For all those that think automation is just a threat for the little people

[moonbogg]

Machines can replace people, and other machines. They can also do things that were never done before. You and the OP seem to think that machines replace what is already there being done by people. Sometimes, machines open up new things to humanity. Machines dont simply improve upon what people were doing, they enable people to do new things.

M: That is not the point. In the first place, you live in a world where the rate of change has happened at a pace to which humans have had the ability to adapt, but change is happening at a geometric rate. Given time and continued progress in the rate of technological advance, only an artificial intelligence will be able to manage it. That will be an event horizon beyond which no human will be able to see.

Secondly, when you say that machines open up new things to humanity, you are speaking of new things that humans can do with, but not by new machines. But the rate of change will mean that only machines will be able to manage themselves. The question will become, what is the point of human life and how do we, or can we, coexist with a species with greater intelligence than ourselves. There is a speed bump ahead that I think you are missing

lol yeah you could say that again.

I love it when people make fun of this stuff. I really enjoy it a lot, because never will there ever be a time again when someone will have the privilege of being so wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

Irrational? Hmmm it strikes me as completely rational to believe in the likelihood of further automation. You speak of Fear as if you have not seen the face of your robotic replacement...... yet. It may not ever happen in your lifetime if you are lucky.

For those people who labored for large portions of their lives at a task only to have a machine take their place my heart goes out to them. For some it may have been liberating. For most I suspect it was far from enjoyable.

Does your heart go out to all the people who lost their jobs to automation when you buy a car that would otherwise cost twice what you paid?

Especially in this modern age of outsourcing, had it not been for automation we would make 0 cars in this country because of how labor intensive it is and how expensive our labor is compared to other countries. Despite the automation, tons of people are still required to make cars.

Who knows what will happen when true AI comes to be, that is when machines will be able to do the vast majority of even white collar jobs. We already have algorithms trading stocks, AI would be able to take it to another level, constantly learning, constantly getting better, no need for sleep, perfect statistical skills, billions of calcs per second, etc... Think being able to scan every earnings report, news story, completely analyse the entirety of a companies books, calculate probabilities, etc for every company traded every few seconds (if not a few times per second by then).

 

[BoberFett]

I didn't say that. I said that jobs were created for everybody because they lived in a non-automated world of scarcity. Leadership involved putting everybody to work to overcome that scarcity for the good of all. The leaders of Jamestown saw it as their duty & the people saw it as their duty to participate. It was an issue of practicality & morality, as well.

Modern economic leadership involves no such thing, obviously. Modern technology insures that a lot less human work needs to be done while remote ownership & control provide no moral compunction or sense of duty to the community at all.

Leadership & ideology matter. They change the world. Or you can just blame the victims.

Herpaderp! What is this job creation thing you're talking about? Nobody created jobs in colonial America. People worked because work is what created food and shelter. No wonder your views on "job creation" are so FUBAR. You don't understand how or why jobs are created.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I think people should stop using computers. A single modern computer today can do more work in a single day than 40,000 engineers could in 1940 over a year.

I don't see any tears for those 40,000 engineers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Who knows what will happen when true AI comes to be,

The issue, I think, is that we are already beginning to see what will happen.

 

[BoberFett]

I think people should stop using computers. A single modern computer today can do more work in a single day than 40,000 engineers could in 1940 over a year.

I don't see any tears for those 40,000 engineers.

Why do you and Zaap keep repeating this stupidity? Nobody is saying throw your shoes in the machine.

But what are your plans for the billions of people who are unable to contribute to the economy because their only skills are done better by a machine?

Notice Zaap has avoided a very simply question, several times.

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH BILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE?

 

[moonbogg]

Who knows what will happen when true AI comes to be, that is when machines will be able to do the vast majority of even white collar jobs.

You did say true AI, right? Try to stop imagining them within a human context. We won't be able to relate to them and they won't care about doing human white collar jobs. Do you see the geniuses at MIT working to develop a more efficient ant stick? Do you even know what an ant stick is? Do you care? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

 

[First]

Why do you and Zaap keep repeating this stupidity? Nobody is saying throw your shoes in the machine.

But what are your plans for the billions of people who are unable to contribute to the economy because their only skills are done better by a machine?

Notice Zaap has avoided a very simply question, several times.

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH BILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE?

That's kind of an impossible question to answer; by the point that billions of people are actually unemployed directly because of technology (something I'm not sure will ever happen), we'll be living in a Star Trek future in space where everybody does things for the greater good because it's the only socially acceptable form of living, yes? I mean really, who the hell knows!

 

[Moonbeam]

You did say true AI, right? Try to stop imagining them within a human context. We won't be able to relate to them and they won't care about doing human white collar jobs. Do you see the geniuses at MIT working to develop a more efficient ant stick? Do you even know what an ant stick is? Do you care? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

What I question about your post is if there is any way to know what true AI means or equates to. Does intelligence have any self evident purpose. Does intelligence have choice? Is not any conclusion you make, including that you won't be able to relate to them, imagining them in a human context?

