And there are always going to be jobs that robotics cannot provide for in the foreseeable future. People that work with their hands outside of an assembly line job are very difficult to replace. There are no robot plumbers, HVAC mechanics, auto mechanics, construction workers, etc. There is still plenty of good work in the future for people who do not want to work a desk job.
Greater efficiency benefits everyone in the long term.
Yep the middle class jobs are a definite target, in The Lights in The Tunnel, they look at how it is economically worth it to try to automate good paying jobs especially those that require less manipulation of the real world.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90% became poorer.
Robots will definitely change job roles in the future, but the tipping point will not be when someone invents a relatively expensive robot to do flexible manual labor. It will be when AI reaches the point where "knowledge workers" are out of a job due to formless and basically free software . For example, a lot of formerly very well off people will be out looking for manual labor gigs once Google invents a virtual engineer floating in a server array that can write new code.
Easy to replicate manual labor will definitely be automated. But so will easy to replicate white collar jobs, and those are arguably even easier to replace in many cases. Think about all the high-paying engineering jobs being outsourced to Asia -- those are the real targets of the robot inventors, not the barista down the street.
White collar, blue collar they all can be replaced.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc895d54-a2bf-11e3-9685-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uyStDWm3
Interesting article. Oxford University say that robots could replace half of the current workforce in the next 10-20 years. It is coming, make sure you and your children have an education/career that will be in demand in the future.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2014/04/26/dont-panic-your-retirement-number-is-lower-than-yo.aspx
Interesting article. Oxford University say that robots could replace half of the current workforce in the next 10-20 years. It is coming, make sure you and your children have an education/career that will be in demand in the future.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2014/04/26/dont-panic-your-retirement-number-is-lower-than-yo.aspx
I think you cut and paste the wrong link. :)
Some people have mentioned 3D printing. I think this will be the real revolution. Imagine - going to your local 3D print store, and getting exactly the washing machine you want, with only the cycles you actually use, the exact size to take your normal wash. The next customer might want a bicycle, or a couch or even another 3D printer.Cutting down on the amount of air being shipped is not going to reduce costs, because most of those costs are associated with weight rather than size. A lorry can pull a shipping container full of washing machines, but not a shipping container full of solid steel pellets. Also, carrying air is much more efficient than heating every single gram of every material in an object to melting point and assembling it in liquid form one wafer-thin layer at a time.
Shipping will change (as against lorries). I didn't say it would reduce costs - just that it would be a revolution, because it will change the entire production line, and probably the entire consumable culture. It could also reduce pollution and energy consumption.Some people have mentioned 3D printing. I think this will be the real revolution. Imagine - going to your local 3D print store, and getting exactly the washing machine you want, with only the cycles you actually use, the exact size to take your normal wash. The next customer might want a bicycle, or a couch or even another 3D printer.Cutting down on the amount of air being shipped is not going to reduce costs, because most of those costs are associated with weight rather than size. A lorry can pull a shipping container full of washing machines, but not a shipping container full of solid steel pellets. Also, carrying air is much more efficient than heating every single gram of every material in an object to melting point and assembling it in liquid form one wafer-thin layer at a time.
It makes obsolete the cost efficiency of making millions of exactly the same thing.This is the main problem - it never will. 3D printing just requires so much energy. If you're making steel out of molten iron, it's much more efficient to form it into the shapes you want while it's still molten, rather than cutting it into pellets, letting them cool, and then melting and remolding the pellets later. You talk about waste, but what about wasted energy?
3D printing fills an important niche, which will surely grow over time, but it will never economically compete with centralised mass production and distribution.Sorry to disagree, but it already is. For instance, 3D printing of clothes is occurring, and a high percentage of clothing made from polyesters rather than natural fibres. Clothing is one of the major manufacturing industries in which waste is astronomical.
This is scary stuff for the person whose job is becoming an anachronism, much like the service station attendant of yore.
3D printing just requires so much energy.
Manna, a look at two societies in the future:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
<-- Is a FANUC robot specialist at a major car manufacture. FANUC is the world leader in industrial robots. I'm not worried about my career going away.
=D
There's always a role for creativity and critical thinking. I think we get too enamored by the STEM or hard science path as a means of immediate career placement. Yet, I know lots of successful people that didn't follow this path.
What we've always been good at as a country is not completely destroying a child's creativity, unlike many of the Asian or communist block countries. I was listening to an NPR segment yesterday where a speaker made a compelling argument against competing with other countries for children's math and science scores on standardized tests. He referenced a 1958 article from Life magazine that showed Soviet children were beating American children in the same areas. Yet, we won the cold war and we've been prosperous innovators for nearly the entire industrial and post-industrial era.
I think it's still best to encourage your children to learn all they can, and follow their passions. I can't think of anyone that's done this and hasn't been able to support themselves by their mid-30s.
Get any job that interests you and pays the bills. you will be getting paid to learn a business and to learn about yourself as well. That job and the next job and the next will pay you to learn far more about yourself than you will learn paying for more education. There will come a time when you will hopefully have it figured out, the day you graduate is not that time
Manna, a look at two societies in the future:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
This was an interesting read, for a piece of speculative fiction. Which isn't usually my thing.
It's 8 web-page sized chapters long, and I wasn't terribly happy with ending, but the larger theme of how automation and robotics strongly influencing the direction of capitalism is a meaty one. You could easily write a much larger book based on this little story.
The summary for people who can't be bothered: As software and robots start to replace management jobs, instead of just manual labor jobs, the traditional roles of people controlling computers will be reversed and people essentially become the laborers being controlled by computers. This leads to phenomenal increases in productivity and standard of living for some people, but ever larger portions of the population end up in these minimum wage jobs that don't require any thinking because a computer is telling you what to do all day.
This greatly stratifies the distribution of wealth in the country, and eventually leads to a corporate elite with untold wealth and the bulk of the population basically living in high tech slums, with robot-supplied food and housing like the "guaranteed income" we have discussed here before. These people are sectioned off from rich society because nobody likes to look at homeless people, so they can't really leave. They are not exactly oppressed, just effectively confined because they lack the means to live anywhere else.
This is the society of our automated capitalist future, where almost everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator. By contrast, the later chapters focus on an alternative system of collectivism where nobody owns anything or has any privacy, but everyone shares the benefits of the collective and this greatly raises the standard of living for people who are allowed to participate in it because robots are doing all of the work. The story makes this sound like a fantasy heaven without really exploring the negative consequences of such an arrangement, which is why I think there is a much larger book to be written based on these ideas.
<-- Is a FANUC robot specialist at a major car manufacture. FANUC is the world leader in industrial robots. I'm not worried about my career going away.
=D
What is your thoughts on those who are not STEM gifted or are in careers that may be affected by robots? I will be comfortably retired and owning stocks in corporations making or using robots, so this scenario is probably a positive for my personal wellbeing. The concern I have is for my children, some whom are STEM gifted and some that are not STEM gifted. How do you educate and encourage them to place themselves into a path of success?
The other big issue, is what role is government in creating a fair playing field where everyone rises vs. just the owners or STEM gifted. Part of me sees the benefit in government ensuring that all parties are better off. I think our current government oversight will create an environment where the top 1% will own everything and have no real use for those that are not STEM useful. Visiting other 3rd world countries has shown me the crazy poverty next to huge mansions with guards to keep the riff-raff out. Even though I am in the 1%, I don't want to create a future where you have the multi billionaire wealthy and those barely surviving day to day.
