Bibliography

**************** NYTimes.com: A Conservative Futurist and a Supply-Side Liberal Walk Into a Podcast …

A Conservative Futurist and a Supply-Side Liberal Walk Into a Podcast …

Could the U. S. economy be twice as large today if it hadn’t made policy mistakes in the 1970s?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-james-pethokoukis.html?smid=em-share

The point they totally missed is how the concentration of wealth and its monopoly power in the economy has stifled innovative. See THE BIG AI RISK NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE SEEING

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/ai-dating-algorithms-relationships/678422/

 

******* The Big AI Risk Not Enough People Are Seeing

;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-thickness: initial;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px” id=”injected-recirculation-link-2″> Read: AI has lost its magic

The response to our algorithmically remade world can’t simply be that algorithms are bad, sensu stricto. Such a stance isn’t just untenable at a practical level—algorithms aren’t going anywhere—but it also undermines unimpeachably positive use cases, such as the employment of AI in cancer diagnosis. Instead, we need to adopt a more sophisticated approach to artificial intelligence, one that allows us to distinguish between uses of AI that legitimately empower human beings and those—like hypothetical AI dating concierges—that wrest core human activities from human control. But making these distinctions requires us to re-embrace an old idea that tends to leave those of us on the left rather squeamish: human nature.