ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- Investor Cathie Wood explores this unique moment in technology, which she sees as being marked by the simultaneous evolution of five pivotal innovation platforms - a scenario unparalleled in history. Exploring the role of AI in reshaping economic paradigms, she predicts a surge in global GDP growth and productivity, underscoring the need for businesses and investors to adapt in order to keep up.
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
X: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/cathiewood
• Why AI Will Spark Expo...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #TEDTalks #ai - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I miss the days when there was a distinctive difference between a TED talk and a generic, run-of-the-mill corporate boardroom powerpoint presentation.
Yes, the quality sure has deteriorated.
Or a World Economic Forum propaganda broadcast.
I miss the old, unscrubbed internet
You can tell the power brokers behind Ted have changed. A year or so ago it was overly woke and focused on economic and social disenfranchisement.
Now, it’s just executives talking their book (e.g. duolingo sales pitch)
The right balance seemed to have been when professors and researchers were conveying their work and the art of the possible.
I didn´t think I could ever agree with anything said by someone who uses the word 'woke' as a slur, but here we are. I agree. And the world didn´t end 😅@@abcthegreat1
3:00 Exponential growth
8:50 FED policy
10:50 *40% potential CAGR*
12:10 Creative destruction
13:00 *Convergence of blockchain tech and AI*
You Trust her? I don't! She has been wrong before. But she's got an amazing talent for finding BIG UPSWINGS, and that is not as easy as people may think
fantastic video Everybody wants to be financially independent and live a better life. With savvy investing, an inexpensive lifestyle, and diligent budgeting, this is not difficult to do. I'm glad I realised early on that achieving financial freedom requires hard work.
My belief is that making a wise investment is a fantastic way to save money for the future as well as a way to generate passive income. Those who make poor mistakes early in life regret them later in life. But, if done alone, investing may be challenging and risky. For this reason, I suggest consulting experts for advice (financial advisors). The difficulty lies in effectively employing it, not just watching videos and reading investing books.
Sincerely, I'm genuinely moved by what you said. I have a seizable amount of money that I am willing to invest if given the appropriate knowledge and I am highly interested in investing. My greatest concern is losing money on a bad investment. I'm open to hearing your advice on how to make sensible investments as a result.
I genuinely believe that having the necessary knowledge is important to the success of any investment, and I say this as an OAP with much experience. Whatever you set your mind on, do it regardless of what others may say. Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful, advises Warren Buffer often. This is surely the key to succeeding while others fail. I made $100,000 working with a financial advisor. Working with an advisor has proven to be a promising experience thus far.
Not bad at all. I know a lot of folks that made fortunes from the Dotcom crash as well as the 08’ crash and I’ve been looking into similar opportunities in this present market. Could this coach that guides you help?
Finding financial advisors like Natalie Noel Burns who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Why does TED give a platform to someone as disconnected from reality as she is? AI might make investors and billionaires richer and cause the stock markets to rise for a while. But the real economy will drop like a rock, and inequality will skyrocket.
TED has always been on the side of the Establishment at the expense of the ordinary working class person. They just know how to package the idea so that you consent to it. They know that it will cause inequality, that was their mission by design.
Technology is good for everyone.
@@alex6188 yes, ALL technology is good for EVERYONE. And Santa Claus is real.
@@alex6188 ...who can afford to own it
You are using TH-cam and the internet was consider a scary "new tech" so did automobiles and telephone. just update your mind dude
I seriously doubt "wages going up as employees become more productive".
Less jobs on the market will increase demand and lower waiges.
The speed of technology will go faster and our ability to adapt.
Investors will be fine.
UBI is what she means
@@jaysonp9426UBI is a massive crock. Particularly here in the US, where both government representatives and a chunk of the population are convinced that even socialized healthcare is a no-go.
Exactly the vast majority only gets their basic needs fulfilled through UBI, while the 1% live in luxury that is beyond anyone's wildest imagination. AI the way it's being deployed doesn't really seem it will result in Utopia these experts are claiming it will be.
Hey now, just because we saw decreasing wages (if adjusted for inflation) accompanying the previous massive rise in productivity doesn't mean the workers will get the shaft this time around as well...
CEOs and "entrepeneurs" in our current era make the robber barons seem like saints by comparison.
As global warming, pollution and the collapse of biodiversity causes the worst threat in human history, I am really puzzled by this supposedly good news that AI will spark an exponential economic growth!
Do we live on the same planet????
Anyone who strives for exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist.
More power n control to the powerful
Insightful information. Thank you!
Whether AI leads to exponential economic growth depends on how we choose to develop and deploy it. Responsible development, addressing societal challenges, and prioritizing human well-being are key to ensuring that AI benefits everyone.
The problem with this is that we live in an economic system that prioritizes profit above all else. So are leaders going to shift their thinking in a matter of 2-3 years?
