Because it's not only going to be the low paying jobs we have to worry about.
If too many people did what you describe, then they deplete their own pool of customers (because they will not be working), so what will tend to happen is that a balance will be found between how many employees companies have to have and how much companies can automate while still satisfying the expectations of the people making the hiring decisions.
What you are describing would likely only be a problem if or when we achieve the singularity, where machines are choosing to do their own thing and no longer working as tools for human beings, and are themselves the ones that make the hiring or firing decisions.
It's not a matter of if AI is as efficient as a human being, it's a matter of when it surpasses human efficiency.
That was my point.... because automation can make such a tremendous difference in productivity, additional administrative and support positions end up needing to get created to keep up with the demand. The result is that the company makes more money because of the increase in efficiency, and more people are employed at higher paying positions, as the lowest paid ones get automated.
If AI were only as efficient as human beings, perhaps. This is unlikely, however, and increases in productivity have often been accompanied by corresponding increases in demand, necessitating that more people be hired to do administrative or supporting work, even while deploying as much labor as necessary for the job being replaced to meet increases in demand.
There is always a work around (and what a great defence in court for drunk drivers,"The car started so I thought I wasn't drunk"). You would have to imagine that the car will work if there is a passenger that is drunk. Otherwise, how exactly am I supposed to responsibly catch a taxi?
Or slightly related to that, how can I be a designated driver for a group of friends that are drinking too much if I can't start my car when they are in it?
People work best when they are healthy, and there is proven correlation between stress and negative health effects, so the conclusion is that all other things being equal, a happier person will be more productive than a person that is unhappy. The reason that this would not have been reported in the study despite probably being measurable is that because they were not looking for it, they would not have asked the people who were actually most objectively qualified to answer it - the coworkers and employers of the subjects of the study... one will not, generally speaking, be capable of perceiving any measurable changes in their psychological health and its impacts on productivity unless they were explicitly looking for it, which clearly nobody thought to do.
You can defeat a breathalyzer by hyperventilating first, and of course if you are wearing gloves then it can't detect that you are drunk by touch either.
Of course, hyperventilation does not make a person sober... it merely changes the amount of alcohol that will be detected in their breath alone... obviously a blood sample will still indicate the real blood alcohol level.
The report actually said nothing resulted either way.
No, the report said that there was no increase or decrease in employment.
But the report *also* said that recipients felt more secure, and while that might not have been the point of UBI, that doesn't mean that's not going to have a societal positive benefit. In particular, when everything else is equal, a happier person will generally be more productive at their job than someone who is always stressed out. I would expect that the report doesn't mention it because it wasn't something they were specifically looking for, and a happier person isn't going to necessarily *notice* that they are actually more productive at work with the improvement of their mood or disposition, so the recipients weren't really in a position to report that like they could about how they felt about life in general. If they actually wanted to measure any changes in productivity, they'd have to also ask the employers of the recipients who were employed if there were any changes, but there is no indication that this study did that.
but there was no measurable impact based upon that
Which doesn't mean that there wasn't a benefit they didn't measure.
All other things being equal, a happier person *WILL* be more productive than someone who is stressed out. The fact that there was no decrease in employment during this trial is almost certain evidence that if they had been looking for more indirect benefits they would have found it.
Now perhaps that's not worth the expense, and it's fair to argue that.... but it's still not nothing.
It's not mentioned anywhere; if there was an increase in productivity, wouldn't it be mentioned
Indirectly, it was... it specifically mentioned that there was no decrease in employment. There was no increase either, but that means that insomuch as employment is concerned there was no measurable difference. It *did* specifically mention that the recipients were happier and less stressed, the latter point being a major incentive for UBI.
And basic human psychology will tell you that a happier person will generally be more productive at their job than a similarly employed individual that is stressed out or dissatisfied with aspects of their life.
How are the benefits dubious? The study concluded that UBI did *NOT* discourage people from working.
The fact that it did not appear to encourage people to work any more than they already did is irrelevant... while there is otherwise a very well known correlation between a person's sense of well being and satisfaction with their life and work with their productivity... so given that there was no decrease in employment, I'd say that the benefits are obvious, not dubious.
Perhaps not, but why is that a problem if it is a convenient side effect? Particularly given the positive impact that feeling more secure and happy about life in general is liable to end up having on their productivity?
Why? Seriously... if they are being paid fairly for the work that they are doing, what difference should it make that money is being given to others for doing less? It does not devalue the work they do in any way, and I would suggest that any unhappiness one might feel about it would be more likely tied to disatisfaction in their current position unless they are predisposed to displaying an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
Which I suppose I can't dismiss the possibility of being common, but honestly, if people are going to act like immature little pricks when they are being objectively fairly treated already just because someone who might be less fortunate is getting something for less work than they had to do, I think that's their own problem.
