That's cool - though what you describe sounds more like a Certificate of Apprenticeship or a Certificate of Completion of Apprenticeship, which would have been presented to the apprentice on the successful completion of the indenture. From the ones I've been looking at online, sometimes these mentioned the number of years served, sometimes not, but they look much more like something you'd frame and hang on the wall than the contracts (the indentures) themselves, which are rather plainer and wordier.
The term of an apprenticeship indenture was (originally) normally seven years and was a legally binding obligation.
In the UK a lot of companies switched in emphasis or wholly from graduate schemes and degree sponsorships to degree apprenticeships, because they could fund this from the compulsory apprentice levy.
Latterly I think they've ended up dropping even those, or using the money to fund - say - execs who want to do a business degree or MBA.
That's cool - though what you describe sounds more like a Certificate of Apprenticeship or a Certificate of Completion of Apprenticeship, which would have been presented to the apprentice on the successful completion of the indenture. From the ones I've been looking at online, sometimes these mentioned the number of years served, sometimes not, but they look much more like something you'd frame and hang on the wall than the contracts (the indentures) themselves, which are rather plainer and wordier.
The term of an apprenticeship indenture was (originally) normally seven years and was a legally binding obligation.
Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, and also Chairman of the international Financial Stability Board, expressed some very serious concerns here.
The immediate risks to the global economy in general and job markets in particular would appear to be destabilisation alarm, increasing lack of confidence and a consequential slump. Not the news I expected when I started this thread.
On the other point I’m doing some more research into the fascinating question of whether AI will eventually develop some kind of self awareness. There’s been much more written about this possibility than I knew. Might be worth a separate thread.
It strikes me that the trouble with AI/LLMs is that the focus is on the wrong things. If the focus was on the right things, there would be little clamour to use and promote it as it would be very difficult to make money.
What I mean by this is that in the main people are using it to make their lives easier - you get it to write an essay, you have it check job applications, write computer code and so on. These are all functions that the AI chatbots do very quickly and very badly.
Where I think there is in value is where the AI/LLM makes things more difficult, and humans can use that difficulty to leverage themselves into new things. This is an iterative process, a conversation with a fairly intelligent and well-informed but flawed partner who you need to correct.
So for example perhaps a novice painter or potter or author could engage with an AI chatbot to improve self-criticism of their work so they can improve next time.
My view is that these kinds of activities are likely to be a miniscule part of the data-centre mushroom growth so when the economic bubble eventually bursts, they will likely remain.
The immediate risks to the global economy in general and job markets in particular would appear to be destabilisation alarm, increasing lack of confidence and a consequential slump. Not the news I expected when I started this thread.
The last report from the Bank of International Settlements also highlighted this risk:
I think Asimov's stories tell us rather more about how humans are inclined to reason about AI than how we *need* to reason about AI.
A key plot point in Liar is that the robot is telepathic. I think the most significant contribution of Liar is to introduce the word "robotics" to the English language (according to the Oxford English Dictionary).
I perceive a pervasive underlying assumption that AI is somehow behaving like a developing human being. It isn't. Not in the slightest.
And I find much of what is written and said about "Artificial Intelligence", including the words themselves, to be disingenuous rhetoric.
Currently, the biggest proof or argument we have regarding the future capability of AI is the amount of money that is being invested in it. On Thursday (a couple of days ago), Nvidia's market value increased by $442 billion, following their second-quarter earnings report (which included favourable revenue guidance). This was the second-largest one-day gain in history (after Microsoft, a few weeks ago). Nvidia is the most highly-valued company in history.
Magic beans, anyone?
For the whole of my professional life, computer science has been promising general artificial intelligence in 'a few years.' The only tangible progress I have noticed is that computers are consuming more and more of the Earth's (finite) resources. For every breakthrough in medical science there are a million people using it to produce spoof videos, or plagiarise someone else's creative work.
Comments
The term of an apprenticeship indenture was (originally) normally seven years and was a legally binding obligation.
Latterly I think they've ended up dropping even those, or using the money to fund - say - execs who want to do a business degree or MBA.
It looks like this https://www.theyard.info/men/indenture.asp
Concern seems to be growing.
Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, and also Chairman of the international Financial Stability Board, expressed some very serious concerns here.
Also this
AI has been oversold and so far has underdelivered.
The immediate risks to the global economy in general and job markets in particular would appear to be destabilisation alarm, increasing lack of confidence and a consequential slump. Not the news I expected when I started this thread.
On the other point I’m doing some more research into the fascinating question of whether AI will eventually develop some kind of self awareness. There’s been much more written about this possibility than I knew. Might be worth a separate thread.
What I mean by this is that in the main people are using it to make their lives easier - you get it to write an essay, you have it check job applications, write computer code and so on. These are all functions that the AI chatbots do very quickly and very badly.
Where I think there is in value is where the AI/LLM makes things more difficult, and humans can use that difficulty to leverage themselves into new things. This is an iterative process, a conversation with a fairly intelligent and well-informed but flawed partner who you need to correct.
So for example perhaps a novice painter or potter or author could engage with an AI chatbot to improve self-criticism of their work so they can improve next time.
My view is that these kinds of activities are likely to be a miniscule part of the data-centre mushroom growth so when the economic bubble eventually bursts, they will likely remain.
The last report from the Bank of International Settlements also highlighted this risk:
https://www.bis.org/publications/aer-2026
There's a podcast from Foreign Policy magazine by the economic historian Adam Tooze that covers some of the issues mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QevC7OrdJP8
Magic beans, anyone?
For the whole of my professional life, computer science has been promising general artificial intelligence in 'a few years.' The only tangible progress I have noticed is that computers are consuming more and more of the Earth's (finite) resources. For every breakthrough in medical science there are a million people using it to produce spoof videos, or plagiarise someone else's creative work.
And what Lambchopped said.