Well, that will never happen. The hording disease of the wealthy will not allow abundance to be shared ever. Worker productivity grows exponentially along with profits for the super wealthy. You know what hasn't grown exponentially? Wages. Productivity gains are never benefit workers. The more we produce, the more the wealthy take from us to throw into their massive money bins while we remain in poverty no matter how hard we work. The wealthy poison are air, water, food, medicines and public discourse and then deny us healthcare and allow us to die of exposure, neglect and preventable disease. A.I. should replace the wealthy. They serve no purpose and are completely obsolete.
Arguably profit driven companies create the most human well being - value in ($) value out (services/products) - so AI making tonnes of things more efficient with blunt force useage is going to benefit everyone, even if it's not perfectly aligned
@@katerinesantana6060 I don't think it could happen. Expecting they shifting their thinking within 2-3 years might be overly optimistic.
@@nathanfranck5822 You're right, the relationship between profit and well-being isn't always straightforward, and several factors necessitate a nuanced approach
This sounded like a 14 minute long unskippable TH-cam Ad.
you get some interesting ads. i get silly dudes tryig to sell me a muscle shirt
Exponential economic growth - so that the rich get richer, and inflation keeps the poor where they belong.
No. The poors get rich
@@salehmoosavi875 That's the fiction they want you to believe in.
A few decades ago there were no Elon Musk, Jeff Besos, Mark Zuckerberger, Steve Jobs etc...only IBM, Xerox, TV Companies, Newspapers, Kodak... The market is open for anyone specially you !
I'm sick of this doomerism - massive technological advances have essentially always improved people's standards of living, even the poors.
Who is Rockefeller? JP Morgan? @@hamarana
Exponential growth of GDP with exponential income inequalities.
Creative Destruction ? This is how some speakers are not-so-creatively destructing the once respected TED platform.
I don't care how much we advance or how fast, nothing will become deflationary if we don't stop corporate greed...
In the early 1900's the big losers were horses being put out to pasture, they didn't spend a cent while they worked, they were a cost, it was a net gain letting them go. Laying off workers due to productivity gains means those workers spend less while out of work, some companies will certainly make big gains, lower costs, higher margins, but unseen second and third order effects have yet to be accounted for. The major second order effect of the early 1900's was WW1. We are also dealing with falling birth rates, greater number of retirees living of savings. In the 1900's you had huge labour forces coming off farms with families of 8-12 children. Not this time. Again all the building blocks on the chess board are correct, but how they will interact adds up to one thing, serious system instability. Its not all rainbows and unicorns. If you haven't noticed already, the 21st century has been nothing but unstable.
What happened, TED? How did you end up giving a stage to investors who have a vested interest in selling this narrative, instead of brilliant (social) innovators and thinkers like Ken Robinson? Seriously, how is this possible? Can anyone explain?
you dont like it, so everyone else who likes it doesent get to enjoy it? cringe bro
Can't wait for the comments to get disabled on this
Oh look another Ted on A.I featuring Cathie Wood from Ark that sells investments 24/7 and choose investment's based on trending Twitter/X algo's - utter trash !
I'm becoming disappointed in *Ted* lately having completely useless people that are only Twitter or X persona's talking about A.I. In 3 years she will be a biotech professional and official CRISPR scientist.
Lower prices and higher wages will NOT happen, without being forced! Current corporate business thinking, their models and the way stockholders are setup, does not allow for any of the increased productivity gains, to go to workers. Shareholders will even sue to try to prevent those gains from ever going to workers, and CEOs often laugh at the thought.
AI is about to become "super intelligent" compared to the average person. Businesses will NOT pass up the savings of using AI to replace human workers. THIS BREAKS CAPITALISM! It breaks the relationship between labor and capital, and leads to collapse if we change nothing, because businesses not paying workers leads to customers who cannot spend on your products.
We need to rethink the whole social contract of society. We cannot justify distributing basic resources to people, based on their ability to compete, when AI will always out-compete them.
That's what bio weapons are for bunny
Lower prices and higher wages will happen, you just have to buy more products. We are still talking about consumer technology of course, not restaurant dinners
You're right one day we will achieve post labour economics
Totally agree. Workers of the world united!
Tell me more about exponential economic growth on a finite planet.
Space is big
@@Phil-W Space is empty.
I’m surprised cathie didn’t also mention quantum computing as one of the transformative technologies. The opportunities are also enormous for more inequality more deprivation if equity is also part of the equation. I fear that it won’t be and all the profits will go upwards as it usually does
Yeah focus on equity of outcome rather than equality of opportunity definitely leads to more deprivation and inequality as well as just more poverty in general.
