#AI#GenerativeAI#Energy#Automation#WageSlavery#Inequality: "AI is everywhere; AI is here. The story around AI implies that it is here because it’s making things efficient: AI is better at detecting cancerous tumours in some scan images than radiographers, AI is faster at finding legal judgements within case law, AI can make office work more efficient by drafting emails or summarizing information from the web.
However, the story of this efficiency leaves out a discussion of some of the costs of AI. AI is expensive, not cheap. The efficiencies that are promised do not necessarily involve less work and fewer costs – just different work and different costs, some of which will only reveal themselves in time. These costs include:
Increased inequities (including inequitable labour between people ‘in front of’ and ‘behind’ the screen; inequitable opportunities for learning resulting from embedding of AI systems in learning and information infrastructures; environmental and material inequities resulting from the use of scarce natural resources to power ubiquitous technologies)
Shaky institutions that struggle to do things differently
Costly need for highly skilled review of AI outputs
First, we need to understand better what makes AI expensive. Then, we need to consider what factors can actually lead to real efficiency. My research has been examining both the deceptive stories that shape the way AI is described, as well as sociotechnical design considerations that must be taken into account when determining whether the cost of AI is worth it."
Mike Savage (LSE) puts the deselection of Faiza Shaheen by Labour into the context of her work on wealth inequality & concludes:
'in pursuing an ugly & manifestly factional manoeuvre in their deselection of Faiza Shaheen, UK Labour may be doing more harm than they realise when it comes to promoting their stated goal of “a decade of national renewal”.'
Shaheen has been a major campaigner for greater equality, might that not be what Labour wants?
“[The report shows that] tackling global #poverty will not overshoot global #carbon budgets, as is often claimed. Failure to address the power and privilege of the polluter elite will. These are related because reducing carbon consumption at the top can free up carbon space to lift people out of poverty.”
As with many things, distribution, not the average, is the important thing.
#ClimateChange#CarbonEmissions#Inequality: "Rich individuals in all countries must pay more to tackle the climate crisis, whether through taxes or charges on consumption, one of the architects of the Paris agreement has said.
There is a growing consensus on the need for some kind of global wealth tax, with Brazil, which will host the Cop climate summit next year, an enthusiastic supporter.
Meanwhile, poor countries are struggling to raise the estimated $1tn (£785bn) a year of external finance needed to help them cut emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis.
Another proposal is for a frequent flyer levy, as the richest people tend to take far more flights – in any year about half of the people in the UK do not fly, for instance. Laurence Tubiana, the chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, said a levy could be targeted at business class and first class seats.
Other possible sources of revenue include a carbon tax on international shipping, which could raise billions without disrupting global trade, according to research from the World Bank. Levies on fossil fuels could also play a role.
The richest 1% of people in the world are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the 66% at the other end of the scale, yet they experience little of the vulnerability to climate shocks that are causing suffering and death, mainly among poorer people."
You'll be unsurprised to see that the UK's standard of living has improved (on average) less than many developed countries (exceptions being we're doing better than France, Greece & Spain).... so while over the period 2007-2019 living standards have risen (just) other countries have done better.
And real (average) earnings were only 3.5% higher than 2009 in 2023.
More evidence of the lack of economic rewards the country has gained from voting in a Tory Govt.
That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.
This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation.
According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation,
had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady,
🔸the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone.
🔸That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP
—enough to more than double median income
—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month.
— Every month.
— Every single year.
Price and Edwards calculate that the cumulative tab for 🔹our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality 🔹had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018.
At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year,
that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020.
That’s $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant
—$50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy
—$50 trillion that would have enabled the vast majority of Americans to enter this pandemic far more healthy, resilient, and financially secure.
As the RAND report [whose research was funded by the Fair Work Center which co-author David Rolf is a board member of] demonstrates,
💥a rising tide most definitely did not lift all boats.
💥It didn’t even lift most of them,
as nearly all of the benefits of growth these past 45 years were captured by those at the very top.
"The richest 0.1% in Britain emit 22 times more from transport than low earners, and 12 times more than average. The data finds that income is directly linked to levels of mobility, with people who earn more than £100,000 travelling on average at least double the distance each year compared with those on incomes under £30,000."
Wealthy white men from rural areas are the UK’s biggest emitters of climate-heating gases from transport, according to a study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
The richest 0.1% in Britain emit 22 times more from transport than low earners & 12 times more than average. Income is directly linked to levels of mobility.
In the UK, transport is now the largest source of emissions.
Given the long term policy of the pensions 'triple lock' has lifted many pensioners out of relative poverty (even if our pensions remain low by international standards), it make sense to suggest that a similarly long-term political commitment on child poverty is required - a 'child's lock' commitment to raise child-related benefits to a higher level & track them to rises in earnings & inflation.
This articulates my exact feelings about San Francisco, the tech industry, & the entire social crisis of Capitalism we are all facing. Ms. Solnit writes with fierce precision & grace, connecting the dots with damning evidence rather than hyperbole.
In the worst 'Ghost Enclaves' over 50% of local homes are owned by investors for short-term holiday lets (or as seldom used second homes).
This, of course, has knock-on effects for locals trying to stay in the area for work or family reasons - the housing crisis is driven by inequality & them compounds that inequality.
The Q. is will the next government have the political will to expand social housing & clamp down on non-residential uses of homes?