 

[MongGrel]

I think people should stop using computers. A single modern computer today can do more work in a single day than 40,000 engineers could in 1940 over a year.

I don't see any tears for those 40,000 engineers.

I'd say that is a bit of an overstatement, myself.

 

[glenn1]

That's odd, crime stats show that crime overall and in that 'not currently employable' sector is actually much lower than it was in the past. Considering your logic, that means progressive policies have been working like a charm!

Now I'm sure you will immediately abandon that logic and find some other reason to say it has failed.

Yeah, after doubling, tripling, or more throughout the Great Society programs then rate slows slightly as Reagan takes office and implements his reforms; then drop precipitously after Clinton signs welfare reform and guts key elements of your welfare state. Great track record there for how they "work like a charm" unless you meant to say "....once they were abandoned."

Oh, and I'm sure increasing average ages or incarceration rates in the U.S. have nothing to do with the crime rate either, it's all about how much taxpayer loot you can shove out the door to people.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's kind of an impossible question to answer; by the point that billions of people are actually unemployed directly because of technology (something I'm not sure will ever happen), we'll be living in a Star Trek future in space where everybody does things for the greater good because it's the only socially acceptable form of living, yes? I mean really, who the hell knows!

That we do not know doesn't preclude that we can figure it's coming and consider wby or see that some sort of major adjustments may need to be made.

 

[BoberFett]

That's kind of an impossible question to answer; by the point that billions of people are actually unemployed directly because of technology (something I'm not sure will ever happen), we'll be living in a Star Trek future in space where everybody does things for the greater good because it's the only socially acceptable form of living, yes? I mean really, who the hell knows!

Except that automation hasn't happened overnight, and the continued trend to robots and "AI" (or pseudo-AI, intelligent enough that it looks like AI to the uninitiated) will continue to be a process. We won't have an overnight Star Trek utopia, we'll continue to see a world where fewer and fewer people are needed for producing goods and providing services, and competition for jobs will increase.

Technology is amazing. It has provided an amazing lifestyle for hundreds of millions of people. But it disruptive, and people with their head in the sand will be caught unawares.

 

[glenn1]

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH BILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE?

That's not the problem of technology or automation, and not my problem to provide them with a purpose for their lives. Or you could be a progressive and give them big fat taxpayer checks because you fear them lynching you otherwise.

So if the choice is between the right-wing cynicism of "get a job you bum" and the left-wing cynicism of "here's money, please don't mug or rape me" I'll take the former. It's the cheaper and slightly more moral of two bad options.

 

[First]

Except that automation hasn't happened overnight, and the continued trend to robots and "AI" (or pseudo-AI, intelligent enough that it looks like AI to the uninitiated) will continue to be a process. We won't have an overnight Star Trek utopia, we'll continue to see a world where fewer and fewer people are needed for producing goods and providing services, and competition for jobs will increase.

Technology is amazing. It has provided an amazing lifestyle for hundreds of millions of people. But it disruptive, and people with their head in the sand will be caught unawares.

Definitely a long, drawn-out process with winners and losers along the way, especially those who choose to stick their head in the sand as you said. I hold out hope (and I think it's not just blind hope) that the current and up-and-coming generations, who are far more comfortable and well versed with technology, will be able to innately cope with the competition for these higher skilled, tech-centered jobs. The road to Star Trek might be long, but if I had to make a bet I'd say it's not too far off on the human timeline, maybe another 100-150 years.

 

[First]

That's not the problem of technology or automation, and not my problem to provide them with a purpose for their lives. Or you could be a progressive and give them big fat taxpayer checks because you fear them lynching you otherwise.

So if the choice is between the right-wing cynicism of "get a job you bum" and the left-wing cynicism of "here's money, please don't mug or rape me" I'll take the former. It's the cheaper and slightly more moral of two bad options.

It's cute you think right-wing cynicism can be summed up with "Get a job you bum".

 

[First]

That we do not know doesn't preclude that we can figure it's coming and consider wby or see that some sort of major adjustments may need to be made.

Right, but all of those adjustments would be highly speculative.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'd say that is a bit of an overstatement, myself.

Not really. Back then, they had to do tons of calculations by hand. Engine performance, some navier stokes stuff, fluids, thermals. This is an insane amount of work.

Now we can run 50 different variations of the same engine and iterate them 100,000 times a day to optimize performance. This would have been impossible in a reasonable timeframe 60 years back.

 

[moonbogg]

What I question about your post is if there is any way to know what true AI means or equates to. Does intelligence have any self evident purpose. Does intelligence have choice? Is not any conclusion you make, including that you won't be able to relate to them, imagining them in a human context?

I don't have a clear grasp on all of that, because defining things like intelligence is difficult to do. In a way I am defining them within a human context for the purposes of making a comparison to humans. Others seem to think they will only do things that humans currently do.
By "true AI" I mean a consciousness with abilities far beyond our own, but it doesn't even have to be conscious to pose a threat. It only has to be highly capable of shaping the world around it in ways that are bad for us or make us useless and obsolete to the point of us feeling left behind.
I want them to be conscious because I want them to experience their own greatness and to enjoy the richness of their own experience. That's what I hope for actually.