@@Eval48292you’re acting like the Industrial Revolution all of the way up to today wasn’t built on the graves of billions of people that weren’t paid enough to thrive in societies that oppressed their individual rights.
she has mentioned quantum computers before in many of her talks online, she said quantum computers are not at their peak profitability yet, but will be in the next decade or 2, potentially, right now her funds are definitely more centered around genomics, AI, and a few other technologies, but i am sure she will have a fund for quantum computers in the next few years i would assume, right now she is more-so focused on exporting her funds to EU, letting EU investors be able to buy into her funds, etc, aswell as selling some stocks that deal with crypto, since crypto has had a huge run-up in the last quarter, her biggest holding right now is Coinbase, Block (SQ) is not far behind aswell...
You're forgetting millions of Western men died to build Technologies through Warfare
I don't think quantum computing is here yet like the others. It may be in 5-10 years, but not quite yet
I would really like to hear what energy systems will be in place too power such an energy hungry New World. I heard a lot about first principles in this talk. Nothing can be more bedrock than energy. Energy is the life blood upon which all of this will be built. This is not a nay-saying comment, But I’m just very interested in how this all gets powered.
Congratulations on your excellent analysis about why AI will spark exponential economic growth!!!
Growth usually comes at the cost of something though - in this case existing human workers. Who pays for this growth? The humans who have to borrow themselves beyond the grave again?
Would've been fun if she mentioned that Amazon has 'Digit' humanoid bots and eventually will replace the workforce (for manual labor tasks, in the next year or two lol)
She didn't touch on the robots too much, and went to the taxi route (which is still a huge business, but not as massive as robots for all the tasks they can achieve......)
So it must be assumed robots will increase producticity by replacing humans in most places.. and humans will move to jobs designing robots fonctions.
Well markets can consider narratives like it is a revolution but the truth is : we already know how to do this since the 80's with automation in the industry.
Only cheap Chinese hands slowed the transition.
Robots can only exceed this previous state of the tech. by achieving more autonomous tasks..
Not even in amazon this is happening.
Some call for evolution where it is simply continuity..
If you think recent robots have not been achieving more autonomous tasks, then you haven't been paying close enough attention.
Robots will replace humans and humans will move to other jobs creating robots. Unless they are not capable of contending with the complexity of designing robots, then they will simply be replaced and struggle to find new employment.
robots are the hardest part of the equation because you actually need factories to produce them which means you need raw materials and machines and a bunch of other stuff. The costs are very high.
Whereas with software AI, the cost of replication is 0. So knowledge workers, office workers etc will be the most easily replacable. laborers will actually be the last to go.
@@Christopherodier sorry, you and guy below have no idea what you guys are talking about. AI can do literally everything better than humans, including designing robots.
@@user-nj9ru4ef2w no, it cannot. It takes countless hours of programming AI to get it to do any simple task humans do now.
This is one of the most deconnected presentation I have watched! Yes let’s get 40 times more efficient so we can finish to destroy the planet 40 times faster. It is time you all forget what you have learned about economics and finance and you learn some physics.
AI can learn how to do tasks cheaper than human beings. Unless we change our end goals for what society is working towards (a money based society), then our labor is already worthless.
Yeah and I'm not so sure I trust that the same people who are gleefully increasing the wealth gap despite all the technological breakouts we have today would suddenly start prioritizing the well-being of the general population just because we now have AI. For example, most of the inflation we have today is due to corporate profits/greed. AI may make the production of goods cheaper (by replacing humans), but companies will simply use this to increase their margins--not make sales prices cheaper. When more money is the ultimate goal, only those calling the shots will benefit.
GDP is meaningless in a post scarcity economy.
@@ngbrother Post-scarcity? Is such a thing even possible? we'll just adjust our consumption upwards (or change the resource scarcity towards something like lithium)
@@13zomi That's what I am thinking as well. Any new technology is going to be exploited for maximum profit not for the well being of human beings.
Who will be gaining or growing from all this. 🤔
Mrs. Wood Cathy,
I just wanted to say that I support your presentation. You provided supporting facts in your presentation.
There is a 50-50 like to dislike ratio on this video. Ouch.
My concern is that fewer and fewer people are needed and although wealth is generated it will be concentrated at the top.
3:35 less is more, more is quality not quantity. Individual style is art and what differentiates products. Mass produce what you have to, everyone else gets to be artisanal
The fact that blockchains are on the slide as a game-changing technology says everything about her expertise.
Right? How about quantum computing?
@@mk1st it can become a game changer and most likely will, but at the moment the technology is not there yet. For general purposes, it's still less efficient than traditional computing.
@@mk1st I raise you to quantum blockchain fusion reactors that will produce our energy soon!
Blockchain technology isn’t confined only to cryptocurrency. As AI becomes a reality and computing speed in general increases the ability to protect data and know what is and isn’t real becomes more difficult. When any system can be hacked, any encryption can be broken, and any data or content can be faked, blockchains that keep a continuous ledger of changes on computers across the world will be the only way of telling what’s genuine.
