or miscalculated) the demand for tokens, for data centres, and for the rest of the capital that goes into artificial intelligence.

"So you know, you'd think that any technology with 'intelligence' in the very word would be up to date [on the] supply and demand [for it]. But I think there's reason to doubt that. I think there's a great deal of overbuilding, double ordering, just like there was in the late 1990s [with the Dot.Com bubble]. People thought, well, such is the high degree of organisation of all the information relevant to the marketplace that there will be nothing like the macro miscalculations of yesteryear. But it turns out that the human speculative spirit is a pretty wild thing and is not necessarily grounded by better technology.

"On the contrary, sometimes that can only incite it. So I think that [this] today is one of the greatest bubbles of all time. ...

"A guy from Uber, a COO of Uber, a CFO, was quoted the other day as saying, well, it's it's certainly a wondrous technology. We don't see it in our profit and loss. We can't really rationalise the expense just now. This is all kind of the jury's still out on this. It's wonderful -- it's not wonderful; it is hallucinating -- it is smarter than you ever dreamt ...

"What we do know is that the capital draw on AI is as great as it was on the [nineteenth-century] railroad [boom]. And the value proposition of railroads is very simple ...Now it is what? AI, augmenting human intelligence, planning it?

"We don't know. But the capital draw is immense, and there are dollars that are riding on the success of this and on the correct calculation of supply and demand for semiconductors, for data centres and the like. All this is terrifically important and also unknowable at the moment. So this makes it a time well worth living in."

~ Jim Grant interviewed on the Meb Faber Podcast on 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

RELATED: 

 

What Defines an Asset Bubble? What Got Us Out of the Depression? - ROBERT MURPHY SHOW

"... some notion of irrationality or mania intrinsic to it is ... a required ingredient [of an asset bubble]. Because if you don't have that, it's not a bubble. And and that's how I use the term. 

"So, for example, as opposed to a boom. ...  like if they got rid of the IRS ... and we're sure it's not coming back. I think that would lead to an economic boom, but that wouldn't be a bubble. Okay, there might be a bubble involved if it overshoots ... I wouldn't call that a bubble because a bubble's going to pop. Like that's the whole point. That's why they call it that ...

"I would say for it to be a bubble where it unmoored from the fundamentals, and people kind of know it is. ...[that] at some point, this is going to crash hard, but as long as you think you can get out, it can keep going. And so, to me that's clearly a bubble. And again, I think a necessary ingredient of that is there some element that people know this is unmoored from reality.  ... 

" I'm going to say I don't think loose money or government interference or whatever is a part of the definition. ... [T]here could be a bubble even in An-Capistan if there could just be a mania. That could happen, but I think it would be relatively modest, other things being equal, for the same amount of irrationality and willingness to take a gamble or whatever ...

[H]aving a Federal Reserve Bank thrown into the mix is only going to allow that irrationality to get multiplied... So, the biggest bubbles are necessarily going to go along with a central bank."

Let's just save time, shall we

 

Cartoon by Tom Fishburne

Choosing careers in an AI world

The daughter of a Microsoft AI tech bloke was choosing careers, so he ranked them. 

First problem: how would she even get started?

The most important thing to understand [he discovered] is also the most counterintuitive. AI is not demolishing careers from the top. It is removing the bottom rungs of the ladder first.
    Think about how almost every professional career develops. A “Big Four” trainee at the accountancy firms Deloitte, KPMG, EY or PwC reconciles spreadsheets and drafts standard documents. A junior solicitor reviews contracts. A graduate analyst builds financial models. These are the apprenticeship stages. They are how young professionals develop the judgment that eventually makes them irreplaceable.
    AI performs many of those tasks faster and more cheaply.

So that's a potential problem for the first in modern history: a whole generation graduating without a clear way to become experienced. An apprenticeship without the material on which to learn.

So is it time to give up?

Robots are going to take your job? No doubt. 

What if robots take all the jobs?  Hint: They can't.