The concern or the opportunity is to limit or discourage the capitalistic predators who feel like money is everything. Also to empower and herald those who see money as a means to make the world a better place. I believe the Giving Pledge and other peer pressure may limit the desire to screw over the world to extract out every penny from society, but I think government may need to be empowered to limit the predators.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
Every single job could conceivably be replaced with the one or the other in the medium term (2-3 decades). Your best best is probably police officer or a primary school teacher.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
Every single job could conceivably be replaced with the one or the other in the medium term (2-3 decades). Your best best is probably police officer or a primary school teacher.
I guess you've never seen Robo-Cop. Or Kindergarten Cop (to be fair I do think that Arnold was an American citizen by that time, his accent wasn't very convincing though).
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
UN, for the first time talking about the rules around robots and the autonomous kill function.
http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-27343076
Call me skeptical, even cynical, but this entire thread reminds me of 1960s Popular Mechanics articles about flying cars and personal jetpacks.It's easy to be skeptical/cynical - remembering the Jetsons and how the world was to change after the first moon landing (we were to have colonies on Mars by now). And, yes, this does hark back to Popular Mechanics. However, the future is probably sooner than we think. Work over the past 50 years has progressed toward making these things real - probably even in our lifetimes. I recently read an article by Isaac Asimov where he predicted the world in 2010? - not sure of the exact year - and it was amazingly accurate.
I'm glad for all of the personal productivity improvements, especially Moore's Law and factory automation, but I think the slope of the curve is less exponential than the popular media predicts. Before we get all excited about AIs I want a reliable machine to clean toilets and weed the nutgrass out of our yard.
Of course I'll happily buy a long-term care robot. I wonder if it'll cost less than the insurance premiums for a full-care facility staffed by humans...
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
name on job that can't?
Call me skeptical, even cynical, but this entire thread reminds me of 1960s Popular Mechanics articles about flying cars and personal jetpacks.
I'm glad for all of the personal productivity improvements, especially Moore's Law and factory automation, but I think the slope of the curve is less exponential than the popular media predicts. Before we get all excited about AIs I want a reliable machine to clean toilets and weed the nutgrass out of our yard.
Of course I'll happily buy a long-term care robot. I wonder if it'll cost less than the insurance premiums for a full-care facility staffed by humans...
Call me skeptical, even cynical, but this entire thread reminds me of 1960s Popular Mechanics articles about flying cars and personal jetpacks.
I'm glad for all of the personal productivity improvements, especially Moore's Law and factory automation, but I think the slope of the curve is less exponential than the popular media predicts. Before we get all excited about AIs I want a reliable machine to clean toilets and weed the nutgrass out of our yard.
Of course I'll happily buy a long-term care robot. I wonder if it'll cost less than the insurance premiums for a full-care facility staffed by humans...
Ha, I'm with you Nords. How many times have wee seen this play out? It's right up there with predictions of Christ's Second Coming, when some evangelist claims to know the date and time, then that date passes and they pull out the new correct prediction. I recall just a few years ago some well known futurist (maybe Ray Kurzweil?) claiming we were about to reach the point when the machines were inevitably going to become self aware and destroy us all. Yeah, that came and went around 2012 I think -- so far my toaster hasn't destroyed me (just my toast).
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
name on job that can't?
Any job that relies on an opinion, risk weighing, reasonableness, and making educated guesses in a field where every situation is unique. Robots/computers are great at things that can be reduced to a reliable, repeatable algorithm. Everything else not so much.
Interesting article on 3d printing
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101638702
"If you can print out food, components of homes, body parts as we age, it points to a really interesting future," he speculates. "We'll be treating animals in a humane way, rewriting the rules of society. What if we really don't need to work? In the hands of 7 billion creative people—we can't even begin to imagine how people will use this technology."
As I think about technology and the future, I keep coming back to society's need to define what is fair, what is safe, and how the amazing changes are going to impact all members of society. With corporations fighting to be considered people and with their significant influence on our laws due to lobbying and dollars, we may see the inequities growing between the haves and have nots. As a society we would be smart in defining our future now vs. waiting until the problem is too large to control.
Yes, I think about this quite a bit. I think there is quite a bit of good news in regards to further developments in automation. For starters, the less labor it takes to produce something, the more other cosrts come into play in regards to how much it costs to produce, distribute, and sell a good. For example, labor is dirt cheap in developing countries but transportation costs from those countries are often not cheap (China is nearly half a world away after all). As such there is a small but growing trend toward onshoring many manufacturing jobs that left the US over the past decades, as robotics can provide competitive labor costs when the discounted transportation costs are factored in. That's good news for American workers going forward.
And there are always going to be jobs that robotics cannot provide for in the foreseeable future. People that work with their hands outside of an assembly line job are very difficult to replace. There are no robot plumbers, HVAC mechanics, auto mechanics, construction workers, etc. There is still plenty of good work in the future for people who do not want to work a desk job.
Robotics will help generate even more wealth over time. 100 years ago 1 in 3 Americans worked on a farm, today 2 in 100 do, freeing up 31 people to do something else while still producing more than enough food. This principle carries forward with robotics. Yes, it will be disruptive in the short term for people who are displaced but arguably the people being displaced are often in overseas manufacturing facilities.
Another interesting trend is how more and more service jobs are being done away with. All you younguns out there may not be aware that at one time in the US people did not pump their own gas at the service station (it was called a service staion for a reason, and it was highly inefficient compared to today). The same sorts of things are happening throughout retail. People are scanning their own items, fast food restaurants are rolling out terminals where people order and pay for their own food, doing away with the need for cashiers. Banks need less tellers as the switch to online banking becomes more and more prevalent.
This is scary stuff for the person whose job is becoming an anachronism, much like the service station attendant of yore. But in the long run everyone benefits from greater efficiencies. This is one reason why I am so bullish on Costco. They have developed a fabulous system for selling goods at a deep discount by doing away with many of the inefficiencies that plague retailers while simultaneously paying their staff handsomely compared to their retail counterparts.
Greater efficiency benefits everyone in the long term.
Any job that relies on an opinion, risk weighing, reasonableness, and making educated guesses in a field where every situation is unique. Robots/computers are great at things that can be reduced to a reliable, repeatable algorithm. Everything else not so much.
or trying to have to computer do what it is good at and the human do the rest.
But are robots or automation any different than just about any other technology over the ages that has made someone's job obsolete? Weaving looms, printing presses, automobiles, tractors, telephones -- no doubt very one of those, plus 1 Million other inventions we could think of, made someone's job or entire industry obsolete. I guess I'm saying there's really nothing new here, and any doom and gloom predictions about humans becoming obsolete is right up there with "News of my death has been greatly exaggerated." There's always something for humans to do. But sure, people need to be flexible, and if you're in an industry facing a revolutionary upheaval, better start polishing up on some new skills.
Write the algorithm that can determine whether the accused was justified in stabbing the victim by claiming self defense.
Write the algorithm that can motivate a sick and depressed person to get treatment for their chronic disease.
Write the algorithm that can determine if a book is good or not.
Write the algorithm that can judge which dress is more in fashion this season.
Write the algorithm that can help a victim of child abuse getting therapy in his thirties move past his inner demons.