Second that. Also Real AI = Generative AI at 2:42 is a red flag
Somebody knows how to NOT surpress TED-videos but videos with Cathie Wood? 😂
Brilliant talk 👍 so insightful 🙏 thank you
Of course it will cause massive economic growth … for them !! While every non-creative consumer on the planet is left jobless, deemed obsolete
It is undeniable that net job creation and changes in in-demand skills are real challenges. Historically, we have seen significant job replacements, and the concern about systemic income inequality is valid. The concentration of wealth in key sectors and the lack of redistribution can intensify disparities. We sincerely hope that all this wealth does not continue to accumulate in the hands of so few. A world where prosperity is shared is essential to avoid a sadder scenario and a more difficult life. Excessive accumulation of wealth can fuel conflicts and wars. We live in a world that has developed so quickly that our brains may not have been prepared for such rapid changes. Possibly, we are too blind to realize our fall and we are living a dream. A crucial discussion to shape the future of work and promote equitable solutions for everyone. 👏🤔
I believe Kate Raworth has an excellent talk about why exactly we don’t need economic growth. Grow grow grow until what? Can we please consider the possibility that growth is not the ultimate answer?
Why would people want for the 1% to get even more rich?
We should be talking about ending the poverty
And how AI can help with that
Right, I tought all the big tech private for-profit companies have been investing bilions and decades of research into this just to help the poor, I can't believe they are trying to profit from it now... It's us, the people on social media who didn't contribute to anything, that should decide what this technology will be used for
AI will create a better world for all of humanity. If prices go down it means EVERYTHING becomes affordable ❤🎉
Probably will be good for the bottom billion if we can access an AI doctor or nurse for free or next to free via a smartphone. Same with education in the developing world.
@@sisko89At least you can use GPT-4 as much as you want for free.
We don't need economic growth technologies; we need economic redistribution technologies
One symptom tells the tale: number after number presented without substantiation, then used as the foundation for self congratulation.
awsome presentation by Cathy Wood, she is amazing,
The fact that ted allowed this psychopath on their stage demonstrates how far down its gone.
Productivity going up from ai wont give realistic and fair wage increases. Productivity has sky rocketed since the 1960s and yet wages have stagnated.
GDP has been a bunk measurement for the economy for ages. All GDP measures is how much is produced. Not whether its useful to society, not whether its needed, just volume.
GDP doesnt measure the peoples well being, which is the only measurement that matters.
U probably called her crazy when she called Tesla stock $5,000 when it was $120.
@@eric2394 maybe you should read the entire thing I said. What I said demonstrates her broken thinking.
Since the 1960s wages have stagnated? Do we live on the same planet?
@@JingoYu wages compared to productivity. It's an objective fact.
@@JingoYu minimum wage in 1967 was 1$. Adjusting for inflation that equates to 9.01$ today. The federal minimum wage is 7.25 now.
It's just math.
She isn't biased at all, is she? TED, you used to have integrity.
The comment section did not disappoint. What about the people this tech will displace? What about the wealth gap? Workers rights?
I love listening about the new tech but the people affected is never an issue.
course not, these are all rich people in finance
When you a technology that decreases costs, it will ether lower prices or increase earnings. When real wages increase more people will buy goods. Increasing demand for labor. We will not have unemployment above 5%.
@@benthezomboni2701 an increase of labor but at the risk of stagnant pay wages...
@@benthezomboni2701that labor is replaced by technology in this situation. “demand for labor” has no meaning for human wage earnings when the labor is not human, but artificial. demand for human labor would decrease and be replaced by artificial labor, because it would undoubtedly be more cost-effective. human labor being devalued (due to supply and demand) would mean that nobody could even earn adequate wages in order to buy the goods those machines produce.
then production itself would essentially only take place for the benefit of the 1% who own those machines, unless a UBI is established, or we decide that there is no need for them to own those machines anymore and make them public. the first one is a capitalist solution since it maintains private ownership, the second is a socialist solution since it makes the means of production socially owned.
a third semi-capitalist solution would be to regulate the use of AI globally, forcing companies to employ a quota of human workers over artificial intelligence. this somehow is the most unrealistic of the three; i highly doubt every country would agree to this, since the incentive for global power gains from allowing AI technology to thrive within domestic corporations would be far too strong. those companies would be able to gain a huge portion of global market share due to their much cheaper price for goods.
You should also speak about massive job losses. Rich will become richer and poor, poorer. It will create extremely horrific concentration of wealth in few bad people's hands. Billions of people will become slaves.
When a 60k robot can take in the labor market. Than it will become interesting
Slaves have economic value. Slave masters provided for slaves because they had economic value. People will not have economic value. They will just be all cost.
Lol no.