Comparative advantage tells us that "new kinds of jobs will appear, as they always have when technology advances."

Ironically, most of the jobs people are afraid of losing -- such as programming jobs or truck-driving jobs -- were themselves created by technological advances....
    What new types of job will be created? I can no more project that than a man in 1956 could have projected that today there would be jobs in something called “social media”; or that money can be made by driving for Uber and by renting out living space through AirBnB.

One estimate is that alongside all the jobs displaced, around 170 million will be created. "The net picture is not collapse. It is transformation. And transformations reward the families who understand them early."

What's to understand, says the tech bloke, is the four things in which human beings do have a comparative advantage over any machine: Emotional intelligence. Creative vision. Physical dexterity. Ethical judgment. Based on that insight, the tech bloke ranked careers 

across nine categories including emotional intelligence, creative thinking and vulnerability to AI tools. A score closer to 100 per cent means the role depends heavily on things AI cannot replicate. A score closer to 35 per cent means much of the work is already within reach of automation.

Biggest winners: 

• healthcare 
• education
• skilled trades
• creative industries (for genuine creatives)
• tech, finance and law (for those at the level required to exercise judgement)
• diplomacy

Biggest losers are box-ticking jobs, "where tasks are most predictable and repeatable" -- oddly those where intelligence is least demanded:

• paralegal
• accountant
• data entry
• admin

And in this age of transformation, the biggest new career paths might just be something sitting "in the intersections between disciplines" -- something requiring "deep knowledge in a substantive field combined with genuine AI fluency."  A good metaphor for what that looks like, suggests author Derek Thompson, is how Alexander Dumas used to write his fiction, with a zillion research assistants and a writing programme looking like a small factory, "industrialising what he saw as the boring parts of his creativity—research structure, workflow—freeing his brain to do the thermonuclear storytelling." In other words, putting the "AI‑accelerated firehose of information" in the service of creativity, without losing that spark along the way.

And after all that, what did our AI-engineer's daughter decide to do in the end? "After many dinner table conversations, Thea said something that stopped me cold: 'Diplomacy cannot be outsourced to robots, Dad.' Instead of finance she chose to do international relations: learning how humans negotiate, build trust and resolve conflict. Every one of those skills is in the 90th percentile for AI resistance."

His final words of advice:

We are facing a particular moment in history. It is not one that will announce itself. There is no letter from school, no official notification that the world your child is preparing for has quietly become a different one.
    The families who will look back on this decade without regret are the ones who had the conversation early and trusted that a child who understands the world they are entering is far better equipped than one protected from it. Here are some first steps:
    If your child is 10 to 12, build the foundations: teach them to be curious by reading carefully and arguing a point. Curiosity is the hardest quality to automate.
    If your child is 13 to 15, have one conversation this week. Not a lecture. Ask what they think AI is doing to the world. Help them begin using AI tools, not to do homework for them, but to understand what these systems cannot do. That understanding is the first superpower.
    If your child is 16 to 18 and making real choices, look hard at where the four human superpowers appear in the careers they are considering. AI fluency is not optional any more. The wage premium for those who have it is visible and growing fast. “Wait and see” is not a neutral position. It is a decision. The data says it is the wrong one.

NB: The Economist magazine's analysis suggests AI may already be harming some graduates’ job prospects

We found that graduates in fields more exposed to AI have suffered markedly worse outcomes. Between 2022 and 2024 graduates in the least-exposed quintile—studying subjects such as education, philosophy and civil engineering—saw their average full-time employment rate fall by just 1.5 percentage points. Those in the most exposed quintile—including computer science, computer engineering and information science—suffered a 6.6 percentage-point drop (see chart 1 above). ... the trend continued for the class of 2025 (see chart 2 below).

RELATED:

"Which jobs can AI learn to do? We examine this for every occupation in the US economy."

What Jobs Can AI Learn? Measuring Exposure by Reinforcement Learning - CORNELL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PAPER, 4 May 2026 

"We investigate the potential implications of large language models (LLMs) on the U.S. labour market."

