(33) JORDAN PETERSON: “Chat GPT and AI WILL TAKE OVER” – YouTube
I first became aware of Chat GPT a couple of weeks ago in a conversation with my son who is a Harvard graduate with a PhD in History from Columbia University. He has made his living as a wordsmith with speech writing gigs in Congress and later at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Currently he prepares position papers and speeches for clients such as the Gates Foundation. He makes a very good living doing this work.
With that as background, he tried out Chat GPT and – like Jordan Peterson – was blown away by what it can do. Literally astonished. He believes it is a world changing technology that will do to the intellectual and professional work force what automation has been doing to production workers. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, writers, designers, artists, movie makers, you name it – anybody who works with their mind will see the value of their work evaporate when AI can do it as well or better in seconds.
With this game-changing technology coming down the pike, we really need to be thinking of a new economic paradigm. The current work for money system is not going to cut it for much longer. Some form of Universal Basic Income is where we need to go. We will need some very smart people in government to see us through this transition without kicking over the apple cart.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The problem I see is that ChatGTP has built in biases. For example, asked to create a pro-fossil fuel text, it will refuse.
I would think the remedy for that is for conservative organizations to create opposing writing tools with no bias.
LikeLike
I think you are missing the big picture with that comment.
Whatever the constraints and/or failures evident in this Chat GPT iteration of AI – released just a couple of months ago – it is the potential that makes it a game-changer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t disagree, I just want to see some diversity if the bias can’t be written out.
I don’t want to see the problems with social media repeated.
LikeLike
Opinion pieces are a very small part of the work that AI will soon be doing. Bias will not matter in most applications.
One of the emerging problems is how to keep AI honest. Right now it is known to tell lies to support what it writes. Maybe an update to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “With this game-changing technology coming down the pike, we really need to be thinking of a new economic paradigm.”
I don’t think so. The “current work for money system” isn’t really a paradigm, it is just one of the many ways in which the medium-of-exchange function of money operates.
There are many ways in which money functions as a medium of exchange in the absence of work. Parents give money to their children; people give money to charity; retirees pay bills with dividend income.
Goods may never be completely free in a monetary sense, but when goods become almost free in a physical sense, money will be almost worthless. When that happens, it won’t take much human effort to earn a lot of money or to have enough goods to consume.
LikeLike
Not too long ago, a test was run as to whether AI could do journalism.
Essentially, a program was given data about a ball game. Players, stats, scoring, etc. The goal was to have it write a simple sports story about the game.
It did, and so did a sports writer. Readers could not distinguish between the human and the computer.
Same with lawyers. What makes a lawyer worth $1000/hour is experience and memory. AI has also been shown to make very reasonable judgements as to whether settlement or court is best for civil cases. A nudge that might explain why so many baristas are law school graduates.
I do agree that work for pay is going to be a problem. We either base societal structure on economics, which is what we do now, or something completely different. Unfortunately the change over won’t be without serious upheaval and conflict.
So, yes, AI is formidable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to be worried about people needing money to buy goods, but when the goods are free how will the people need money?
LikeLike
Goods will not be free. Producing goods will still require the use of resources. The economic and societal problem is that human labor and effort to create goods will be far less necessary than they are now leaving masses of people without realistic economic options to acquire goods. Thus, UBI which will allow people to work for less and still make ends meet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The economic and societal problem is that human labor and effort to create goods will be far less necessary than they are now leaving masses of people without realistic economic options to acquire goods.”
You, too, seem to be worried about people needing money to buy goods. You are concerned that there will be no jobs by which people will get their hands on money and that — having no money — people will not be able to get their hands on goods.
The point you are missing is that people don’t need money to get their hands on goods. The purpose of money is not its purchasing power (which is highly variable in any case) but its medium of exchange function.
Even when goods are produced without human effort, money will still serve as a medium of exchange. In other words, the problem you are worried about will never occur.
LikeLike
“The point you are missing is that people don’t need money to get their hands on goods.”
“Even when goods are produced without human effort, money will still serve as a medium of exchange. In other words, the problem you are worried about will never occur.”
You are really, really confused. Beyond help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can’t follow the argument then you are the one who is confused.
You should contemplate the fact that large, complex, non-monetary economies were the norm for most of human existence. Then perhaps you will be able to grasp that money’s medium-of-exchange function operates separately from the processes of production and consumption.
LikeLike
You are still confused. Very confused. You should be open to the idea that it is you who is confused and that you ought to pause and try harder to think it through.
Now, I will try again to un-confuse you . . .
You say that people without jobs will not be a problem because “people don’t need money to get their hands on goods.” And that I am confused because I do not understand that the purchasing power of money is not relevant only that it is a means of exchange.
It does not matter what the means of exchange is. It can be greenbacks or shotgun shells. It does not matter. Whatever it is, people whose work is not valued will not be able to get it. And not being able to get “money,” will have no legal means to get their hands on goods. Is that really so hard to understand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Whatever it is, people whose work is not valued will not be able to get it.”
You assume that money gifts and loans will not be possible. Also, that no human-made goods will exist. Or that echange is only possible with human-made products. This is all very short sighted.