Where did you read that it had no effect on productivity? It makes sense simply from a psychological perspective that if a person is happier, they are generally going to be more productive than someone who is similarly employed, but is always stressed about finances.
Also, fantasy role playing games, television, rock and roll, jazz, reading books....
The cry to limit youth access to things or outright ban them entirely because of some perceived "moral" damage to society has been going on for a lot longer than you or I have been alive.
It's funny you should mention drivethrurpg, because that is actually the bulk of my own personal experience with ebooks, and that distribution method is what I was referring to.
Because one-sidedly taking something back that you sold is stealing
It's not one-sided... they are refunding the purchase.
But honestly, I have no sympathy.... as I said, using digital formats that enable a publisher to revoke your permissions to access content you paid for is just setting things up for that exact situation to happen someday, and all you can do is hope that it won't happen before you won't miss the content.
Why should it? It's manifestly obvious that they can take it away with any digital format that permits it.
Don't want it to happen? Don't use that digital format in the first place... otherwise, it's just a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off in your lifetime.
If a company is doing it, then it's their decision, by definition. Legality is a matter for a judge to determine.
As I said.. if you think you can convince a judge that they owe you more compensation than your money back, you're welcome to try.
Personally, I do not believe that any increase in the value of an electronic book, if any, is likely to exceed the value of the use that a person got out of using the book before it was removed from their library.
It's still a dick move by MS, but personally, I'd avoid using digital formats where the publisher has this kind of ability in the first place. As it happens, such formats exist today, and probably aren't going anywhere, And to the matter of this particular case, I wouldn't be overly inclined to complain about them not having the right to take something away when I haven't gone to any extra effort to ensure that they can't..
If they actually understood it well, then they would have been able to anticipate the backlash in the first place, so no... they were obviously quite clueless. There are no words for this but incompetence, plain and simple.
As I said, houses climb in value... you could reasonably expect to be compensated for the current *value* of the home. On the matter at hand, if you can make a case for how a book has increased in value since it was purchased, and in particular, sufficiently enough that the use you had gotten from it in the interim would not measure up to that increase (which in general would otherwise just keep pace with regular inflation), then you'd have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
If too many people did what you describe, then they deplete their own pool of customers (because they will not be working), so what will tend to happen is that a balance will be found between how many employees companies have to have and how much companies can automate while still satisfying the expectations of the people making the hiring decisions.
What you are describing would likely only be a problem if or when we achieve the singularity, where machines are choosing to do their own thing and no longer working as tools for human beings, and are themselves the ones that make the hiring or firing decisions.
That was my point.... because automation can make such a tremendous difference in productivity, additional administrative and support positions end up needing to get created to keep up with the demand. The result is that the company makes more money because of the increase in efficiency, and more people are employed at higher paying positions, as the lowest paid ones get automated.
How is that a bad thing?
If AI were only as efficient as human beings, perhaps. This is unlikely, however, and increases in productivity have often been accompanied by corresponding increases in demand, necessitating that more people be hired to do administrative or supporting work, even while deploying as much labor as necessary for the job being replaced to meet increases in demand.
Or slightly related to that, how can I be a designated driver for a group of friends that are drinking too much if I can't start my car when they are in it?
People work best when they are healthy, and there is proven correlation between stress and negative health effects, so the conclusion is that all other things being equal, a happier person will be more productive than a person that is unhappy. The reason that this would not have been reported in the study despite probably being measurable is that because they were not looking for it, they would not have asked the people who were actually most objectively qualified to answer it - the coworkers and employers of the subjects of the study... one will not, generally speaking, be capable of perceiving any measurable changes in their psychological health and its impacts on productivity unless they were explicitly looking for it, which clearly nobody thought to do.
You can defeat a breathalyzer by hyperventilating first, and of course if you are wearing gloves then it can't detect that you are drunk by touch either.
Of course, hyperventilation does not make a person sober... it merely changes the amount of alcohol that will be detected in their breath alone... obviously a blood sample will still indicate the real blood alcohol level.
No, the report said that there was no increase or decrease in employment.
But the report *also* said that recipients felt more secure, and while that might not have been the point of UBI, that doesn't mean that's not going to have a societal positive benefit. In particular, when everything else is equal, a happier person will generally be more productive at their job than someone who is always stressed out. I would expect that the report doesn't mention it because it wasn't something they were specifically looking for, and a happier person isn't going to necessarily *notice* that they are actually more productive at work with the improvement of their mood or disposition, so the recipients weren't really in a position to report that like they could about how they felt about life in general. If they actually wanted to measure any changes in productivity, they'd have to also ask the employers of the recipients who were employed if there were any changes, but there is no indication that this study did that.