An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large LanguageModels - UNI OF PENNSYLVANIA, Aug 2023

 

"AI is creating a crisis of authenticity."

"Like it or not, generative AI is becoming increasingly embedded in the process of seeking information, sharing ideas, and producing images. ...

"But I’m not sold on the narrative that generative AI marks the democratisation of communication, a new creative renaissance, or even a particularly good thing for productivity properly defined. As Neil Postman put it almost thirty years ago: “The question, ‘What will a new technology do?’ is no more important than the question, ‘What will a new technology undo?’” And given that AI is frequently pitched as a replacement for any human speech mediated through a screen, it stands to undo quite a lot. What’s at stake is nothing less than authenticity itself. ... AI is creating a crisis of authenticity.

"Why should we care? Because authenticity is foundational to trust, the thread that ties human relationships together ...

"[R]egardless of [a message's] content, knowing that [the sender] did not engage in the deliberative process of writing makes the message ring hollow: No matter how well-intentioned the messenger, it is not ultimately their message. It’s the seed of a thought filtered through an algorithm developed by a tech company. And you wouldn’t be wrong to feel demoralised about that. ...

"Trust does not simply materialise out of thin air ... It requires trustworthiness. ... [W]e might say that in a high-trust space, a well-adjusted person would presume authenticity unless given good reason not to. Unfortunately, knowing AI use is widespread, rarely disclosed, and often occurs without regard to context, it’s much harder to assume authenticity in online communication. ...

"[J]ust because authenticity is difficult to quantify, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t value it at all."

~ Talia Barnes from her article 'You Can’t Trust Anything Anyone Writes'

What if robots take all the jobs? Hint: They can't.

"People have it all wrong" about AI and robots, says philosopher Harry Binswanger. 

Robots are going to take your job? No doubt.

What if robots take all the jobs?  Hint: They can't.

You may not keep this job. But your next one will pay so much more.  How can we know that?  Because, he argues, "We’re all going to get richer. The more that AI and robots can do for us, the richer we will get."

How so? Because AI and robots makes everyone’s labour far more productive -- and the result will be more goods produced, and hence "more wealth in the whole economy."

More wealth means more savings. More savings means more investment. And "more investment means more goods produced, which means a drop in the cost of living, which means a rise in the standard of living."

But how can he be so sure that if your job is replaced you'll be able to find a new one and "take part in this bonanza?"

The temptation is to answer by finding things robots won’t ever be able to do. “Robots will never be great chefs.” “Robots will never be venture capitalists.” “Robots will never write a first-rate symphony.”

That’s irrelevant. The point is that even if AI and robots could do everything better than any human being, that would enhance, not undermine, the value of human labour.

Why? The explanation comes from applying here an important truth discovered two centuries ago. In 1817, the great English economist David Ricardo identified “The Law of Comparative Advantage.”

Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage explains that no matter how poor you country may be at producing stuff, if both you and others specialise in what they each do best then, at the end of the day, we are all better off. It's best, for example, if Scotland trades whisky with France for claret and burgundy, rather than the other way around. ("It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family,"explained Adam Smith, "never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.")

Equally, the best way for New Zealanders to get cars and electronics is not to try making cars and electronics ourselves, but to process grass into milk powder, meat and wool so that New Zealanders can trade for those fancy devices. And when we do, we're all better off. ( If you're struggling with the concept, because it is remarkably subtle, PJ O 'Rourke's short explanation is one of the funniest on record, and undoubtedly the only one using Courtney Love to help explain things.)

Recognising that self-same principle of Comparative Advantage applies between people as it does to countries, economist Ludwig Von Mises expanded Ricardo's Law to make it "one of the most beautiful laws of the universe." Calling it the Law of Association he showed that specialisation allows even the less productive to benefit from working with the more productive -- or what his student George Reisman characterises as 'what the productive cleaner gains from the genius inventor.'

