Boosting productivity is a good idea. But we know that, since the 1970s, too much of the wealth that increased productivity brings has gone to the wealthiest. So, unless there's a plan to change that, I have to assume this will just make the very rich even richer.
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3180 readers
262 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We desperately need to improve productivity, but I’m not convinced that going all in on AI is a great bet. The tech is still in its infancy and currently very unreliable. Letting it loose in places like the NHS sounds like a recipe for disaster.
By all means open doors for research, but I don’t think this tech is ready for critical implementations yet. We’d get more reliable productivity gains by investing in upskilling workers instead.
You're right - boosting productivity in a way that lets the wealthy hoover up those gains is actually a glass half-full perspective! Also very possible it does nothing good at all (but also makes the rich richer).
In the short term, productivity can be improved by increasing uncompensated overtime and liberal use of the cosh. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or one that's viable in the longer term.
Fancy seeing you, out here on the left !
If this NHS data is properly anonymised, why not open it to everyone instead of just select "researchers and innovators"? (And how do I know that "researchers and innovators" just means Microsoft and Google?)
This just seems like a multi billion pound gift to US tech companies. We're still effectively in austerity and this is what they're spending money on.
(And how do I know that “researchers and innovators” just means Microsoft and Google?)
You can be sure that Palantir is on that list too.
One problem is medical / life insurance firms. If they use the data to identify correlations (real or spurious) then they might make insurance unaffordable or just flat out refuse it to certain sectors.
Not everyone is looking for medical solutions.
The UK has an open data standard for government data (thanks to Gordon Brown!). I could be wrong, but I think they'll use that (if not, they should!).
I remember when that came out, it was really ahead of its time! Whatever they did with Gov.UK in the beginning should be the model for how government does online services.
The story behind it is nuts, too. Apparently Tim Berners-Lee (he who invented the Web) was at some kind of government reception and Gordon Brown asked him something like, 'What could the government do to make better use of the web?'. Berners-Lee said, 'Well, you could make all government data publicly available,' expecting Brown to go, 'Ha-ha, no,' but he just went, 'Yep, great idea', and then did it.
Damn I miss Brown, it's sad to think what we could have had if he'd won that election.
I'm sure it will be microsoft. They have the NHS in their pocket already and extract hundreds of millions from it.
I think it would be good to try and boost the UK's tech sector, and use that sector to help the country in various ways. But I think everybody knows that AI is a bit of a tired meme at the moment.
This is partly because people, especially the people who make AI, conflate 'AI's and 'LLM's. The LLMs are basically dumb marketing gimmicks with, as far as I can tell, near-zero practical applications outside of getting people to talk about 'AI', however misleadingly. However, the actual AI tech has some potential applications. It's a question of whether the trade-offs are worth it (and, as I said elsewhere, who will actually benefit, assuming it has any benefits).
This was always my fear when I read the Labour manifesto. All the way through they identified the right problems that needed solving, but the solutions were all bandwagon jumping buzzword bingo. There was no understanding of the solution being suggested. You could just tell that they were repeating things out of some lobbyists mouth.
i thought the ninth doctor stopped this from happening
This is fucking insane, AI gets things wrong all the time and now you're giving it access to medical records?? I'm assuming so it can make judgements on what healthcare you would need, yeah that's not going to go terribly. We welcome in our skynet overlords with open arms.
There are some scenarios that could make sense: for example, AI making suggestions to experts. There are others that will leave a trail of carnage: for instance, AI being used to do any form of triage.
Jesus fuck. I hate everything I read anymore.