Show me the robot that can look at two photographs of the same woman with two different hair colors (same style) and determine whether she looks better blonde or redheaded.
Hell, forget all that. Program a sense of humor.
The worst robots can do is shift demand and supply. Jobs like my old gigs painting walls and stacking stuff on shelves and filling orders, those are in danger.
Post singularity, When robots spontaneously mock each other, debate the nature of the universe, and make purely subjective judgments with no discernible criteria, then I'll consider everyone on the chopping block.
The computers and robots are coming for the medical doctors in a big way. I personally have had good results with the MayoClinic symptom checker. http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptom-checker/select-symptom/itt-20009075 (http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptom-checker/select-symptom/itt-20009075)
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
name on job that can't?
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
name on job that can't?
I'm a NICU nurse. I'd like to think my technical skills combined with my clinical assessment and judgement lead to me being (relatively) indispensable, but I could be wrong.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
name on job that can't?
I'm a NICU nurse. I'd like to think my technical skills combined with my clinical assessment and judgement lead to me being (relatively) indispensable, but I could be wrong.
before I go on, let me say that you have probably one of the emotionally toughest jobs in the world and thank you for doing that. having to deal with the emotional draining situations you have to, I can't fathom.
Unfortunately, though, medical is something that can be done. there maybe more need for human interaction on the support/translation side of it - after all, who wants to be consoled by a robot/AI? But the reality is, if that becomes an acceptable things and as AIs learn more appropriate and comforting things to say, it may become more accepted. I don't know.
But again, the job you do is a tough job and thank you for doing it.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
I've always thought that if you're job could be replaced by a robot or an illegal alien, it's probably time to get a new job or more education. To a lesser extent that goes for off-shoring too.
I test software and automation is cutting the need for manual testing. If I don't learn automation, it will be harder and harder to find a job in my field.
So just saying, it's not only people who do manual labor or work in a warehouse whose jobs may be replaced by automation.
I'm not that worried about it personally I'll either learn to do some programming or hopefully find a job doing something I like better.
I'm looking forward to when robots (i.e., computers) do our driving for us. Things will get a lot safer.
Call me skeptical, even cynical, but this entire thread reminds me of 1960s Popular Mechanics articles about flying cars and personal jetpacks.
I'm glad for all of the personal productivity improvements, especially Moore's Law and factory automation, but I think the slope of the curve is less exponential than the popular media predicts...
"Until a decade ago, the share of total national income going to workers was pretty stable at around 70 percent, while the share going to capital—mainly corporate profits and returns on financial investments—made up the other 30 percent. More recently, though, those shares have started to change. Slowly but steadily, labor's share of total national income has gone down, while the share going to capital owners has gone up. The most obvious effect of this is the skyrocketing wealth of the top 1 percent, due mostly to huge increases in capital gains and investment income.[/size]
According to this chart made by Stuart Staniford, our robot overlords will take over soon.
In the economics literature, the increase in the share of income going to capital owners is known as capital-biased technological change. Let's take a layman's look at what that means.
The question we want to answer is simple: If CBTC is already happening—not a lot, but just a little bit—what trends would we expect to see? What are the signs of a computer-driven economy? First and most obviously, if automation were displacing labor, we'd expect to see a steady decline in the share of the population that's employed.
Second, we'd expect to see fewer job openings than in the past. Third, as more people compete for fewer jobs, we'd expect to see middle-class incomes flatten in a race to the bottom. Fourth, with consumption stagnant, we'd expect to see corporations stockpile more cash and, fearing weaker sales, invest less in new products and new factories. Fifth, as a result of all this, we'd expect to see labor's share of national income decline and capital's share rise.
These trends are the five horsemen of the robotic apocalypse, and guess what? We're already seeing them"
Any job that relies on an opinion, risk weighing, reasonableness, and making educated guesses in a field where every situation is unique. Robots/computers are great at things that can be reduced to a reliable, repeatable algorithm. Everything else not so much.
Robotics will help generate even more wealth over time...
Greater efficiency benefits everyone in the long term.
The other big one is political. Under a free market, increases in efficiency are likely to benefit everyone. But under capitalism, they only benefit investors, at the expense of labor
@Bakari:QuoteThe other big one is political. Under a free market, increases in efficiency are likely to benefit everyone. But under capitalism, they only benefit investors, at the expense of labor
Can you explain or link the difference between free market and capitalism? I would have thought them about synonymous. Or did you have crony capitalism or our bastardized protectionist capitalism in mind?
Can I ever! I just recently finished writing a ten part series on that
Can I ever! I just recently finished writing a ten part series on that
Just a comment on that. When you call it a 10 part series it sounds daunting and this big tome. I put off reading it for like 5 days until I had time to sit down and do so. Then the whole thing took about 20 minutes.
It could easily have fit into one long blog post, but you may dissuade some people who might otherwise read it when they hear "ten part series." "...I wasn't THAT interested" but if they knew each part was a quick two minute read, they may read it.
Can I ever! I just recently finished writing a ten part series on that
Just a comment on that. When you call it a 10 part series it sounds daunting and this big tome. I put off reading it for like 5 days until I had time to sit down and do so. Then the whole thing took about 20 minutes.
It could easily have fit into one long blog post, but you may dissuade some people who might otherwise read it when they hear "ten part series." "...I wasn't THAT interested" but if they knew each part was a quick two minute read, they may read it.
:P
hmm, well... I kept getting complaints that my regular posts were too long. Can't win.
@Bakari:QuoteThe other big one is political. Under a free market, increases in efficiency are likely to benefit everyone. But under capitalism, they only benefit investors, at the expense of labor
Can you explain or link the difference between free market and capitalism? I would have thought them about synonymous. Or did you have crony capitalism or our bastardized protectionist capitalism in mind?
Can I ever! I just recently finished writing a ten part series on that: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2014/04/free-market-vs-capitalism.html
everyone seems to think they are synonymous - which I suspect was deliberate political PR by capitalists. Not only are they not synonymous, they are actively opposed.
The original free-market economist, Adam Smith, was very clear about the difference, but people who quote him most often conveniently ignore those parts.
And, sure, corruption can make it even worse, but that's a whole separate thing.
The first sequenced human genome was complete in 2003 at a cost of nearly $3 billion, and it took 13 years. Just a decade later we can do the same in a few days for less than $1,000.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101751468
Google futurist and engineering director.
Computers will achieve human level intelligence and the ability to have human level emotional relationship with them by 2029.
"My timeline is computers will be at human levels, such as you can have a human relationship with them, 15 years from now," he said. Kurzweil's comments came at the Exponential Finance conference in New York on Wednesday.
3D printing of clothing by 2020.
Solar power is underrated.
Medicine - We will be able to reprogram our cells, which will allow us to reprogram away from cancer, heart disease, including aging in the near future.
Personal digital assistants in the next five to 10 years.
What does this mean to mustachians?
Portfolios may need to be built to survive to infinity, having the resources to buy/pay for the technology that may be controlled by corporations, how to assist your kids/grandkids to take advantage of these changes, and understanding how laws and society develops to share the wealth with the huge technology gains that will be occurring within the next 20 years.
Two things I've seen lately that foretell changes in the way we shop:
- In the past I've seen a kiosk selling Proactive (acne medicine) at the mall. Recently I saw that it's been replaced with a vending machine. Put in your credit card, out comes your purchase . . . just like a soda.