Right!? She simultaneously said she believes wages will go up while also highlighting the robotaxi revolution, brought on by autonomous driving that will literally wipe out millions of jobs. Sure, that traditionally increases wages for the working class 🙄
And she’s giddy about this. She can barely contain her excitement.
I love tech and can’t deny that this sci fi world we’re living in right now isn’t really cool. But these people are sociopaths, completely hollow shells with zero empathetic capacity.
Can a better world emerge from this? Sure it can. But the wreckage along the way will be devastating.
Try a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, “manifest greatness through positivity” mindset when AI and automation can literally do whatever you can do 100x faster and better, while also being 1000x cheaper.
These attitudes are helpful in societies and countries where opportunity exists.
You could use that positive energy and AI to build you a business and then what? Sell your products and services to the unemployed masses who have no way of generating income?
What is she and people like Marc Andreessen talking about increased wages? Increased productivity only increases wages when you need people for the increased productivity. In this instance, the increased productivity is literally due to the fact that AI and automation will be able to do what humans do better, faster, and cheaper. Which they admit because they predict a deflationary economy. What am I missing?
Please don't talk about Bill Gates like that. You are being too honest.
Stronger and useful advice.
Is "growth" supposed to be a positive term in this context?
“Wages going up”…. lol
She is quite optimistic. Hope that growth goes for everyone.
lol when it went for everyone in history ? shes is there to destroy with false advertisement to pump and dump what she manage in portfolio
my job and stipend is not growing, and where i find money to invest ?
to keep getting richer our world will never be deflationary ! that is the big lie she is spouting
Goodbye Capitalism...also this is Cathie Wood lol
As an investor I don't think she puts as much focus on economic equality so much as corporate valuation
She is optimism personified but her funds got hammered in recent years. Her investments are all high risk/ high growth.
It never does
The gains will go to shareholders.
Once they start replacing large groups of workers with AI you'll have a lot of highly skilled people with no job, who then have no money, so they can't buy stuff.... just think about the logical conclusion of all this. You can't have capitalism without capital.
These technologies will only increase the wealth gap. The current GDP per household in the US is $237K but average household income is $75K. The other $162K is siphoned off by a tiny minority who will jump at the chance to increase that gap by replacing workers with technology. The more we struggle with basic necessities the less bandwidth we have to realize they’re lying when they tell us those struggles are caused by [insert powerless scapegoat group here]
As long as the poor get richer i.e. better standard of living (and it consistently has) then it's progress.
It's not perfect (nothing is) but it's improvement in part thanks to technical progress.
There is a ted talk about a Swedish guy that perfectly illustrate the fact that standards of living for the poorest just keeps increasing
@@joannot6706progress that will ultimately fall if we allow the division of capital to continue this way. if 1% of the world owns almost all of the capital, what is preventing them from enslaving the majority? overthrowing democracies through their economic influence? capital is power under capitalism. disproportionate division of power leads to autocracy, if not outright dictatorship.
you say that there has been progress for the poor, but that “progress” has been entirely for the benefit of citizens of wealthy countries, built off the exploitation of third world countries (the global majority), where living standards have not improved but declined under governments thrusted on them by great western powers. that is not a political statement, but historical fact; just look into the histories of government in south america and africa, and their pre-colonial past. “not perfect” is a very dismissive and short-sighted way to put it.
Of course it will only increase the wealth gap, because not everyone is useful now. But that doesn't mean that the living standard for everyone in general isn't increasing.
AI is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on the choices we make. Let's choose to use AI responsibly and ethically, to create a future where everyone can benefit from its potential.
@@vila777_
"you say that there has been progress for the poor, but that “progress” has been entirely for the benefit of citizens of wealthy countries"
*You are wrong* , just look at the ted talk of that Swedish statistician guy.
The TED is literally called "How not to be ignorant about the world"
Very fitting if you ask me.
I feel like a lot of what's missing in the conversation here is global ecology. While I am absolutely fascinated by these technologies, i cant help but hear a voice from the back of my mind Reminding me that AI hangs from a long chain of weak links, ultra capable but fragile at best
Nobody will care about ecology when they loose their jobs due to AI
what does that even mean
Yeah so, Global ecology, I suppose that has a ridiculously open ended meaning.
Basically what I'm trying to say here is that while there is vast economic potential (and an equal amount of potential in other domains) AI is serviced by a very highly specialized chain of industries (ex. Rare earth mining, electricity production, etc), and so if a single one of those fails, all of the potential of AI tech also fails (it's not robust).
People may point out that this chain of industry necessities has existed for a long time, but with AI it's the linear scaling of the resources that is a structural limitation of its adoption for me
All these technologies are great, and the weak links in the chain that you are talking about can be fixed by blockchain... Unfortunately, I think only the U.S., China, and other highly developed technological countries will be helped and financially boosted by AI. most people in Etheopia do not even know what a motherboard is
You’re right, and not only that, but current generative AI also depends on advanced GPUs that consume a lot of power. I recall recently hearing on a podcast that all AI currently available already uses the electricity needs comparable to a small country. If that power isn’t produced through ‘green’ means, this will accelerate our way to global ecological decline.