Even if the inventor can clean faster than a given cleaner, it still pays him to hire that cleaner because off-loading the cleaning work saves him time. He can then use that saved time in the area of his comparative advantage: inventing and selling more stuff.

Likewise, even if there comes a time when the robots can do everything better and faster than human beings, [even] more wealth will be produced if robots and humans each specialise in what they do best. Super-robots would produce more for us if we save them from having to do things that are less productive [for them].

(Of course we won’t be trading with robots: robots own nothing. Robots are owned by people, and those people will be paid for selling robots or for renting them out, just as you can rent power tools from Home Depot today.)

The Law of Comparative Advantage means humans will never run out of productive work to do. There will always be tasks that you don’t want to waste your rented or owned robots’ time in doing.

If you’ve got a robot building you a swimming pool, you don’t want him to stop to cook you dinner.

A chainsaw is a lot more efficient than a knife at cutting. But you don’t use a chainsaw to slice a loaf of bread. Particularly not if that chainsaw is being used by a robot to clear a place for a tennis court in your backyard.

So, rather than panic over “the rise of the machines,” let’s bear in mind the Law of Comparative Advantage ....

And let's recognise that "even with science-fictional super-robots, there will still be money changing hands and a price-system, just as now. You will still be paid for working in the field of your own comparative advantage.

New kinds of jobs will appear, as they always have when technology advances. Ironically, most of the jobs people are afraid of losing -- such as programming jobs or truck-driving jobs -- were themselves created by technological advances. There used to be an American saying: “Adapt or die.” Having the same kind of job as your father and grandfather did is not the American dream.

What new types of job will be created? I can no more project that than a man in 1956 could have projected that today there would be jobs in something called “social media”; or that money can be made by driving for Uber and by renting out living space through AirBnB.

The robots will make work much easier, more interesting, and much better paid.

Prepare to be enriched.

"So welcome to the lovely new economy where being human actually matters."

 

"This is the new secret strategy in the arts, and it’s built on the simplest thing you can imagine -- namely, existing as a human being. ...

"You see the same thing in media right now, where livestreaming is taking off. ...

"This return to human contact is happening everywhere, not just media and the arts. ... I see it myself in store after store. People will wait in line for flesh-and-blood clerks, instead of checking out faster at the do-it-yourself counter.

"But this isn’t happenstance -- it’s a sign of the times....

"As AI customer service becomes more pervasive, the luxury brands will survive by offering this human touch. ...

"Even tech companies [like Spotify, Apple Music, Bandcamp, and QoBuz] are figuring this out. ...

"Welcome to the new world of flesh-and-blood concierges and curators. That’s now the ultimate status symbol. ... In fact, the Silicon Valley elites forcing tech down our throats will only make us hate cold, sterile tech more than ever. And they won’t fix that problem by training AI to pretend to be human. That just adds insult to injury.

"This might even be the hot new career path -- readymade for curators, concierges, caregivers, conversationalists, and other people who love people. As the old pop song anticipated, they might just end up being the happiest people of them all.

"So welcome to the lovely new economy where being human actually matters. Go ahead, try it out. Be cool -- be a human. All the bots in botdom will never be able to take that away from you."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'The New Cool Thing: Being Human'

It's (still) all about the entrepreneur

"The 'AI will code for us' idea always skips over the 90% of the job that isn't coding.

"The real work is translating a vague business need into a precise, testable system. It's architecting something that won't fall over in 6 months. It's debugging a problem that only appears under a specific, bizarre set of conditions.

"Even with a perfect code generator, you still need someone who understands the problem deeply enough to tell it what to build. That part isn't getting automated."

~ Selim Erünkut commenting on the alleged obsolescence of coding [Emphasis mine.]

'The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide to AI'

"Start with what a reverse centaur is. In automation theory, a 'centaur' is a person who is assisted by a machine. You're a human head being carried around on a tireless robot body. Driving a car makes you a centaur, and so does using autocomplete.