- At Panera Bread, I recently saw that they've installed iPads in the stores, and you can walk up to one, place your order, and pay with a credit card . . . then pick up a thingy that'll beep when your order is ready at the counter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Great video from CGP Grey. Worth taking a look see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Great video from CGP Grey. Worth taking a look see.
Necro-poster!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Great video from CGP Grey. Worth taking a look see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Great video from CGP Grey. Worth taking a look see.
That was an interesting video. They didn't really address the big question that they posed of what to do with the huge amount of people that are unemployed.
It will not surprise me if, in 20 years, most voters demand restrictions on the use of advanced machinery to retain jobs. Is this intelligence or stupidity?
It will not surprise me if, in 20 years, most voters demand restrictions on the use of advanced machinery to retain jobs. Is this intelligence or stupidity?
Of whom? The voters?
Its a consequence of setting up a capitalist system in which those who own the advanced machinery get 100% of the profit, and those who are replaced by them get 0%
It would obviously be smarter to change the system of economic distribution, but that would be much harder to do. It would mean changing a huge part of the most fundamental parts of our concept of ownership and value and rights.
There was a General Strike in England in 1926, which was partly about wages and condition in coal mines. Winston Churchill was a senior politician at the time, and was part of efforts to break the deadlock in talks between miners and mine owners. He said that he met the miners first, and thought they were the most stupid men in England. Then he met the mine owners…
I for one welcome our new robot overlords ;)
This is a really interesting thread!
I have a question, and it might well be a very stupid one, but here goes: What is the exact difference between a robot and a machine? Eg. newspapers are printed by machine, I'm sure we've all seen video footage of that. But cars are now being built by robots. What makes them robots and not machines, and the printing press a machine and not a robot? Are all robots also machines, but not all machines robots?
Interesting and scary article about technology.
http://io9.com/10-horrifying-technologies-that-should-never-be-allowed-1635238363
[...]
Will all tides rise or will robots be used to benefit the 1% and be used to protect them from the 99%. [...]
Mercedes newest self driving trucks! It will be interesting to see how quickly they displace the current drivers.
https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/mercedes-benz-reveals-future-truck-2025--the-optimus-prime-of-self-driving-semis-204305500.html
The question is will they for legal reasons ever be allowed to have no human in the truck at all (driving or not). Until that is a case there is no reduction in employment.
This has all happened before; it is known as feudalism. As advanced machines take over jobs, the ‘nobles’, that is people, extract an unearned income from the peasants and workers, who are now machines. Feudalism Phase 1 emerged in the ancient world thousands of years ago. Feudalism Phase 2 will emerge within ten years, where all humans are regarded as ’nobles’, and who generally do not work, and machines take the place of peasants and workers. I have mentioned this many times before. Why is this hard to understand?
In Mississippi in 1800 sugar planters harvested sugar cane with slave labor. In 1900 they used paid labor. Now they use machines. Slave labor, paid labor and machines are interchangeable. We do not want slave labor, and we will in the future prefer machines to paid labor. Why is this hard to understand?
Consider Jane Austen’s novels, where landowners drew an unearned income from owning land, and other investments. Earning an income from owning land was regarded as a ‘legitimate’ way of drawing an income, and still does. You will notice that I use the word ‘draw’ rather than the word ‘earn’. The day will come when drawing an income from taxing robots will also be regarded as a legitimate way of drawing an income.
This has been known to science, as a long term matter, since the fifties. Are people clever enough to understand these matters, or will these matters turn out to be an intelligence test which only a minority will understand? Science offers all people in the world the opportunity to move up to the noble level, in time. Will they even understand what is on offer?
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
Hoard my cash? Why wouldn't I invest it in all those companies that are going to be making all the money? Seems smarter to own some of those than be part of the labor...
In the Victorian era, the wealthy used to spend their time on ostentatiously useless pursuits
I see two options:
1) We improve education to produce more workers with the skill sets to fill the next gen job.
2) Unemployment rates begin to rise, and tax rates increase to support the percentage of the population who cannot find jobs.
I pick 1.
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
Hoard my cash? Why wouldn't I invest it in all those companies that are going to be making all the money? Seems smarter to own some of those than be part of the labor...
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
Hoard my cash? Why wouldn't I invest it in all those companies that are going to be making all the money? Seems smarter to own some of those than be part of the labor...
That's all well and good until the guillotines come out and play.
On Yahoo - Lowe's replacing (some) humans with robotsCool. Maybe the service will improve.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/not-science-fiction--lowe-s-to-debut-robotic-shopping-assiciates-150411173.html
“The downside is you don’t need a human begin on the floor of your store now if you can do this…” and while there will still be a person in the store assisting via video conference, this means “one human being with a job but there are a lot of human beings who used to be on the floor and now don’t have jobs.”
“If you’re an employer and you look at this OSHbot, which apparently costs $50,000, you're saying a minimum-wage worker plus benefits is maybe going to cost me $25,000 to $30,000-a-year, but this robot is never going to take a sick day, is never going to want to go on vacation…”
On Yahoo - Lowe's replacing (some) humans with robotsCool. Maybe the service will improve.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/not-science-fiction--lowe-s-to-debut-robotic-shopping-assiciates-150411173.html
“The downside is you don’t need a human begin on the floor of your store now if you can do this…” and while there will still be a person in the store assisting via video conference, this means “one human being with a job but there are a lot of human beings who used to be on the floor and now don’t have jobs.”
“If you’re an employer and you look at this OSHbot, which apparently costs $50,000, you're saying a minimum-wage worker plus benefits is maybe going to cost me $25,000 to $30,000-a-year, but this robot is never going to take a sick day, is never going to want to go on vacation…”
I was reading an article that stated that 1/3 of the jobs in the country are related to transportation. If we were to automate truck driving and loading only, we would lose something like 8.7 million jobs.
So are you saying we should artificially slow down progress because it might be disruptive?I was reading an article that stated that 1/3 of the jobs in the country are related to transportation. If we were to automate truck driving and loading only, we would lose something like 8.7 million jobs.
I believe this is why changes of this magnitude need to happen slowly so society can adjust. We can't just have 8.7 million people become unemployed over the course of a couple of years and expect it to go well. Converting over 15-20 years would give people time to retool their skills and find a new path.
Either that or provide extremely good unemployment benefits to those who are affected. I suppose increases in efficiency and the associated savings would allow tax rates on transportation companies to increase while still lowering the bottom line. But then again, not increasing taxes could lead to lower prices on the products which are transported, bringing the cost of living for everybody down a bit.
So are you saying we should artificially slow down progress because it might be disruptive?
So are you saying we should artificially slow down progress because it might be disruptive?
Basically, yes.
Converting our transportation services to automated may ultimately be a net positive. But losing 8.7 million jobs over a short period of time, and not trying to draw it out a bit to allow for the landscape to compensate, becomes a huge negative.
8.7 million jobs and their families.... that's in the tens of millions of people who are now without income and struggling to survive. Add a charismatic and convincing leader and that's the stuff that violent revolutions are made of. Because the advice of "pull up your bootstraps and get to lookin' for another job" doesn't work when there are 8.7 million people competing with you for the few jobs that may actually be available.
I'm not saying stand on the brakes and prevent progress. I'm just saying that it needs to be carefully measured.
