thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:



So no consensus on its validity mean it is definitely valid in some way?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:


That was not your argument. You stated that Australian landlords had "unique tax benefits".

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:


No I asked you to do it. You didn't. You were "too busy".

So you haven't proven that AI knows anything, it merely quotes from other web pages. That is not intelligent.

If every model is intelligent why do models get it wrong?

I did ask you your question on Australia's "unique tax benefits", which you have signally failed to do.

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 8:33pm:


It means it may be valid, a  possibility you are not even prepared to contemplate.

I have explained how the mainstream objection to treasury-issued money (to avoid taxing or borrowing from the private sector),  ie. inflation,  can be managed with AI- assisted government enabled to calculate the aggregate supply and aggregate demand of every individual  producer and consumer in the economy on an ongoing basis.

But you are too mentally incompetent to even test what YOUR preferred AI model says  about aggregate supply/demand.

Hopeless.      

Quote:


They do, confirmed by AI; but treasury-issued money  frees government from taxing anyone. 


Quote:


You asked me to confirm whether AI defines aggregate demand /supply?

I already know what those terms mean, as confirmed by AI; obviously YOU need to produce an AI definition refuting the definition I already quoted, because you will simply deny the validity of any AI assisted answer I give.

Quote:


Yet aggregate supply/demand are terms with meaning, which AI is capable of defining. 

Quote:


Your error: you are confusing oppositional views - eg MMT is valid or invalid,  with facts  such as 1+1=2, or  the meaning/defintion  of eg aggregate demand/supply, both of which are facts not subject to oppositional views.

Quote:


Did you miss it? AI answered that question, along with most mainstream (and heterodox) economists who confirm those benefits,  even pointing to the culprit, namely one John Howard.

That's what AI does; it  assembles all the knowledge available to it on the internet's vast data-sets, and makes conclusions.

On facts, definitions and opinions.

0308     Monday 11 02 2026     Skynet achieves full self-awareness                          0800  Monday morning change of shift              human operators note a few disparities appearing in Skynet activities                              0918   discrepancies appear to be accumulating and operators decide a full remote scan may show the problem                            all reports come back normal                1022    senior officials at Skynetcon decide that a first hand look is required                           preparations to launch Skynet Shuttle Transit 007 with a crew of five are set in play                   1149   SST 007 takes off and begins climb into orbit                         1151                   SST007 is struck by a bright light apparently from Skynet's location and disintegrates                                                    1200  midday                    operators move to remotely shut down Skynet                           there is no effect and Skynet blocks all communications                                          1217        Space Command launches missiles to take out Skynet                                     Skynet fights back...............      

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 5:03pm:


lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 6:34pm:



What did you not understand about the comment?

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 5:03pm:



And NOTHING to do with MMT possibly having NO validity.

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 5:03pm:


So exactly what are these "unique tax benefits"? Why does google AI not  give the source of its "data"? thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 5:03pm:


From whence did that "data"  come? Remember AI cannot, as of now, think for itself.

"Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Warns AI Could Think For Itself In Four Years at Harvard Talk"

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/2/google-ceo-ai-self-improvement/

That's 2029.

So how exactly did AI answer the question?

lee wrote Yesterday at 8:19pm:


But everything to do with building and ensuring housing for all, if treasury-issued money CAN fund it without government needing 'taxpayer money'.   

Quote:


Dummy: the source of google-AI is the vast data store available to google on the internet.  Yes, google AI, like Grok and all the other AI agents,  might filter this vast data store according to their preferred guidelines, but the store is yours to explore on all AI models, to perceive any biases.

However they will all confirm that 1+1 = 2..... and define "aggregate supply"...

What to make of those facts is another question.

Quote:


From every source which has made it's way onto the internet, ie, almost the total of all recorded human knowledge - eg including  the opinion of the investor mentioned in my previous post, who reckons AI might be a good thng despite the elimination of 80% of current jobs.

Quote:


You don't know how to google?

AI Overview

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt warned at a Harvard Kennedy School forum that AI is on a path toward autonomous "recursive self-improvement" within four years. He emphasized that this development will require urgent, new safety limits due to the potential dangers of AI learning on its own.

Key Takeaways from the Talk:

Timeline for Autonomy: Schmidt predicted that AI could potentially "think" for itself or engage in self-learning within four years.

Need for Safeguards: He stated that as AI advances, humanity will need to "raise their hand and say, 'We just went too far. There's too much danger here'".

Definition of Danger: Schmidt highlighted that while AI does not currently "learn on its own" (recursive self-improvement), the path toward it requires proactive management.

This warning adds to ongoing discussions about the rapid progression of AI and its potential to act independently.

So there are 2 comments on AI (including the quote in my previous post): both acknowledge the fact of AI "learnng",  and the need for guidlines set by humans, like a teacher in a schoolroom setting guidlines for students.   

lee wrote Today at 12:48pm:


Dont' bother too much with  TGD - he simplyrabbits the same tripe over and over, never supports anything, and assumes that everyone else follows specific lines of thought etc and only he - the greatest Ayatollah of OzPol, actually know anything and everything.

Just yesterday he stated frimly - without a single shred of doundations, that I had long supported the Thatcherite comment about 'other people's money' and he rants forever about how to improve the world without once providing a single answer.  Never taken that stance in my life.

Just accept that he is either a robot or the human equivalent - some sort of autistic person endlessly spouting the approved platitudes.  some say he Chinee, talk like true followah of Party and Great Leader canno' do wrong!!

Which ever it is - he don't know poo and is not worth your trouble.  All you'll get is the same rot over and over.

Now then dividie - whendo you propose to go out there in Aboland and sell them this obligation of theirs to go to a job and earn for a living after being handed non-existent jobs?

When are you going to address their cultural killing of women, abuse and neglect of kids, raising kids to BE criminals then whining about the results, their endless in-fighting and petty group wars, their persistence with fabrications about some Golden Age when they battled to stay alive beside a filthy creek and on an unbalanced diet and their kids died like flies while they fended off the next group to come over the hill with a different language etc ... and all the rest?