It means regulators must work hader to ban this sort of harmful behaviour. In this particular case, Boeing stock is down 40% yoy. I’m sure the next management will think carefully before comitting the same mistakes.
Where would the profits come from? Any AI extracting them would be at a disadvantage compared to the equivalent AI that makes the same decisions otherwise but doesn't extract those profits.
Profits motivate the investor, but they impede the investment, and what we want are successful investments not happy investors.
I don't think human investors can manage to be less greedy than an AI designed to not be greedy. AI will get more efficient, while humans still have to eat. Also, the assumption we're working under is that humans also make worse investment decisions than the AI.
So if you're in need of abstractions to motivate others to help you with some venture that you can't do alone, why would you (or your employees) prefer the ones that have greedy third parties in the loop who are also misallocating resources?
There are domains where that human touch means something. We should not let AI run everything. But finance is not one of them, so why resist it becoming a solved problem?
The investors can compete on who can take smaller and smaller profits, aided by the AI, and once they've got their system nearly perfect, we copy it and have it take no profits at all. Thanks capitalism, you've done your job, now it's time to go get a different one.
If we start getting outcomes that we don't like, we can always just turn our backs on the AI-begotten abstractions and let the humans take another crack at it, but a system that runs itself without owners extracting profits should absolutely be the goal.
There's a lot of companies and cooperatives from a quick look. Even cities rolling their own. Uber/Lyft is handing an entire market over to a lucky competitor,
Uber and Lyft combined have raised upwards of $20 billion in venture funding and have been operating unprofitably for the last decade and a half. There's a reason the "free market" cannot simply replace them in a day.
This is a really elementary misunderstanding of free market principles. That theory only holds if the market is actually free.
As an extreme example, if they regulated minimum $1000 per ride. No logical person, free market oriented or not, would expect "alternatives" to take their place.
At least the fast pass offloads some of the cost to frequent travellers. Funding airports with taxes is slightly regressive as high-income earners will usually fly much more often compared to someone on minimum wage.
reply