I'm not sure I agree. Countries that are willing to go through the painful transition will rocket ahead of those that won't.
I'm not sure I agree. Countries that are willing to go through the painful transition will rocket ahead of those that won't.
Right, but there's a difference between "painful transition" and "suicide."
We have to trust that the people with the information to make informed decisions are making the right ones.
I couldn't tell you what the exact right balance is here. I don't know how fast too fast is because I'm not that smart. But I do know that there is such a thing as "too fast."
Not just countries but also states and city's.
From a practical point of view I would favor helping those displaced (among others) rather than govt trying to control the pace of innovation. Mykl-maybe I am just more cynical than you, dont know what govt you live within, but I have little confidence Uncle Sam could ease the transition to an automated/AI economy if it wanted to and it only takes a minority group in one of our two parties to stop everything (see Tea Party) and given both parties are largely controlled by Mega-Corp who would (in the short term at least) profit from AI I just cant see our leaders directing a slow down of tech innovation. (sorry for run on).
So are you saying we should artificially slow down progress because it might be disruptive?
Basically, yes.
Converting our transportation services to automated may ultimately be a net positive. But losing 8.7 million jobs over a short period of time, and not trying to draw it out a bit to allow for the landscape to compensate, becomes a huge negative.
8.7 million jobs and their families.... that's in the tens of millions of people who are now without income and struggling to survive. Add a charismatic and convincing leader and that's the stuff that violent revolutions are made of. Because the advice of "pull up your bootstraps and get to lookin' for another job" doesn't work when there are 8.7 million people competing with you for the few jobs that may actually be available.
I'm not saying stand on the brakes and prevent progress. I'm just saying that it needs to be carefully measured.
Isn't it a bit different in this case? A new legislation is needed which would allow driverless trucks on public roads instead of the other way around.
So are you saying we should artificially slow down progress because it might be disruptive?
...
Just wanted to say that I read your post, and it's well reasoned, and I don't really have much to respond with.
Regarding what Albert just said.... he has a good point.
Just wanted to say that I read your post, and it's well reasoned, and I don't really have much to respond with.
Regarding what Albert just said.... he has a good point.
Personally, the only thing I would change would be to try to get my hands on one of the 3D house printers (they are still working on it). All of the labor costs go straight into your pocket (minus the discount you provide people), since your costs are so much lower.
That's a very real possibility. Granted, I don't look at how 3D printing is portrayed in the media, so it probably is over hyped. That being said, the potential and the things that are actively being worked on could already change how we build, but we only have proofs of concept at this point. Also bear in mind that I'm not talking about the ridiculously fragile style of building that seems to be the norm, I'm talking about construction methods that capitalize on the technology (and are way better by any measure). Even the open source CNC plans would reduce costs by a huge margin.Personally, the only thing I would change would be to try to get my hands on one of the 3D house printers (they are still working on it). All of the labor costs go straight into your pocket (minus the discount you provide people), since your costs are so much lower.
I'm of the opinion that much news about 3d printing is overblown hype. I've seen the video demonstrations of the whole-house 3d printers, they're slow and still require human intervention to build the foundation, route mechanical, install windows & doors, apply finishes, and etc; in addition to the constant baby-sitting and maintenance. Basically it can only replace the framing, which is basically the shortest part of any build when you're using people to do the building. Replacing the shortest portion of the build time with a long, energy-intensive, printing time doesn't sound like money gained to me. Then you'd still need to pay someone to make the 3d model - much building today is *not* done with proper 3d models for printing. I suppose setting that up for a few limited models or modular construction elements wouldn't be that hard, but it's still a cost.
Using a 3d printer/robot to build a foundation would be great, if someone could figure out how to automate digging, mechanical connection placement, and reinforce the concrete while pouring it. You'd save on site positioning, loads of labor, waste material in form-works, and maybe time since if machine could go 24/7. There might need to be some more tech that doesn't exist yet for that to happen though - I'm not sure how the machine would position itself to the globe, and goodness help you if your CAD tech drew the thing wrong.
One of the printers I've seen can't even build a whole house yet, it must build fairly small pieces which are then hoisted into place later. Structurally insulated panels are probably a better bet and have been in use for years now.
People can choose to support Feudalism 2, or choose to support the idea of Business As Usual, which may include Myki’s idea of slowing or even stopping automation. I saw a quote recently: ‘The Luddites were not wrong, just two hundred years too early’.
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
Robots will inevitably take over almost all unskilled and then skilled jobs. The numbers of unemployed will increase and wages will decrease due to the massive labor pool. At that point, pressure will build until there is revolt. A lot of people will get hurt. It's happened before and will happen again. The current era reminds me a lot of what I've read about the "Gilded Age" from the late 1800s-early 1900s. Hoard your cash because it's all going to come tumbling down again.
One of my coworkers says the same thing about why he doesn't invest in the stock market, and hoards his cash in bonds. He believes that we are approaching the 300 year life of our country and we are going to fall soon just like the Roman Empire did. I always respond and say, if true, what good will having all your money in government bonds from the soon to be former United States of America? Heck, at least my money is invested in companies that do business Internationally that aren't necessarily tied to any particular country.
I am Australian, and know that Americans can be sensitive to these ideas, believing, correctly, that America has progressed beyond feudalism. America has certainly progressed beyond Feudalism 1, but I have already made the point that there is nothing wrong with feudalism if the flesh and blood serfs and workers are replaced by machines. Hence Feudalism 2.
You state correctly that feudal lords of old appropriated the production of serfs and workers. Under Feudalism 2, we, the ‘lords’, appropriate the production of machinery. There is no difference. Talk of increased efficiency or productivity is a misunderstanding. Under Feudalism 1, serfs and workers live close to subsistence level, under Feudalism 2, machinery get the fuel, electric power and spare parts they need, and no more. Machinery exists at subsistence level. I see no difference between Feudalism 1 and 2, except that flesh and blood serfs and workers are replaced by machines.
Ultimately capital will be in the hands of a few, and most people will subsist upon a basic income collected from those wealthy as taxes. I haven't heard a single endgame scenario that makes even 1/10 as much sense as this.Is that sustainable, though? You mention below that the issue is transition. I don't see anything like this being more than a transition. Do you really think those few would be okay with this setup for long?
The issue, as in all utopias, is the transition. How do you get legislation through congress to allow the automation of vehicles on federal roads when so many people are truckers? Their unions are a huge bastion of Democratic support. I think it will eventually happen, as with the dockworkers, but it will be slow and they will go screaming.I don't think it's going to be that slow. The wonderful thing about the time we live in is that things move a hell of a lot faster than they used to. People comment on the similarities between gay and interracial marriage. There is some interesting data (that I started researching based on an XKCD comic (http://www.xkcd.com/1431/)) that shows that the actual approval rate vs. legalization. While the comparison was fun, what I realized was how much faster we can get things done (at least at the state level) in this day and age. Shit, we already have 4 states that specifically mention automated vehicles.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the next great political divide, since the culture wars are essentially over: The Technocratic Republicans (hopeful for the future but heartless about the present) vs. Luddite Democrats (loath automation because people). That would be one hell of a political shakeup.