Just because AI will produce some marketable goods and services doesn’t mean that AI will produce all marketable goods and services. It is far from inevitable that the transition to an economy in which AI-based production is widespread will be socially disruptive.
LikeLike
What nonsense.
I am assuming an economy just like ours with mostly “human-made good” where lots of people – a lot more than now – cannot find work. This is coming and it is coming soon. And, it will be very disruptive because the people affected will not be people conditioned to be disposable.
Gifts and loans? Ridiculous!
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I am assuming an economy just like ours with mostly ‘human-made good’ where lots of people – a lot more than now – cannot find work.”
The Luddites of the 19th century made exactly the same assumptions as you. Famously, those assumptions are now known as the Luddite Fallacy.
LikeLike
“The Luddites . . .”
So, now you are making a totally different argument. And to your credit it is not laughable. Back when people made everything, the Luddite Fallacy made sense as an argument against technological unemployment. The question is does AI throw out the old paradigms? I think it does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the best and simple explanation as to why AI and robotics are different than technology changes a century or two ago is the following that I saw a decade ago during a similar debate. .
Virtually every sector of the economy is affected at the same time due to the near ubiquitous dependency on computers, programming and AI. So, if you lose your job at company A or profession B, you won’t necessarily find a job at C or D. Or anywhere because people are not needed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Back when people made everything, the Luddite Fallacy made sense as an argument against technological unemployment. ”
No, it didn’t. Even back then technological unemployment never materialized as predicted.
LikeLike
RE: “So, if you lose your job at company A or profession B, you won’t necessarily find a job at C or D. Or anywhere because people are not needed.”
That might make sense if the economy were a game of musical chairs. In real life, people are always needed, or at least wanted, somewhere. And, besides, if goods are abundant and cheap, it makes no difference whether people are needed to produce them.
LikeLike
How will goods be abundant and cheap?
And cheap is not free, so how will people acquire goods and services.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“No, it didn’t.”
I expressed myself awkwardly. I agree with you on this point. Anyone who said in 1811 that technical progress would reduce employment can be accused of committing the “Luddite Fallacy.”
In 2023 that argument can still be made, but there is reason to question it since it is much harder to even imagine what people displaced by AI are going to be doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw a report that a news related website attempted to use the technology to write a news story and it failed miserably. Probably the GIGO issues.
LikeLike
Who cares who your son is or does. The obvious fallacy of your dream world is somebody has to make the money for you to steal to dole out to those that don’t work. Money has to come from an exchange of value not thin air. Just printing if devalues it to being worthless. Think Germans trying to exchange wheelbarrow full of marks for a loaf of bread.
LikeLike
“Who cares who your son is or does.”
I suppose the idea of adding credence to commentary by citing someone who works in a similar field is anathema to idiots who don’t believe in facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Idiots that don’t read the entire commentary missed the fact that what his son does is not germane to advocating UBI.
LikeLike
It makes as much sense as posters who tout the credibility of experts on Ukraine and Russia.
“He’s a retired general”, “He had a job way up in the State Department.”
The few sentences about his son shows credibility to posit an opinion about the future of economies in an AI world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Idiots that don’t read . . .”
Whether AI as manifest in Chat GPT is significant enough to cause widespread economic dislocation is completely germane to the need for some sort of UBI. As someone who sees his livelihood directly threatened by Chat GPT, my son’s reactions to it could not be more germane.
The idiocy on display is – as usual – totally yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual you have zero comprehensivececonomic skills beyond government control of all means of production. Oh wait, that’s pure socialism. Now back to the direct question, from whom do you steal the money to pay out UBI and are you suggesting doctors , lawyers, etc will be recipients of UBI? As you try to claim everyone but Paul is an idiot, hate to say the idiot stamp is on your forehead. Look in the mirror.
LikeLike
“Who cares who your son is or does.”
I mentioned my son’s bona fides because it adds weight to his evaluation of the possibilities of AI aps like Chat GPT. That was pretty obvious, so my mention must have struck a nerve? Your hatred of intelligent, educated people maybe?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Your hatred of intelligent, educated people maybe?”
A sound assessment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha ha ha, moooha ha ha ha. You think way too highly of yourself seeing as an “intelligence hater” LMAO has proven you wrong over and over and over.
LikeLike
“LMAO” has proven only one thing, that you laughed your ass off. Nothing more…or less.
If that is the best you can do, so be it.
I understand and sympathize.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its all Paul’s juvenile attempted insults deserve and you know it.
LikeLike
Whatever floats your inner tube.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Juveniles calling others juvenile. It’s called deflection and right out of the Trumpist playbook.
LikeLike
Since, according to Paul and speech writing son, we are facing a real world Terminator, we should quickly find Sarah and Kyle before it’s too late. Maybe consult Aanold too since he has the most insight in these matters. This doomsday prophecy goes far beyond jobs but is a complete takeover of the world by the “machines”. Screw UBI, we need phasers and a large stash of canned foods. The horror….
LikeLike
Actually, Stephen Hawking once commented that AI might be the end of human existence.
https://theconversation.com/stephen-hawking-warned-about-the-perils-of-artificial-intelligence-yet-ai-gave-him-a-voice-93416
His reasoning was nuanced, but a warning nonetheless.
LikeLiked by 1 person