While these types of talks can be fascinating and informative (I feel there is great value in hearing from different voices), the bottom line should be how this-GDP growth, corporate profits, technological innovation-benefits society. People are what matters in the end. A hospital’s stock may be doing very well, but if the patients’ conditions aren’t improving, then what’s the point?
Exactly!!
Compare conditions from now to 100-200 years ago tho.
Great vid! Can you explain why you didn’t want to use set as initial state?
She’s a fund manager with the greatest of respect what does she know about AI to a significant level
A lot according to this nature published chart 11:30
She has a small team of analysts who are experts in these technologies.
She has a gang of domain experts behind her, she knows
She has a team of researchers who research the companies, balance sheets. They are not looking at the product intricacies or know the architecture of these platforms. They are not experts on the tech they are experts of the businesses in said industry.
Very informative and futuristic. Few more considerations like environment, climate change and sharing basis of research, would have definitely made the talk carrying more weight. Understandable, time is limited, still should have got some mention. Keep up your good work TED and the honorable guest Cathie Wood.
none of those things are real problems compared to the huge amount of disruption that AI will bring. It's like talking about your neighbour losing her keys when there's a war going on.
That's what happens when you choose a broad topic to speak. You can never cover all aspects of it. It's better to choose a more narrow topic.
Power Curve Society - Aspen Institute 2013 - Disparate Generation and Distribution of Wealth - Tech Bro Class vs Ordinary People - Capital to Labor Ratios Dropping - Returns to Capital Increasing.
Who will all of these hyper automated and hyper growing companies sell to when most of us will not have our jobs?
Don't worry, there will be AIs that receive UBI, so they can keep the economy going. AIs have the distinct advantage of not being required to spend their limited funds on food and other such luxuries.
@@jonathanmarth6426 😂 brilliant
This is a good thing?
Good to listening, difficult to believe! Sometimes it is needed to separate desires the contaminate our forecast from reality, and it is not that easy when we are immerse in a wide net of interest conflict
I'm not sure that this is exponential economic growth. It seems more like exponential economic redistribution. Robotic taxis getting people around differently when the value of getting people decreases might cause some companies to do much better, but I'm just not sure that the total pie gets better at any sort of compound rate similar to what those companies do.
That's just so one-sided it could be placed in the chamber of weights and measures as a standard of one-sidedness.
Where will the demand come from when all the taxi drivers stay home? (Substitute any other industry).
Does Cathie mean the unconditional basic income will drive 40% investment growth? Sounds bolder than the boldest accelerationists do.
just the optimism in this girl cured everyone's depression
What happens to capitalism when you replace workers? distribution is quite literally necessary, are we approaching communism?
Well it won’t be communism. In no way will the workers own this means of production.
Deflation happens, productivity goes off the roof and suddenly better than ever products are cheap or almost free while old widgets become useless crap. Freedom of money so maybe work becomes play where rewards are something else than what money used to trigger in us.
i mean , comma 3 has been around for a while to make your old gas car Self Driving . the novelty of FSD i think is already priced in for the near future imho unless there are major infrastructural changes to road driving . It will be something to see no more parking lots as we know them today for starters ,but i think this is a couple decades away at least unfortunately
She's right! Great talk!
First they call you crazy, then they call you a genius. Cathy is amazing!
i think shes just pressing buttons. shes investing in the hype train because "we believe it will be worth trillions"
Ya, very possible..let be real.. the true innovative tech is not even out yet. the companies that will be the leaders in 2030 might only be simple start ups right now.. perhaps they arent even formed yet.
There are so many unique technologies that I would never just say its 5. there are another 3 or so major platforms that have created insane growth in the last 30 years that didnt even exist before that.
It is fairly reasonable to include all of these technologies together into the designs of single structures that are used to solve some of the most fundamental crises in our current civilisation, like social housing, farming, energy collection and human well being.
All in one single structural design that can be easily repeated and improved upon.
Too much regulation, lack of competition, and in the worst countries, no rule of law nor protection of property rights are the main problems.
@@audience2 I am not quite sure how your reply is relevant to my suggestion?
But to be clear the way that the value of currency is shrinking year on year, future generations will have an absolute tiny minority that own any property. This is quite easily observable in reflection to the potential of each successive generation for the last four generations to own property by comparison to the previous generation and that is not considering those people that live in the less technologically developed parts of the world which equally have no chance of owning. The real fulcrum will be when the decision by all humans that harm in common law will always need to have the greater protection in law than loss.
She is describing trends that has been going on for years and people are in shock.