"And obviously, a reverse centaur is a machine head on a human body, a person who is serving as a squishy meat appendage for an uncaring machine.

"Like an Amazon delivery driver, who sits in a cabin surrounded by AI cameras, that monitor the driver's eyes and take points off if the driver looks in a proscribed direction, and monitors the driver's mouth because singing isn't allowed on the job, and rats the driver out to the boss if they don't make quota.

"The driver is in that van because the van can't drive itself and can't get a parcel from the curb to your porch. The driver is a peripheral for a van, and the van drives the driver, at superhuman speed, demanding superhuman endurance. But the driver is human, so the van doesn't just use the driver. The van uses the driver up.

"Obviously, it's nice to be a centaur, and it's horrible to be a reverse centaur. There are lots of AI tools that are potentially very centaur-like, but my thesis is that these tools are created and funded for the express purpose of creating reverse-centaurs, which is something none of us want to be. ...

"Tech bosses want us to believe that there is only one way a technology can be used. ... The promise of AI – the promise AI companies make to investors – is that there will be AIs that can do your job ... Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We'd have to figure out what to do with all these technologically unemployed people.

"But AI can't do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn't mean it's going to save anyone money."

~ Cory Doctorow from his speech 'The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide to Criticising AI'

RELATED:

"You don't work less. You just work the same amount or even more."

~ Frank Landymore, 'Researchers Studied What Happens When Workplaces Seriously Embrace AI, and the Results May Make You Nervous'

Just how reliable are AIs? A historian's examination.

A historian and cultural commentator has been examining the reliability of AIs for historical research, with thoughts on the future of AI & us. She summarises what she's discovered below, including answers to such questions as:

• Which AIs got the highest scores overall?
• Which AIs got the highest scores by topic: scientific/technical, historical context, creativity, historical and legal?
• Unavoidable methodological issues with As
• Lessons on use of AIs for historical research
• Will AIs surpass and replace humans?

Dianne Durante has written several books, and maintains a historical blog. What she has used AIs for in the past, "and will still use," are for very specific questions:

how to trouble-shoot the document feeder on an HP 8000-series printer/scanner, where to find Gaussian blur on the Adobe InDesign menu, what stretches to use for a tight IT band, how much time to allow for a visit to the Kingsley Plantation, or what the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party is. An AI [she says] gives me answers much, much faster than I could get them by wading through Google search results. ... 

As a historian [however], I tend to need answers to much more obscure and complex questions. When I started using Grok for such questions last summer, it gave me egregiously incorrect answers. (See Part 1 of this series.)

So I set out to discover:

Are AIs reliable for providing historical facts? Can I trust them to accurately deliver all the relevant details on matters such as Chladni figures and the Proclamation of 1763? Should I assume I always need to do further research? Should I avoid AIs altogether, and spend my research time looking for other sources?

Are AIs useful for going beyond facts to analysis? For example, are they good at providing interpretation, overviews, and/or inductive conclusions, such as a list of the most significant artworks of the 18th century, or of the major events of the 1790s?

Are some AIs better than others, in general or on specific topics?

Head to her many earlier posts (starting back in xxx 2025) to see her detailed methodology and results.

So, how did they all do?  In summary, based on the average of the scores from all 7 of her questions:

Winner: Grok, with 70%. That’s better than the others, but if you were using Grok to write your answers on an exam consisting of my 7 questions, you’d barely scrape through with a C. [That caveat is important.]

Loser: Perplexity, with 38%.

Mid-range: ChatGPT (50%), Claude (48%), and Deepseek (56%).

There was no way to ask Britannica or Wikipedia several of the questions, so I didn’t give them an overall score.

For results by category, best for Scientific and Technical: Grok and Deepseek (100% and 95% respectively; average = 81%).

