This article is sound in the way that it raises the perceived problems which could occur with wide use of AI. However, the author writes within the reasoning constraints of present day times and does not factor in the innate ability of mankind to adapt to new methods and craft them towards previously unrecognised goals. The tenor of Tania's article is couched strongly in the origin of the English 19th weavers who formed the Luddites to subvert the introduction and use of automated looms. Naturally, they had no possibility of forecasting the beneficial outcome of this new mechanical intelligence - this is perfectly normal for most of mankind. Yet there are brilliant thinkers who perhaps glimpse possible adaptions of emergent technology. Over a little more than a century, we have seen the operation of the motor car shift from a replacement of the horse, with the legal need to be preceded by a walking person bearing a red warning flag, to the present day when autonomous GPS controlled driverless card are a fact of existence. Don't overlook mankind's ability to devise and adapt changes to what is perceived as threatening technology and put it to uses which as yet are unforseen.

I once upon a time had a school friend who's father had a small workshop in his back yard, where for endlessly, he manufactured wooden pegs.
Thane came plastic pegs. Wherefore art thou now O old wooden peg maker?

JohnM. Suggest you try talking from a little higher up next time. What I'm suggesting is very much the opposite of feudalism. Co-ops were largely the only PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, FREE MARKET, BUSINESS MODEL TO SURVIVE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, MOSTLY INTACT! If you want to see this model demonstrated in real time? Take a trip to Melany in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. Simply put, co-ops outperform every other business model hands down and are invariably places completely free of union interference. Moreover, the money earned by such co-operative, free-market, private enterprise, stays far longer in the local economy! Thereby making the usual economic flow-on factors do as much as 7-8 times more (economic growth) work and wealth creation, for more than just a few. The key to making this work is to quarantine both energy, capital and the real estate market from the ravages of debt-laden foreign speculation! Which by the way, all it took to destroy the Celtic Tiger/Irish economic miracle! Alan B.

Alan B, you are quite right, that comment was beneath me. Please accept my apologies for the sarcasm.

The problem as I see it with your vision of the future is not the prevalance of co-ops, but that you seem to think it a desirable thing that the poor of Australia maintain the retirement estates of the rich of the world.

As for those of us who, by dint of talent or good fortune, do not have to work the states of the world's retired aristocracy being employed in techno-utopian co-ops, I am ambivalent. It depends entirely on what they are producing and the net benefit to mankind and the planet at large. So far the record of humans and the uses to which they put technology has been far from good.

Production of good and services is not, despite the economic orthodoxy, necessarily a good thing in and of itself. To be a good thing it must be part of a socially and environmentally sound endeavour. Natural disasters and medical mistakes add to GDP just like construction or manufacturing. Will these techno-collectives be producing war machines, by any chance? Or machines for environmental remediation? Or more machines to put even more people out of their jobs so that they have to labour in the ever-growing estate-cities?

Even after more in-depth consideration, the retirement estate labour element of your utopia still looks distinctly feudal to me, and the techno-collective elements seems morally socially, ethically and environmentally indifferent.

In short, it is not a pleasant vision of an Australian future.

On the other hand, quarantining Australia from the ravages of debt-laden foreign investment is an admirable concept. The Whitlam Government had the same idea in the early 70s and it didn't turn out all that well for them. Foreign capital has a way of getting what it wants.

I enjoy your posts, Alan. Please accept my comments as critical rejoinders in the greater cause of developing sensible policy.

Tania de Jong,

You (like many others) fail to understand that it's quite easy for governments to enable enough jobs to be created for everyone. All they have to do is set fiscal and monetary policy to ensure there's enough money going into the economy.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,

What makes you think we don't have the productivity gains this was supposed to create?
_________________________________________________________________________________

Diver,

I don't think you understand the meaning of "wherefore".