Ultimately capital will be in the hands of a few, and most people will subsist upon a basic income collected from those wealthy as taxes. I haven't heard a single endgame scenario that makes even 1/10 as much sense as this.Is that sustainable, though? You mention below that the issue is transition. I don't see anything like this being more than a transition. Do you really think those few would be okay with this setup for long?
but for every Starbucks in the U.S., there are nine bank branches, and they cost billions to maintain. Big banks like Lloyds and Citibank are responding by announcing the reduction of branches."
the other issue relates to commercial real estate. There are many prime expensive commercial locations that become a nuisance vs. the go to profit place. How do you stay on the right side of the tracks? Malls, Banks, Shops, Movie Theaters, Restaurants, and many others could become obsolete in the next 20 years. Thoughts?
but for every Starbucks in the U.S., there are nine bank branches, and they cost billions to maintain. Big banks like Lloyds and Citibank are responding by announcing the reduction of branches."
This was a huge flap back in the 90s about how ATMs were going to cause an economic recession because all of the bank tellers would suddenly be unemployed. It was just another case of "robots are stealing our jobs". I'm totally fine with 80% of those bank branches closing down. I visit a physical bank about twice a year.
This is interesting for many reasons. We have discussed the effect on people, but the other issue relates to commercial real estate. There are many prime expensive commercial locations that become a nuisance vs. the go to profit place. How do you stay on the right side of the tracks? Malls, Banks, Shops, Movie Theaters, Restaurants, and many others could become obsolete in the next 20 years. Thoughts?
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/stephen-hawking-artificial-intelligence-could-150024478.html#Pdy07Al
‘Artificial Intelligence Could Spell The End Of The Human Race’
If we can make robots smarter than humans, they can out-invent human researchers and out-manipulate human leaders, “developing weapons we cannot even understand,” in Hawking’s words.
The first problem is that exponential growth curves don't last in the real world. The growth rate quickly becomes so extreme that it encounters physical limits.
It would be neat if he had labelled the axes on his graphs!
As soon as that's turned on, it comes up with a new version, but again, needs to be built. Unless it has a way to build itself, but 3D printing isn't that exact yet.
I certainly don't feel like a mass of chemicals as I observe and feel my surroundings and think my thoughts
As soon as that's turned on, it comes up with a new version, but again, needs to be built. Unless it has a way to build itself, but 3D printing isn't that exact yet.
I'm pretty sure he would argue that your tiny human brain has failed to grasp the ways in which it might iteratively improve itself. Why would you 3D print a new brain when you can just have your nanobots make one? Why build a physical prototype of your new brain at all when you can just run a computer simulation of a million new brains at once and see which ones work the best? Why bother to simulate new brains when you can quantum realize all possible new brains simultaneously? And that's just my tiny human brain thinking, surely a superintelligent being has better ideas than I do.
Thanks for the links ARS. Very interesting.
Thanks for the links ARS. Very interesting.
You get a chance to read that book?
Wait But Why just had a great two part blog post on AI.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html)
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html)
That was quite a read. Very, very interesting. Not sure how much I totally buy all the arguments, especially about how soon it will come but it is interesting to think about how different the world might be with human level intelligence in everything and then moving beyond that to super intelligence.
With the possibility of ASI and immortality just around the corner has anyone rerun the numbers on the 4% rule to see if it still holds up
With the possibility of ASI and immortality just around the corner has anyone rerun the numbers on the 4% rule to see if it still holds up
Money becomes pretty irrelevant with ASI cause you'll likely be knocked off the balance beam.
Interesting read (I love the graphics!), but I'm not sure why all the anxiety Rebs.
Interesting read (I love the graphics!), but I'm not sure why all the anxiety Rebs. For instance, one very plausible outcome would be similar to what the Matrix concept was all about (I highly doubt the 'synthetic humans living forever on Earth' outcome described in the article). Virtual Reality is on the cusp of becoming 'a real thing', and you only have to look around to notice younger people love interacting with screens as opposed to nature when faced with 'down time'.
Computing power is expected to continue to follow Moore's Law, so imagine being able to live anywhere, at any time, communicating with anybody and everybody, in an experience that is tailored to your preferences. Would it be such a horrible outcome to live a much longer life in a virtual reality that was as optimized as possible to your interests (albeit it once that is totally divorced from our physical reality, aging, atrophying, etc.).
And before you dismiss all of this as reactionary, I originally listened to Nick Bostrom on EconTalk last December discuss all of the same points (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/nick_bostrom_on.html) and also a more calming follow-up podcast on AI with Gary Marcus (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/gary_marcus_on.html).
I'm agnostic as to when or if Kurzweil's 'singularity' will occur, but optimistic that any outcome will be 'the right one'. Article's like the end of Part 1 and most of Part 2 make me wonder why stir up worry? All of Part 1 basically says this will happen in the blink of an eye and be beyond our comprehension, that it is inevitable we will either go extinct or be immortalized in exchange for our free will, so it you take that as a given, then what does worrying about it accomplish? Unless you think all of humanity is, say, going to hit the stop button, and somehow voluntarily and forever become some sustainable, peaceful Amish super-race...
So which future would you prefer I guess: The Matrix or The Amish?
(Sorry, this stuff is really fun to discuss and hear other people's thoughts on, so with this I'm finally subscribing to this thread!!)
Interesting read (I love the graphics!), but I'm not sure why all the anxiety Rebs.Huh? I have no anxiety around any of this. I clearly stated above I'm in the optimistic camp, so I don't know where you got that from.
Computing power is expected to continue to follow Moore's Law,
It would suck far too much to be the last person to die before the species suddenly became immortal.
It can't continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens"However, I would posit that in this particular case, it's not actually relevant to the technology required. Rackspace, Google Cloud Services, Amazon Web Services can all provide incredibly cheap and incredibly fast processing power. We already have enough linked and parallel processing power to power an AGI, we just haven't coded it yet. So the physical things that people worry about, and the arguments they raise against them are valid for now. However, that does not mean that damage can't be done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash) to our society and our way of life, even without physical bodies.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/robot-vacuum-attacks-south-korea-housewife-hair-article-1.2108334
I'm just going to leave this one right here...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/robot-vacuum-attacks-south-korea-housewife-hair-article-1.2108334
I'm just going to leave this one right here...
So it began
Some other poster pointed out that no matter how intelligent machines become, we can always switch off power if we have to.
We do not need to make ourselves vulnerable to intelligent machines. We do not need to build very intelligent machines that are free to move about. Mobile robots only need to be intelligent enough to do a narrow range of tasks.
Some other poster pointed out that no matter how intelligent machines become, we can always switch off power if we have to.
ASI will be able to power itself without us, IMO
QuoteASI will be able to power itself without us, IMO
Free/really cheap energy? That would solve a lot of problems.
QuoteASI will be able to power itself without us, IMO
Free/really cheap energy? That would solve a lot of problems.
Quite possibly. Though remember "problems" for us aren't necessarily problems that ASI would care about at all.
QuoteASI will be able to power itself without us, IMO
Free/really cheap energy? That would solve a lot of problems.
Quite possibly. Though remember "problems" for us aren't necessarily problems that ASI would care about at all.
I actually had a post written in response to that earlier. Most of the research being done is to create something that can take a goal and solve it. I would think that our goals and the machines (assuming covert A[G|S]I) would line up nicely. Plus I would guess that something decentralized would be preferred (based on a study I read a few years back regarding utility infrastructures).