She is extrapolating from where technical progress is going, makes sense.
Anyone can do that. Picking the right stocks is something else entirely. If it was 1999, she'd be buying up AOL and Yahoo.
Her argument for why Tesla will dominate a $10-trillion robotaxi industry is hilarious.
Wood is nothing but a pumper. Everyone's an investment genius in a bull market.
Keep eating those sour grapes
Throwing out tech buzzword and mixing them together gets retail wet.
@@2LegHumanist And she would be spot on buying AOL, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple in 1999.
Just like someone buying Tesla shares is likely right.
@@joannot6706
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I am following Cathie Woods stock picks to the T
"sustained" means control
The fallacies of rapid growth being destabilizing in a negative way are related to the fundamental fallacy of labor productivity. Productivity is far more a function of technology, powered by harvested energy, than of human labor, powered by food calories. Expressing productivity in terms of human labor hours is nonsense, although the variability between labor-based productivity in high-tech nations versus low-tech nations does illustrate the huge advantages of application of energy _in place of_ human labor.
The primary factor leading to economic instability is consumer credit, and the secondary factor is failure to proactively manage availability of resources. Economic growth doesn't necessarily correlate with resource consumption, where technology allows for more efficient use of resources. But where resource supply issues create bottlenecks, economic growth is retarded.
So the solutions to a cyclical economy are: a) use credit for production rather than consumption; b) rely on clean energy and technology _applied efficiently_ to substitute for human labor; and c) anticipate resource supply bottlenecks, and meet them in advance.
Then the next challenge is figuring out how consumer products can be allocated effectively when labor is in oversupply. Here the problem is not the availability of viable solutions, but the reticence of humans to accept novel economic models.
Well this is nice and comforting and reassuring 😂
We've had exponential growth since the industrial revolution. AI is just gonna help that trend continue (until we reach a maximum)
@@Eval48292lol man are you in for a surprise when the oceans, rivers, and lakes have an ecological collapse, and when the top soil is depleted, and when the air is so toxic that medicine doesn’t help people avoid the consequences anymore. All of which will be a reality in less than 80 years. The water wars are going have you just staring at your phone with a pikachu face thinking, “I thought there wasn’t a maximum because line on chart keep going up”. 😂😂😂
@@Eval48292 I would say the maximum is what a human can consume. There's no point in producing goods and services that nobody will use
@@YourMom-cu8yt that's assuming AI won't help us fix those issues
@@agginswagginthat's assuming it will 😂 or more likely that people in charge of ai care 😢
@@agginswaggin Until 2030-2035 when there's billions of robots and they become citizens at some point, consuming more than humans on their free-time lol (maybe there will become too many robots that some don't need to work or if they become obsolete they just retire and have rights lol it's gonna be interesting and weird
Great insights. But didn't she sell a large number of NVidia stocks a couple of days before the start of this rally?
CATHIE WOOD A LEGEND
This so called exponential economic growth is just for the reach not those who don't have any tech education for their children in 2023 let alone talk about other things. many countries particularly in Africa there is no opportunity for the young to learn digital skills necessary for the kind of growth needed.
I already knew the economic benefits of AI thanks to Starsector.
Spot on! Great talk ❤
As services and goods become or approach free they leave the economy and aren't captured by a measure of GDP.
The most important technological breakthrough is creating a non carbon based energy. We have a near infinite amount of energy in water.
Still waiting on her Bitcoin to $1M prediction
She said in 2026.
@@MrSchweppesthat's why I'm still waiting lol. Will come back in 2years
She of course meant that she made $1M laughing to the bank as everyone else held the bag
When will AI be able to forecast this weekend's weather with 100% accuracy?
When AIs are driven by quantum computers It will be able to do weather prediction
Although some corporations will cost trillions...you'll own nothing and you'll be happy....what a bright future, I'm so happy to see it coming!
No, we ordinary people are not excited nor want to give consent to this disruption, as always, these things are a net negative to our lives. *Most of the "thumbs up" are bots* on this video
I translated this video for those who don't want to watch: It'll spur economic growth for big time investors. (Not mentioned: it'll absolutely ratf*ck everyone who works for a living.)
all i understood from this video is that, there'll will be a massive AI bubble which will be followed by a blood bath and a massive crash in the next 1-2 years..
So in other words, you acknowledge that instead of actually listening to the points and reflecting on them, you plug your ears, cry out like a baby, and imagine what you're being said is what you already believe.
@@2CSST2That’s exactly what he’s done 🤦♂️
Always important to rebalance your portfolio so you can be around for the second AI boom
Thank You ❤
"The likes of which we have never seen"
A lack of imagination while aiming for total dominance, what could possibly go wrong.