Not true.
That *IS* something.
Which doesn't mean that there wasn't a benefit they didn't measure.
All other things being equal, a happier person *WILL* be more productive than someone who is stressed out. The fact that there was no decrease in employment during this trial is almost certain evidence that if they had been looking for more indirect benefits they would have found it.
Now perhaps that's not worth the expense, and it's fair to argue that.... but it's still not nothing.
Indirectly, it was... it specifically mentioned that there was no decrease in employment. There was no increase either, but that means that insomuch as employment is concerned there was no measurable difference. It *did* specifically mention that the recipients were happier and less stressed, the latter point being a major incentive for UBI.
And basic human psychology will tell you that a happier person will generally be more productive at their job than a similarly employed individual that is stressed out or dissatisfied with aspects of their life.
How are the benefits dubious? The study concluded that UBI did *NOT* discourage people from working.
The fact that it did not appear to encourage people to work any more than they already did is irrelevant... while there is otherwise a very well known correlation between a person's sense of well being and satisfaction with their life and work with their productivity... so given that there was no decrease in employment, I'd say that the benefits are obvious, not dubious.
Indirect, perhaps... but definitely very obvious.
Perhaps not, but why is that a problem if it is a convenient side effect? Particularly given the positive impact that feeling more secure and happy about life in general is liable to end up having on their productivity?
Why? Seriously... if they are being paid fairly for the work that they are doing, what difference should it make that money is being given to others for doing less? It does not devalue the work they do in any way, and I would suggest that any unhappiness one might feel about it would be more likely tied to disatisfaction in their current position unless they are predisposed to displaying an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
Which I suppose I can't dismiss the possibility of being common, but honestly, if people are going to act like immature little pricks when they are being objectively fairly treated already just because someone who might be less fortunate is getting something for less work than they had to do, I think that's their own problem.
Where did you read that it had no effect on productivity? It makes sense simply from a psychological perspective that if a person is happier, they are generally going to be more productive than someone who is similarly employed, but is always stressed about finances.
Also, fantasy role playing games, television, rock and roll, jazz, reading books....
The cry to limit youth access to things or outright ban them entirely because of some perceived "moral" damage to society has been going on for a lot longer than you or I have been alive.
It's funny you should mention drivethrurpg, because that is actually the bulk of my own personal experience with ebooks, and that distribution method is what I was referring to.
It's not one-sided... they are refunding the purchase.
But honestly, I have no sympathy.... as I said, using digital formats that enable a publisher to revoke your permissions to access content you paid for is just setting things up for that exact situation to happen someday, and all you can do is hope that it won't happen before you won't miss the content.
Why should it? It's manifestly obvious that they can take it away with any digital format that permits it.
Don't want it to happen? Don't use that digital format in the first place... otherwise, it's just a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off in your lifetime.
Isn't a digital watermark a form of DRM?
If a company is doing it, then it's their decision, by definition. Legality is a matter for a judge to determine.
As I said.. if you think you can convince a judge that they owe you more compensation than your money back, you're welcome to try.
Personally, I do not believe that any increase in the value of an electronic book, if any, is likely to exceed the value of the use that a person got out of using the book before it was removed from their library.
It's still a dick move by MS, but personally, I'd avoid using digital formats where the publisher has this kind of ability in the first place. As it happens, such formats exist today, and probably aren't going anywhere, And to the matter of this particular case, I wouldn't be overly inclined to complain about them not having the right to take something away when I haven't gone to any extra effort to ensure that they can't..
Since they are actually doing it, I think you are mistaken about that.
But good luck convincing a judge of your view if you really want to sue them even after you got your money back.
If they actually understood it well, then they would have been able to anticipate the backlash in the first place, so no... they were obviously quite clueless. There are no words for this but incompetence, plain and simple.
As I said, houses climb in value... you could reasonably expect to be compensated for the current *value* of the home. On the matter at hand, if you can make a case for how a book has increased in value since it was purchased, and in particular, sufficiently enough that the use you had gotten from it in the interim would not measure up to that increase (which in general would otherwise just keep pace with regular inflation), then you'd have a point.
Not exactly the same thing. Real estate typically climbs in value.
This.... exactly.
The story is afterhype over something that *could* have been bad if Facebook had not realized that they needed to change course.
And yeah... you can't give Facebook any credit for even realizing this because it's not like they figured it out on their own.
Can you give any plausible reason why a desktop or mobile OS would erase all files utilizing a common format like PDF?