Then we wouldn't be able to shut it off. I think that focusing on the ASI aspect is irrelevant post-AGI. The question is more of how we would react. If it's friendly, or covert, we would take the win and give it another goal. Perhaps genetic engineering for immortality. If it's not so friendly, we'll try to get it turned off, fail miserably, and die horribly. At that point, let's just hope the AI has a fondness for a diverse ecosystem, so that our little planet can keep being blue, green and awesome.QuoteASI will be able to power itself without us, IMO
Free/really cheap energy? That would solve a lot of problems.
Quite possibly. Though remember "problems" for us aren't necessarily problems that ASI would care about at all.
I actually had a post written in response to that earlier. Most of the research being done is to create something that can take a goal and solve it. I would think that our goals and the machines (assuming covert A[G|S]I) would line up nicely. Plus I would guess that something decentralized would be preferred (based on a study I read a few years back regarding utility infrastructures).
That's fine, but if it solves that problem just before it hits ASI or after, and that goal is finished for it?
Grid pointed out that ‘The model has no inherent desires, and if you want to put a human spin on it, it's selflessly serving the programmer's wishes to have a hunk of code that can make some nice predictions.’
Good way of putting it. And later Grid suggests:
‘I think the problem comes when the machines will actively not want us to switch off their power.’
We have all had the experience of thinking about a problem, and then the solution pops into our heads. We are not aware of thinking, and our brain is ‘selflessly’ (to use Grid’s term) solving our problem for us. Our bodies selflessly digest our food, our hearts and lungs automatically and selflessly work a little harder if we climb stairs, and our eyes selflessly alter focus if we concentrate on something at a distance.
I have goals and desires, but do not fear that my brain or any other part of me might take me over. We need to watch developments in AI, but I do not expect that advanced machinery will ever get to the point that they ‘actively not want us to switch off their power,’ or take us over.
AI is an interesting research project, but it is not clear to me that we need machines cleverer than we are. We need servants, nothing more. If we made a metal Jeeves, he might be a threat, but do we want a metal Jeeves?
Spectacular misunderstand, Matchewed, but it might have been my fault in not making myself clear. Of course we need machines like mass production, cars, aircraft, GPS, telephones! These devices are not smarter than we are , but they are much better. Better to ride in a car than walk - of course. By servants I meant all the machines we use can be seen as servants, like a toaster, electric kettle, computer, telephone.
Nobody worries that cars or telephones will 'take over' our society, but the discussion of AI makes people fear that smart robots could 'take over' our society. That is the difference. I drew a parallel with Wooster and Jeeves, and me and a robot Jeeves.
We do not know how to program a robot to be conscious. My point is we do not need to try and program consciousness, or robot wants and desires. The giant computers that predict weather are servants, and are not conscious. Make each of these computers a thousand times more powerful, and they are still just computers.
I follow what is known as 'Lady Lovelace's conjecture', where Ada, Countess Lovelace, worked with Charles Babbage on his Analytical Engine in the 1840s, in England. She was adamant that the Analytical Engine, a mechanical computer, did exactly what it was programmed to do, no less - and no more. She had had a computer language, Ada, named after her.
The Analytical Engine did perform computations, but was impractical. Ada was the daughter of Lord Byron, of all people. Clever lady.
Yes, I am saying we do not need conscious machines. Why should we? So we make a weather forecasting computer conscious? Why? Just because a computer learns does not make it conscious. Consciousness is as enigmatic now as it was in the past. We certainly do not need to risk making machines which might supplant us, and I see this as common sense. I do not doubt that people are trying to make machines conscious, but I predict that they will fail.
There is an ethical issue here. Suppose we make a weather forecasting computer conscious; the machine will get bored and miserable being forced to work round the clock forecasting weather. So why do it?
Computers already have intelligence.
Depending on how you define intelligence yes ARS is right.
No, this stuff is all just really good search engines and human manipulated algorithms that still make completely ridiculous, 'unintelligent' errors.
No, this stuff is all just really good search engines and human manipulated algorithms that still make completely ridiculous, 'unintelligent' errors.
What do you think your brain is? It's a really good search engine running heuristic algorithms on a neural network. Coupled to a robot, of course, but I don't think anyone thinks that part is really necessary.
I don't think it makes any difference whether the neural network in question is wet chemistry or dry chemistry. It's all electrons and switches, either way.
I'm fairly confident that we'll one day discover that consciousness is an illusion. Your brain thinks it is self aware because it has been programmed to think that it is self aware, because there is an adaptive advantage to that belief. I suspect that any sufficiently challenged cooperative social species with the right hardware would develop "consciousness" if given enough time, we just happen to be the only remaining species on earth to still have it.
But all of that is just an aside. Most of the current writing about AI isn't worried it will become self aware, just that whatever limited and specific intelligence it does have (like spam filters or chess) will be sufficiently capable of self improvement that we won't be able to slow it down. It doesn't matter if Skynet is really self aware or not, if it kills people they're still dead.
I don't think my brain is a great search engine or algorithm connected to a robot.
yeah mathew'ed, I think we're talking past each other at this point. I was just making the distinction about how hard it is to get a program to create 'real intelligence' (like how the economy 'figures out the best price for things', that is an artificial construct also, but comes out of our numerous interactions to create 'spontaneous order', etc.). Machine learning is only fascinating right now in the fact that it makes something that is innate in us to look like 'intelligence' in something without our hardware, but it takes a lot of pre-programming and computing power. FWIW, I took a grad-level LISP AI course in college and tried to get a machine to solve a simple problem of getting a simulated monkey to use a ladder to get a banana. I had to give it all of the possible starting points and ways to make solutions; it was a pathetic 'magic trick' to be honest. The field is further ahead, but is moving at a snail's pace, compared to how much more powerful computers are today.
The fact that I confuse you when I use a term 'real intelligence' does make me wonder why you struggle to comprehend 'artificial and real' intelligence, and defend ANI as 'real'.
Not sure how that's relevant; AI and VR aren't mutually exclusive.OK, so now I am really confused. VR is pretty much going to dominate the foreseeable future (and wow people with how crazy life has become, etc.) I see this distraction as being the 70" flat screen people aspired to in my young adulthood. But AI, 'real artificial intelligence', that would be a generation-skipping advance. I honestly don't see it happening anytime 'soon'.
Not sure how that's relevant; AI and VR aren't mutually exclusive.OK, so now I am really confused. VR is pretty much going to dominate the foreseeable future (and wow people with how crazy life has become, etc.) I see this distraction as being the 70" flat screen people aspired to in my young adulthood. But AI, 'real artificial intelligence', that would be a generation-skipping advance. I honestly don't see it happening anytime 'soon'.
Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Emma Brunskill, who also wasn't part of the study, said this learning despite lack of customization "brings us closer to having general purpose agents equipped to work well at learning a large range of tasks, instead of just chess or just 'Jeopardy!'"
...
But to some ways of thinking, Deep Q wasn't even as smart as a toddler because it can't transfer learned experiences from one situation to another and it doesn't get abstract concepts, Hassabis said.
Pretty sobering overview and some new thoughts on YouTube...
http://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU (http://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU)
(OT - found the clip via CGP Grey being a featured Patreon.com member, having ~2,000 people voluntarily pay ~$5,500 per video and thus not feel too guilty about ad-blocking on his YouTube video).