EDIT: This constitutes a kind of death for humanity even if we survive. What is the thrill of being human? For me, its knowing that I have the privilege of being on the cutting edge of evolution. The best known thinking in the universe happens with us, and I am a part of that species. It gives a sense of pride and purpose, to forge ahead for everyone else.
With a super intelligence, all of that is lost. Imagine having a son, and by age 5 he shows great intelligence and promise. No sooner than you feel that excitement are you forced to remind yourself that there is no need and no place for his healthy mind in the world. Any technological advancement or scientific breakthroughs are done for us, and already the level of advancement is far beyond what even the best human minds can grasp. What meaningful contribution can your child bring? What can any of us bring? We lose a lot of meaning that way, when this happens. We re no longer the cutting edge species. We will trail far behind while someone else does all the heavy lifting and we do the best we can to keep up just enough to barely ride their coattails.

 

[inachu]

I'll be happy when those automated processes ideologies flow all the way up to the people who are contracted who advise companies how not to hire americans. Would like to see them live their life in hell for at least 15-20 years with uncertain financial abilities with zero stable work.

Lets see them squirm in a cesspool of an economy they created. Oh and rip up their passports so they can not leave the country when things get tough. They made the economy what it is.... Let them swim in it!

 

[Zaap]

Why do you and Zaap keep repeating this stupidity? Nobody is saying throw your shoes in the machine.

But what are your plans for the billions of people who are unable to contribute to the economy because their only skills are done better by a machine?

Notice Zaap has avoided a very simply question, several times.

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH BILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE?

This is the dumbfuck that once lamented the loss of telephone switchboard operators instead of a modern system that allows much cheaper phone calls and millions more calls, cellphones, the Internet, the entire modern tech age that we live in.

And this nit wit STILL whining about *BILLIONS* of people without realizing how dumb that is- he's whining to provide jobs for people in India and China. McOwned level dumb. I never realized he was quite this dumb.

 

[inachu]

I don't have a clear grasp on all of that, because defining things like intelligence is difficult to do. In a way I am defining them within a human context for the purposes of making a comparison to humans. Others seem to think they will only do things that humans currently do.
By "true AI" I mean a consciousness with abilities far beyond our own, but it doesn't even have to be conscious to pose a threat. It only has to be highly capable of shaping the world around it in ways that are bad for us or make us useless and obsolete to the point of us feeling left behind.
I want them to be conscious because I want them to experience their own greatness and to enjoy the richness of their own experience. That's what I hope for actually.

First off intelligence is not proof of sentience.
In electronics there are LOGIC gates that are simplistic using transistors and ICS chips.
So logic alone will perform until the unit burns out.

Now base that a a few billion times and the unit still will not have sentience at all.
Even if you were able to copy your brain into the unit it then you will lose your copies soul because in the process there is no emulator that can emulate emotion and in theory if emotion would to be able to be process by the electronics then it would just burn up unable to handle the extra flurious activities that emotions bring.

But with pure logic if it was able to be allowed to view an active live brian hooked up to it as to scan it then it could build or change or reprogram itself so that it can be able to process and change its very base code to handle emotions.

So self programming electronics will be in our near future.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the dumbfuck that once lamented the loss of telephone switchboard operators instead of a modern system that allows much cheaper phone calls and millions more calls, cellphones, the Internet, the entire modern tech age that we live in.

And this nit wit STILL whining about *BILLIONS* of people without realizing how dumb that is- he's whining to provide jobs for people in India and China. McOwned level dumb. I never realized he was quite this dumb.

Given that it's really dumb to worry about billions of unemployed people, out of idle curiosity and without any regard to their fate, what do you think it will be?

 

[Jhhnn]

Herpaderp! What is this job creation thing you're talking about? Nobody created jobs in colonial America. People worked because work is what created food and shelter. No wonder your views on "job creation" are so FUBAR. You don't understand how or why jobs are created.

Lame denial. Jobs, per se, are a function of organization & leadership. Otherwise, we'd still be wandering bands of unspecialized hunter gatherers.

 

[Zaap]

Given that it's really dumb to worry about billions of unemployed people, out of idle curiosity and without any regard to their fate, what do you think it will be?

China and India have massive manpower advantages over the rest of the world. They are not embracing any of the automation schemes that dimshits like Gooberfett piss his pants over, it would be suicidal and stupid of them. It's a NON-FUCKING-ISSUE for "billions of people", it's not even a current issue for most in the western world.

Gooberfett and all the nitwits wringing their hands over an imaginary "problem" that's not even a reality, and sure as shit won't be a reality for nations that are going to push their own manpower advantages- not willingly commit suicide- is just fucking McOwned-level "Oil Thugs" stupid. To say nothing of China and India's economic issues not being mine nor anyone else in the western world's problem to solve in the first fucking place.

But then again... this subject/this forum? What else did I expect besides reactionary, childish thinking from simple minds who quake in fear over imaginary robots?