plinky

Jeremy scahill from the top rope

Interesting interview, feels like small towns need either early 20th century spd-like structures, or liberation theology

(criticism of jordan elections is, of course, absent)

linky

A week and a half ago, Goldman Sachs put out a 31-page-report (titled "Gen AI: Too Much Spend, Too Little Benefit?”) that includes some of the most damning literature on generative AI I've ever seen.

The report includes an interview with economist Daron Acemoglu of MIT (page 4), an Institute Professor who published a paper back in May called "The Simple Macroeconomics of AI" that argued that "the upside to US productivity and, consequently, GDP growth from generative AI will likely prove much more limited than many forecasters expect." A month has only made Acemoglu more pessimistic, declaring that "truly transformative changes won't happen quickly and few – if any – will likely occur within the next 10 years," and that generative AI's ability to affect global productivity is low because "many of the tasks that humans currently perform...are multi-faceted and require real-world interaction, which AI won't be able to materially improve anytime soon."

What makes this interview – and really, this paper — so remarkable is how thoroughly and aggressively it attacks every bit of marketing collateral the AI movement has. Acemoglu specifically questions the belief that AI models will simply get more powerful as we throw more data and GPU capacity at them, and specifically ask a question: what does it mean to "double AI's capabilities"? How does that actually make something like, say, a customer service rep better?

While Acemoglu has some positive things to say — for example, that AI models could be trained to help scientists conceive of and test new materials (which happened last year) — his general verdict is quite harsh: that using generative AI and "too much automation too soon could create bottlenecks and other problems for firms that no longer have the flexibility and trouble-shooting capabilities that human capital provides." In essence, replacing humans with AI might break everything if you're one of those bosses that doesn't actually know what the fuck it is they're talking about.

every commentator (both pro and ai-sceptic) seems to not be aware of science in protein designs and docking, where ml is actually doing fantastic things, never before done level of stuff, and can conceivably do drug design much faster (the issue there is, once its done, you don't need to reinvent protein chain making a drug/compound for pennies). For drug design revenues however - the cost of design pales in comparison to clinical trials (10-100 mlns compared to 1-3 billions)

Covello believes that the combined expenditure of all parts of the generative AI boom — data centers, utilities and applications — will cost a trillion dollars in the next several years alone, and asks one very simple question: "what trillion dollar problem will AI solve?" He notes that "replacing low-wage jobs with tremendously costly technology is basically the polar opposite of the prior technology transitions [he's] witnessed in the last thirty years."

In plain English: generative AI isn't making any money for anybody because it doesn't actually make companies that use it any extra money. Efficiency is useful, but it is not company-defining. He also adds that hyperscalers like Google and Microsoft will "also garner incremental revenue" from AI — not the huge returns they’re perhaps counting on, given their vast AI-related expenditure over the past two years.

According to the latest optimistic estimates of UK economic growth, that means Reeves has just about £10bn to spare on improving public services, unless Labour breaks its promise not to raise taxes or to borrow more. That means the vicious austerity that the NHS, local governments and schools and universities have experienced over the last decade or more will continue – at least until the miracle of faster growth appears. Total health spending annual growth of 0.8% would result in the next four years being the tightest in NHS history under the Labour pledges – tighter even than the former Tory coalition government’s “austerity” period, which saw funding grow by just 1.4% real terms a year between 2010/11 and 2014/15.

What about housing? The new Labour government says it will aim to build 300,000 new homes a year through the next five years.

No, the whole housing plan will depend on private developers building homes for sale with minimal monitoring for ‘affordable homes’. The Labour leaders are more concerned with removing planning regulations in local areas so that private developers can build where and how they want. And who are these developers? As has been pointed out, they are likes of BlackRock, the American investment company, which already owns 260,000 British homes on which it is making some eyewatering fees, around £1.4bn last year.

Then there are the energy and water utilities. The scandal of these privatized utilities is is for all to see, where shareholders have got billions in dividends, while debt and prices rise, The total collapse in the water infrastructure has reached the point where the UK’s water supply, rivers and beaches are no longer safe to drink or touch. And yet, Labour has no plan to bring these utilities back into public ownership. Instead, it wants ‘better regulation’. Apparently, it wants less regulation in housing and more regulation in utilities and the postal service.

Securonomics however, does mean more investment in one key sector: defence. The new Labour government has pledged to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in this parliament in order to ‘secure’ the country, supposedly from the threat of invasion by Russia or China – but in reality to meet the demands of the US and NATO. UK defence spending is already 2.3% of GDP, but more is to be spent while the NHS remains in austerity mode.

Securonomics is really a return yet again to the idea of ‘public-private partnership’. What that means is that the government will borrow or tax a bit more to invest a bit more, mainly to encourage and subsidise the capitalist sector to invest more and let them take the lion’s share of any extra revenues produced. Public sector investment will mainly be used to help the capitalist sector invest, not to replace it.

two day old article, but its interesting how melenchon (in the msm) is never presented as second choice

Macron has, for the most part, framed the Rassemblement National as the only alternative political force to himself, and this strategy has directly or indirectly propelled it into French political life like never before. It’s Macron who put this party on a pedestal — he is primarily responsible for this.

And he’s doing this because, in reality, he’s guided by a logic of political chaos and the deconstruction of French political life. Macron isn’t a “centrist.” He has always had an authoritarian and antidemocratic inclination. His intention is to have a neo-Bonapartist democracy, not at all a centrist strategy of coalitions in the context of parliamentary life.

macron the post-modernist :deleuze-shining:

someone should stop ridley

linky

linky to author tweet

good for them (except electing hollande, jesus christ)