                                    ... best for Historical Context: Claude and Deepseek (60%, 58%; average 51%)

                                    ... best for Creativity: Perplexity (85%; average 76%)

                                    ... best for Historical and Legal: Grok (70%; average 52%)

Head to her post to see what specific questions she asked, and why. She has a few thoughts ("If you have limited time for research, don’t spend every minute of it with AIs"), and a reminder:

LLMs don’t think. All the AIs I looked at except Britannica’s Chatbot are large-language models, a.k.a. LLMs (see Part 3). An LLM is fed an enormous amount of data so it can generate human-like language by predicting what words will follow a particular word or phrase. An AI doesn’t receive your question, gather data, observe how it relates what it already knows, analyze it according to scientific or philosophical principles, and then consider the most effective way to present the information to you. The AI just predicts what might come next. That’s why it can slide seamlessly from truth to hallucination. An AI will repeat any errors in the data fed into it, be it from major media, random posts on the internet, or Wikipedia. An AI is the ultimate in second-handedness.

So do not assume accuracy in your answers, especially if it's a topic you don't know much about.

I like her conclusion:

Re AIs becoming indistinguishable from humans, and then making humans obsolete: if philosophers, biologists, psychologists, et al., can’t explain the mechanisms of free will, the procedure for induction, etc., then we cannot program a computer to do those things. Until and unless we can, AIs are not human-like in the ways that matter most, and cannot replace humans.

 Head to her post to read it all.

"Visual Elevator Music"

"Generative AI was trained on centuries of art and writing produced by humans. ... When generative AI was left to its own devices [however], its outputs landed on a set of generic images – what researchers called ‘visual elevator music’ ... pleasant and polished, yet devoid of any real meaning. ...

"The findings ... show that the default behaviour of these systems is to compress meaning toward what is most familiar, recognisable and easy to regenerate ... [resulting in a form of] cultural stagnation. ...

"It’s the slow flattening of creativity into polished sameness.

"AI is like a robot that learns by looking at lots of pictures, stories and songs. But it mostly remembers the ones it sees the most. So when it makes new things, it keeps making very similar stuff again and again.

"It’s why so much AI imagery looks the same.

"The algorithm just doesn’t know how to be weird and creative like humans do."

~ Ahmed Elgammal

"The AI era is one of mythology ... a dynasty of bullshit"

"We are in the dynasty of bullshit, a deceptive epoch where analysts and journalists who are ostensibly burdened with telling the truth feel the need to continue pushing the Gospel According To Jensen. When all of this collapses there must be a reckoning with how little effort was made to truly investigate the things that executives are saying on the television, in press releases, in earnings filings and even on social media, all because the market consensus demanded that The Number Must Continue Going Up.

"The AI era is one of mythology, where billions in GPUs are bought to create supply for imaginary demand, where software is sold based on things it cannot reliably do, where companies that burn billions of dollars are rewarded with glitzy headlines and not an ounce of cynicism, and where those that have pushed back against it have been treated with more skepticism and ire than those who would benefit the most from the propagation of propaganda and outright lies."

~ Ed Zitron from his post 'Mythbusters - AI Edition'

She makes a good point

 

Credit: LeslieJAndersonWriter

"An AI developer who trains on pirated or paywalled material can’t launder infringement through the word 'training' "

"Every few months, an AI company wins a procedural round in court or secures a sympathetic sound bite about 'transformative fair use.' Within hours, the headlines declare a new doctrine of spin: the right to train AI on copyrighted works. But let’s be clear — no such right exists and probably never will. That doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying. ...

"Fair use is a case-by-case defence to copyright infringement, not a standing permission slip. ... But AI companies are trying to convert that flexible doctrine into a brand new safe harbour: a default assumption that all training is fair use unless proven otherwise. ...

That’s exactly backward. The Copyright Office’s own report makes clear that the legality of training depends on how the data was acquired and what the model does with it. A developer who trains on pirated or paywalled material like Anthropic, Meta and probably all of them to one degree or another, can’t launder infringement through the word 'training.' "

~ The Trichordist from their post 'There Is No ‘Right to Train’: How AI Labs Are Trying to Manufacture a Safe Harbour for Theft'