5/5 (1)

Developments in information technology revolutionize every aspect of our lives. Can you imagine a world where people do not have to go to work?

 

What if human effort and labour is not needed in the future?

 

Oxford university economists Dr Carl Frey and Dr Michael Osborne predicted that by 2050 40% of human roles will be taken over by automation . This means that AI will eventually replace humans. As of the remaining people in the future, they will have to perfect their adaptability skills since new technologies are changing the way we work towards more multi componental and changeable tasks. This includes the knowledge people possess (Seager 2016).

 

In the future telemarketing jobs, tax preparation, legal service assistance, cooking jobs, etc. are very likely to be almost completely replaced by robots. However, job which involve creativity, building complex relationships with people and high unpredictability are going to remain (Mahdawi 2017).

 

Recently, Bill Gates proposed that companies using AI instead of human efforts should be more heavily taxed in order to slow the pace of automation advances and support other kinds of employment. Gates believes that this will allow the changes that new information technologies are bringing to be handled better. So, for instance if a human worker making 50000$ a year pays taxes on that income, a robot installed on the place of that person should be taxed similarly ( Delaney 2017).

 

However, wouldn’t taxing AI discourage the development of progressing technologies intending to improve our lives?

 

We should re-think the changes that are happening and how they will affect us on personal and professional level. Looking far in the future might be a good idea in order for us to be prepared of what is coming and start acquiring new skills and knowledge (Boyer 2017).

 

The answer to AI taking our jobs might not be taxes but simply training workers to execute the right tasks with the right skills.  

 

After all, we are living in a fast-changing world and it is not surprising to see ex-fast food workers or street cleaners become good coders, for example. Plus, imposing taxes on AI might have a negative effect in many industries where there will be mass off-shore of production and no creation of at-home jobs (Kenny 2017).  Do you think in the future there will be no jobs for humans? How can we keep up with the fast-changing information technologies?

 

References:

Boyer, L. 2017, ‘Should You Be Worried About AI Taking Your Job Away?’, Forbes magazine, Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/07/10/should-you-be-worried-about-ai-taking-your-job-away/#36ff5b548430’, [Last accessed: 9 October 2017].

Delaney, KJ. 2017, ‘The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates’, Quartz.com, Available at: https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/, [Last accessed: 9 October 2017].

Mahdawi, A. 2017, ‘What jobs will still be around in 20 years? Read this to prepare your future’, The Guardian online magazine, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health, [Last accessed: 9 October 2017].

Seager, C. 2016, ‘Will jobs exist in 2050?’, The Guardian online magazine, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/oct/13/will-jobs-exist-in-2050, [Last accessed: 9 October 2017].

Kenny, D. 2017, ‘Bill Gates is Wrong: the Solution to AI Taking Jobs is Training, Not Taxes’,  Wired.com, Available at: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/bill-gates-wrong-solution-ai-taking-jobs-training-not-taxes/, [Last accessed: 9 October 2017].

 

No ratings yet.

Nowadays, 1 300 000 000 people worldwide use YouTube and 300 hours of video are uploaded on the website every minute! YouTube is the world’s second largest search engine and  the third most visited site worldwide after Google and Facebook (Smith 2016).  

 

While most people use the video-sharing website to get access to information goods for entertainment, the role of YouTube is not as straightforward as you might think.

The video platform has given limited opportunity to human rights investigators to prosecute offenders for their crimes against humanity by using content posted on YouTube as evidence in Court. I say ‘limited opportunity’ because footage might be wrongfully attributed to time, place or people and the platform might not only be used as storage place for video materials but where hatred, violence and unlawful actions are encouraged. Still, there are many examples where criminals have been successfully prosecuted thanks to YouTube materials.

 

However, this technology enabled path to justice and accountability is on its way to be cut short.

Information goods companies have been incentivized by governments to end hate speech, extremists group communication and urging people to behave unlawfully. This way YouTube began to quickly remove content of violent extremism and terrorism. This removal unfortunately meant the loss of big part of important video evidence which may or may never be found by investigators. And while YouTube stores all video materials removed from the website, the company cannot know the importance of each footage for criminal investigation (Edwards 2017).

 

So, the question here is whether this censorship on information goods is actually a good thing for society? On the one hand, companies retain their good image and do not advance messages of violence and terror. On the other hand, do not all companies and people have the obligation to care about the greater public good?

 

References:

Smith,K. 2016, ‘36 Fascinating YouTube Statistics for 2016’, Brandwatch.com, Available at: https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/36-youtube-stats-2016/, [Last accessed: 29 September 2017].

Edwards, S. 2017, ‘When YouTube Removes Violent Videos, It Impedes Justice’, Wired.com, Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/when-youtube-removes-violent-videos-it-impedes-justice/, [ Last accessed: 29 September, 2017].

 

5/5 (2)

Berklee Today magazine (Alhadeff & McChrystal, n.d..) described the evolvement of the music industry very simply:

“The tools for a new artistic fusion of aural, visual, and dramatic means of expression are already within the reach of almost every household. As music continues to evolve with the technology and with input from other yet unidentified players, it will likely be woven deeper into the fabric of our daily existence and become even more ubiquitous.”

The industry has advanced so much, that we have come from vinyl, to tape, to CD’s and now, we use streaming to listen to music. In fact, streaming with the help of tools such as Spotify and YouTube has become such a big deal that currently it makes up the majority (59%) of digital revenues in the industry (Ifpi. org, 2016).

But let’s roll back a little, what does this disruption actually mean for the music industry?
The most obvious effect is that the range of music available to consumers, online or offline, is much wider than before which promotes high price sensitivity. At the same time, however, their advancing tech-savviness makes them critical towards services quality. Plus, it is now much easier for small or local artists to reach greater audiences.

On the negative end, major firms struggle with profitability and have acquired skills that cannot be used in other industries resulting to high exit barriers. Also, relationships with artists are not always the best. An example is the latest scandal about Taylor Swift who refused to make her music available through free streaming services.

Enough talking about the past. What does the future of the music industry look like?
In the future, the streaming industry should create more partnerships in order to generate additional revenues, considering that streamers are 50% more willing to spend on event tickets and 90% more willing to spend on music than the average consumer (Loechner, 2013). Speaking of events, can you imagine concerts going digital with VR/AR? This might completely change the revenue structure of the industry!

For musicians the future also seems bright as long as they turn their social media presence to their advantage. The findings indicate that streaming services such as SoundCloud and YouTube play an essential role in artists’ digital album sales. In fact, streamers have been found to be 96% more likely to follow celebrities on social media and 91% more likely to share different links on their social media than the average consumer (Loechner, 2013).

However, streaming companies have to pay attention to blockchain technology, which is exploring new markets. This is a possible threat to the middlemen of the music industry.

All considered, in the future streaming music companies will benefit most of the current trends. Those companies should be able to target their customers more precisely and efficiently which will generate a bigger customer base and more revenues.

For more information, please check out our video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t225cC8LiOI&feature=youtu.be

/Team 36/

References:
Loechner,J. 2013, ‘High Entertainment Spenders Account For 70% Of Home Entertainment’, Mediapost.com, available at: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/200158/high-entertainment-spenders-account-for-70-of-hom.html , [Last accessed: 27 September 2017].

Alhadeff, P. and McChrystal, C. n.d., ‘Technology and Music Consumption’, Berklee Today online magazine, available at: https://www.berklee.edu/bt/153/technology.html , [Last accessed: 27 September 2017].

Ifpi.org n.d., ‘An explosion in global music consumption supported by multiple platforms’, Ifpi.org, available at: http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php, [Last accessed: 27 September 2017].