On the GDP figures:
So, we have grown because of scientific research, much of which may be on how to make us even more addicted to ultra-processed food; the advance in artificial intelligence, much of which is intended to put people out of work;
Putting people out of work is also known as increasing labour productivity. The very beating heart and core of what makes us richer over time.
To remind, this man teaches political economy at a British university.
So, we have grown because of scientific research, much of which may be on how to make us even more addicted to ultra-processed food;
He looks like he has been known to indulge in UPF over the years
the advance in artificial intelligence, much of which is intended to put people out of work;
As Tim said – but lest we forget this is a man who says complex phones ought to be limited because we don’t use all their capabilities.
and because there are more legal disputes, which are only ever a win for lawyers whilst always reducing the sum of human happiness.
How do we interpret this? Should there be no recourse to the law for people who question the state? Is that the goal? His utterances since the recent demonstrations have had an even more overtly totalitarian feel. Truly a rare source of absolute evil.
Of course, I may be wrong about the science. Perhaps it is not developing arms,
I may have to eat humble pie – sounds like at least Murphy’s opposing the insane Ukraine War – I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
the means to surveil us,
Weren’t you the guy that wanted permanent lockdown until COVID ended and Vaccine passports? And you’re decrying surveillance? Get a clue.
and products on which we might become dependent.
Yes – Welfare dependency and an overly massive, non-productive public sector which does nothing and requires endless funds to keep going is a big issue.
And maybe it isn’t creating patents solely that they can be exploited for tax purposes.
Anyone hint at what he’s referring to here?
And, maybe the IT is benign; only trends in energy consumption in the sector suggest not.
Which is why Net Zero is such a fucking stupid idea and (Sorry Editor) people like you need to suffer real consequences for advocating it
I am pretty sure I am right on legal services.
Based on what rationale – does your knowledge of the law extend so far – based on your output on tax and accounting it seems to be non- existent
In other words, is this increase in GDP really something to celebrate? Should a bigger number always be better than a smaller one? And wouldn’t it be good to know enough to be sure?
That’s quite philosophical for him actually
I’d just remind readers of this video I made recently:
In fairness the videos seems to have lasted longer than:
– The Fair Tax Mark
– CLASS
– Sustainable Cost Accounting
– The Green New Deal
maybe he’s found his metier?
What a deeply grotesque individual….
The government subsidises research into the “energy transition” to the tune of 8 billion. Mostly matching funds.
If anything like 16 billion is being spent on “how to make us even more addicted to ultra processed food” I’ll eat it all.
So, I use AI tools here and there every day… I do this because it makes me better and quicker at some parts of my job. We wouldn’t hire an additional person if I did not have these tools (we know this, because we didn’t before such tools existed); instead I would simply not do those lower value tasks and the quality would be poorer. Since everyone else is doing the same, the whole sector productivity has gone up, allowing us to provide services that previously would not been profitable. This increases the total number of jobs in our industry – the opposite of what is being implied here of course.
Anecdotal evidence of course, but true all the same. This is perhaps analogous to the invention of the washing machine not decreasing household labour but rather giving us cleaner clothes and more jobs making washing machines. Yay.
I may now go and bake an ultra-processed cake with all that saved time… thanks for the idea!
I’d love to know which idiots in the code writing industry started to use the term Artificial Intelligence for the product. They certainly weren’t SF (speculative fiction – not f***ing Startrek) enthusiasts. Who have pretty good idea what would actual AI would be & how difficult it would be to achieve. I’s not even understood how natural intelligence works yet.
They must have known it would be misinterpreted & give people ideas about the Terminator. Or p’raps not. Geeks!
Perhaps the idiot also wants to ban machinery generally including tractors, JCBs, mechanised transportation. We should use nothing more sophisticated than sharpened flints for tools?
Staggering, man’s a complete imbecile.
If he were not such a repellent scumbag, I’d feel embarrassed for him.
VP – And, maybe the IT is benign; only trends in energy consumption in the sector suggest not.
The retard doesn’t understand that:
a) IT delivers more compute per Watt/hr for the same amount of electricity with every generation of hardware, real efficiency savings we don’t see in most other industries
b) The opportunity cost of not having IT would mean no more internet for Ritchie to grift on, no work from home, no seeing your distant friends and relatives over Facetime, no streaming services…
@ BraveFart
Flaking flints to make sharp tools was a highly skilled occupation and would be quite beyond the likes of Murphy.
@BiS: when I was young I worked round the corner from an academic AI department – but in those days it was known as Machine Intelligence. (Not that they ever achieved that, of course.) But for amusement purposes only:
https://archive.is/lneIU
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823742501884453312
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13738917/san-francisco-condo-driverless-cars-beep-parking-lot.html
So, we have grown because of scientific research, much of which may be on how to make us even more addicted to ultra-processed food;
I’m starting to get the feeling Murphy recently went for his annual physical and the doctor told him to cut back on the Cornettos.
Steve I was going to use the Classic quote from the Sopranos, ’46 Long’
You know my mother can’t master a telephone either, but she’s 70. What’s your excuse?
Only to realise he is closer to 70 than 60. Maybe he’s already ‘babbling like idiots’
“And, maybe the IT is benign; only trends in energy consumption in the sector suggest not.”
This wailing that things we don’t like use “too much” energy is getting annoying. Energy is there to provide things people want. We’ll use as much of it as we like thank you. Now sod off lefties.
Steve: «The opportunity cost of not having IT would mean no more internet for Ritchie to […see…] distant friends […]over Facetime»
I’m trying to get a sense of his privation but just can’t seem to manage it.
Martin – This wailing that things we don’t like use “too much” energy is getting annoying. Energy is there to provide things people want. We’ll use as much of it as we like thank you. Now sod off lefties.
Ritchie should tell us which IT services should be switched off so we can reduce energy consumption.
Candidly, his blog and social media presence are burning electricity during a climate crisis. How many baby penguins need to die to satisfy his tedious attention seeking? Ritchie should give up his electricity ration to centre Black and Muslim voices of colour.
VP – you know you’re getting older when mafia bosses start getting younger.
TMB – there’s got to be somebody who enjoys Ritchie’s phone calls.
Possibly a fellow trainspotter?
“ this man teaches political economy at a British university”
Well, he’s employed as a professor; not sure how much he actually teaches anyone. Hopefully not much.
Thinking about IT electricity use, isn’t that a measure of the health of the (modern, digital, inclusive, shiny, eco friendly) economy? Does Moore’s Law show up in national productivity stats? Given that IT reliably delivers faster, better, cheaper*, and helps UK plc compete internationally isn’t that the kind of electricity use we should encourage?
Would Ritchie rather have:
A) The same or more electricity used by steel or car making or whatever other things we would need to make, or dig out of the ground, instead of participating in the global digital economy? (Because we still need to eat and buy foreign currency for trade even though we’re going back to BBC Micros and Prestel, candidly)
Or
B) Dystopian techno-shithole gay artificial poverty for the masses, whose living standards will be ever ratcheted down thanks to the insane combination of completely arbitrary, yet fixed, total acceptable sum of national CO2 output (i.e. electricity usage), aaaand a million immigrants a year?
Because that will get us to the Hunger Games rapido, if you ask me.
And maybe, that’s the point?
Dennis – I would buy you a Cornetto for the reference. Marvelous. Just one Cornetto.
*At the fundamentals of compute, storage and bandwidth costs, which are astonishingly cheap now. Your IT managed service or Microsoft subscription customer experience may vary.
I believe Moore’s Law was repealed a while ago Steve. Making smaller thus faster & using less power eventually bottoms out at the scale where quantum effects become significant.