Export the Azure, Chat GPT, Revit, Plant 3D, Civil 3D, Inventor, ENGI file of the Building or Refinery to Excel, prepare Budget 1 and export it to COBRA. Prepare Budget 2 and export it to Microsoft Project. Solve the problems of Overallocated Resources, Planning Problems, prepare the Budget 3 with which the construction of the Building or the Refinery is going to be quoted.
This is reasonable prediction - We are not going to all die within 10 years. Actually we will prosper thanks to the AI tech. ChatGPT and Github co-pilot actually improves human coding efficiency by 50%. Upcoming decade will be fantastic when it comes to economic growth.
we're not all going to die in 10 years, but what about 20 or 30? And even if we don't die, will human life have any meaning if AI is not aligned with proper values (and all indications are that it won't be)?
Wealth creation will only be useful if it's at all levels as to sell the product you need a buyer and corporation should not forget that.
All I can sense is that if the right policies and structures are not put in place around the growth of AI, it will lead to massive economic inequality
@robertboateng-duah9555 A rising tide lifts all boats.
Since when are the right policies and structures put in place? this is going to be terrible for the people. Stop deluding yourselves with optimism.
@@peterbelanger4094 Not necessarily. Economic inequality probably will surge, but that doesn't mean quality of life will go down. If you make 10X less than you currently do, but everything you want to buy is 100X cheaper, you're still 10X wealthier.
@@peterbelanger4094Better than spend your life rotting away in pessimism lmao. Dawg, almost everything gets automated -> job loss -> people can't buy stuff -> give people ubi or they burn down your home and family because they have nothing and cant afford anything. You act like people will just sit and accept it when they literally don't have jobs. Even during the pandemic we got payouts because otherwise THE ECONOMY FAILS. Tax these companies literally 1-2% of revenue and give it out as UBi and add in the reduction in cost of goods and we can focus on growing ourselves. It's not even really the "dream" situation, and it's still massively better than the current situation.
She seems correct, but I think she has a disconnect from the poor and disadvantaged. Much of that hopeful outlook will be deeply separated from a huge swath of people. The rich will hoard the growth, and the workers will find themselves wanting. Unemployment will skyrocket while the government tries to salvage the resources for the common people.
that's why the billionaires are trying to get rid of democracy right now
Yep. Since K-14 education was successfully dismantled for the sake of fiscal responsibility and familiarizing kids with prison conditions, meaningful participation in them platform convergence miracles will be available to at least one or two entitlement stars per graduating class.
Hey Paul, remember the first rule of capitalism: We don't care about the poors. They're just there to be exploited!
Any more of this 'equality' talk and we'll brand you a commie-feminist and make sure that you are cancelled!
( /s just in case anyone was questioning)
On a serious note, when she said the profits would end up in 3 places, I thought, Yeah, Jeff's pocket, Mark's pocket and Elon's pocket... 😞
and yet, in the early 1900s, even poor people benefited from electricity, cars, and phones. Certainly later than the rich, but technology ALWAYS trickles down. Besides, what's wrong with working less?
Most of us who are able to write comments on the internet have not experienced life walking hundreds of miles in the same clothes, defecating wherever, eating whatever, and sleeping on sidewalks, etc.. We talk about poverty like it's just a lower form of acceptable OK-ness caused by choice and easily overcome by merit. While it's true all of the industrial revolutions shifted human activity away from fields toward factories, desks, entertainment, and transportation, etc... Demand for "work" increased in ways that required lots of human involvement. The US was uniquely prepared to lead the shift because it was able to rely on the world's first mandatory public education system for qualified "help". Can't rely on anecdotal history to dismiss negative socio-economic impacts of AI and robotics - especially considering how those who benefit the most excuse themselves from accountability. There is no precedent for eliminating the need for most human activity - i.e. the very thing people monetize to pay other people for goods and services - in order to retire at birth.
Deflation is the key to the future. We are already seeing this affecting cellphones. Business that know how to compete in a deflationary environment will survive. Those that do not will not.
I can see companies like Apple going out of business because they will not change their business model to adjust to this.
yes i love to see everything coming cheaper in the economy - this will finally help us achieve the equality we already dreamed of
haha, it's so funny to read this comment, witnessing a double-digit inflation and mass layoffs across industries
No concrete descriptions of what AI will actually achieve other than robotaxis, because, after all, investment analysts have absolutely no idea about the tech stack and future feasibility.
Unless AGI is actually achieved, and that is a BIG IF, I have serious doubts about these projections.
This is a joke right? I would have expected better quality speakers than this. Missing the glaringly obvious issues that come with “exponential” economic growth among other things. Hopefully the next speaker has a more sensible approach and isn’t a CEO of an investment firm. The greed is something else.
Glad she feels growth and empowered. That's a rare thing for most these days.
I say Ms Woods, saying creative destruction without mentioning Joseph Schumpeter is bad form. Could have at least mentioned Robert Hielbroner.