About what everybody else is worrying about the flipside of this is also true there is no point in getting excited about something that everybody else is eagerly anticipating why . Because when the vast majority of investors agree that somethings going to happen, that thing tends to already be priced into the stock market while the real economy moves at its own sedate pace you have to build out goods to transport them to retail outlets and wait for the customer to come along and buy them the stock market has no such limitations. Stocks dont quite travel at the speed of light well, how about the speed of thought . They come pretty close the moment of preponderance of hedge fund and Mutual Fund Managers decide that the economy is slowing or speeding up or flat lining, stocks start trading like thats the case instantaneously. It usually takes some time to build that kind of consensus which is why you rarely see these most happening all at once but once the big institutional Portfolio Mana
Like plutonium or highly enriched uranium imagine if it had been an easy way to do it like baking sand in the microwave and you could have. The energy of the atom and if that had turned out to be the way things are then maybe at that point civilization would have come to an end then. With surveillance from what i understand you cant really predict the future nothing can when you can survey people and watch what theyre doing but then they will be inventing things under surveillance but you want know that it is detrimental until something has gone wrong that that the fact of surveillance wouldnt really prevent well so if. Things start the world at some level of technology is vulnerable in this sense one can then obviously wants to ask well what could we possibly do in that situation to prevent the world from actually getting destroyed and it does look like insurgents in our else. Youd be. Good to surveillance would be the only thing that could possibly prevent that. Now would even that w
Similar issues. It is bloomberg daybreak europe. A warm welcome to the show. Five days of misery on the pound seem to have come to an end. We have given down given back the boris bounce. It will be a jagged path. 1. 38, squeeze out to about 1. 40 by the end of 2020. He does not see political brakeman ship ending anytime soon. 500, irrational exuberance for 2020. Thats what we need to ask ourselves on the s p 500. Consumer spending is strong. Newhome sales, you saw the best three months since 2007. I always get very nervous when people refer back to 2007 and 2008. Catherine man has a warning from citi. China is stepping up measures to support the economy in 2020. It is a multi prong policy drive. Tariff cuts on goods will be delivered and it is supporting the domestic consumption. Selina wang with me from beijing. Good to see you. A little bit more on this. Give me the details. We are getting sort of a blitz of news around some policy measures that china is looking to take to bolster th
Hello and welcome to. Me sophie shevardnadze. With technology involving at a cost make speech and Artificial Intelligence no longer just a hollywood dream as a path ahead of us a dangerous one will our lives still be real while im here in Oxford University to ask all these questions to one of the most prominent thinkers in this field nick bostrom. Its really great to have you with us so youre a philosopher or author who writes about whats going to happen to us basically possibly so one of the ideas that you put forward is this idea of. You know. So correct me if i were wrong but if i get this correctly its its basically that humanity may come up with a technology that may do this to extension and therefore we would need computer surveillance while that might be an oversimplification but the vulnerable world hypothesis. Is the hypothesis that at some level of Technological Development it gets to be said to destroy 6 basically so that by default one civilization reaches the level of deve
Right so correct me if i were wrong but if i get this correctly its its basically that humanity may come up with a technology that may do this to extension and therefore we would meet computer surveillance well that might be an oversimplification but the vulnerable world hypothesis. Is the hypothesis does at some level of Technological Development it gets to be said to destroy 6 basic things so that by default one civilisation reaches the level of development. Well get that a state that. A couple of different ways in which this could be true one maybe the easiest way to see is. If it just because. At some level of Development Even for a small group or individual to cause must destruction so imagine if Nuclear Weapons for example instead of. Acquiring these rare difficult to obtain Raw Materials like plutonium or highly enriched uranium imagine if it had been an easy way to do it like baking sand in the microwave and you could have. An idea of the atom and that if that had turned out to