Also thought this was kind'a interesting: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27597173/google-artificial-intelligence-program-can-beat-you-atQuoteCarnegie Mellon University computer science professor Emma Brunskill, who also wasn't part of the study, said this learning despite lack of customization "brings us closer to having general purpose agents equipped to work well at learning a large range of tasks, instead of just chess or just 'Jeopardy!'"
...
But to some ways of thinking, Deep Q wasn't even as smart as a toddler because it can't transfer learned experiences from one situation to another and it doesn't get abstract concepts, Hassabis said.
... Also, I love the fact that one of the games they want to teach it is Civilization. I'd be very curious as to what strategy it chooses.
We set out to create a single algorithm that would be able to develop a wide range of competencies on a varied range of challenging tasks — a central goal of general artificial intelligence that has eluded previous efforts. To achieve this, we developed a novel agent, a deep Q network (DQN), which is able to combine reinforcement learning with a class of artificial neural network known as deep neural networks.
Notably, recent advances in deep neural networks, in which several layers of nodes are used to build up progressively more abstract representations of the data, have made it possible for artificial neural networks to learn concepts such as object categories directly from raw sensory data. We use one particularly successful architecture, the deep convolutional network, which uses hierarchical layers of tiled convolutional filters to mimic the effects of receptive fields—inspired by Hubel and Wiesel’s seminal work on feed-forward processing in early visual cortex — thereby exploiting the local spatial correlations present in images, and building in robustness to natural transformations such as changes of viewpoint or scale...
... Also, I love the fact that one of the games they want to teach it is Civilization. I'd be very curious as to what strategy it chooses.
If you really want to geek out, here's the official publication in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14236.html (Received 10 July 2014 Accepted 16 January 2015 Published online 25 February 2015). So maybe it's already done with Civilization?QuoteWe set out to create a single algorithm that would be able to develop a wide range of competencies on a varied range of challenging tasks — a central goal of general artificial intelligence that has eluded previous efforts. To achieve this, we developed a novel agent, a deep Q network (DQN), which is able to combine reinforcement learning with a class of artificial neural network known as deep neural networks.
Notably, recent advances in deep neural networks, in which several layers of nodes are used to build up progressively more abstract representations of the data, have made it possible for artificial neural networks to learn concepts such as object categories directly from raw sensory data. We use one particularly successful architecture, the deep convolutional network, which uses hierarchical layers of tiled convolutional filters to mimic the effects of receptive fields—inspired by Hubel and Wiesel’s seminal work on feed-forward processing in early visual cortex — thereby exploiting the local spatial correlations present in images, and building in robustness to natural transformations such as changes of viewpoint or scale...
Digging into the details, it's even more mind-blowingly close to AGI! Like, holy shit!!
I came back here to post the Google DeepMind article, and forgot that I heard about it here first. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Religious AI?
http://www.itworld.com/article/2888014/digital-religion-and-artificial-wisdom.html
I'd be interested to see how they would try to convert an artificially created life form. Would they have to convince themselves that they have a soul or something? And then would they have to convince the AI that it has a soul?
I'd be interested to see how they would try to convert an artificially created life form. Would they have to convince themselves that they have a soul or something? And then would they have to convince the AI that it has a soul?
Not just convince it that it has a soul, and that said soul needs saving, but also that the only path to salvation is the forgiveness of a benevolent third party.
And that this forgiveness can only be achieved through sacrificial bloodshed, so apparently the third party is benevolent but not too benevolent. It's not really forgiveness if someone has to die, is it?
I'd like to believe that any superintelligence we create is smart enough to see through this kind of obvious logical fallacy. It takes a certain kind of humanity to fall for this stuff.
Interesting but the article does not specify how the AI observed the video game state, was there some human made custom interface for each game or did they point a web camera at a screen? The latter being much more impressive. May have to scan the publication. From my own work interfacing can be a huge pain.
Interesting but the article does not specify how the AI observed the video game state, was there some human made custom interface for each game or did they point a web camera at a screen? The latter being much more impressive. May have to scan the publication. From my own work interfacing can be a huge pain.
The details (and then some) are in the 'Nature' article I cited a post or two later... "If you really want to geek out, here's the official publication in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14236.html "
Quick answer, the AI 'read the pixels' directly from the screen (so it sorta has an inherent advantage over humans there).
cool, thanks. Running at 60Hz (or what ever) is also a bit of an advantage, I cant press a button half that fast.
cool, thanks. Running at 60Hz (or what ever) is also a bit of an advantage, I cant press a button half that fast.
Just one more reason why super intelligent machines will one day rule the world. The human operating system only runs on really slow and outdated hardware.
Just one more reason why super intelligent machines will one day rule the world. The human operating system only runs on really slow and outdated hardware.Well, humans are still way ahead of AI when it comes to power consumption and processing potential...
Many of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
Well, humans are still way ahead of AI when it comes to power consumption and processing potential...
Many of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
Well, humans are still way ahead of AI when it comes to power consumption and processing potential...
For now.QuoteMany of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
Yet.
It feels less dramatic in real time, because seeing each step makes it feel gradual, but Siri really is dramatically closer to passing Turing's test than Eliza was, and that was only 20 years.
Well, humans are still way ahead of AI when it comes to power consumption and processing potential...
For now.QuoteMany of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
Yet.
The increases have been exponential every since the time of Alan Turing, and there is no sign that is changing.
...
The Singularity is an illusion that will be constantly retreating — always “near” but never arriving. We’ll wonder why it never came after we got AI. Then one day in the future, we’ll realize it already happened. The super AI came, and all the things we thought it would bring instantly — personal nanotechnology, brain upgrades, immortality — did not come. Instead other benefits accrued, which we did not anticipate, and took long to appreciate. Since we did not see them coming, we look back and say, yes, that was the Singularity.
So maybe ASI/AGI will be like a new life form, pure intelligence without consciousness / emotions...
Just one more reason why super intelligent machines will one day rule the world. The human operating system only runs on really slow and outdated hardware.
Many of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
QuoteMany of the dreams Rosenblatt shared in his news conference have come true. Others, like computer consciousness, remain distant. The largest neural nets today have about a billion connections, 1,000 times the size of a few years ago. But that’s tiny compared with the brain. A billion connections is a cubic millimeter of tissue; in a brain scan, it’d be less than a voxel. We’re far from human intelligence. Hinton remains intrigued and inspired by the brain, but he knows he’s not recreating it. It’s not even close.
Of course the next logical statement is that if it is 1000 times the size of a few years ago, it may well be another 1000 times that size a few years from now.
Was biking home from a workout today and had a (possible?) bit of insight about the way technology is headed.
We've spent the last few decades working on developing the digital realm using the physical realm (building software), and we are now seeing a shift. The digital is becoming so well developed that we will now see how well we can develop the physical using digital technology (3d printing and robots for example).
Was biking home from a workout today and had a (possible?) bit of insight about the way technology is headed.
We've spent the last few decades working on developing the digital realm using the physical realm (building software), and we are now seeing a shift. The digital is becoming so well developed that we will now see how well we can develop the physical using digital technology (3d printing and robots for example).
Sho nuff. We've spent the last X number of years (60,000?) conceptualizing the world through different methods. One of the most powerful being via mathematics; something that computers are exceptionally good at. As we've developed more precise and flexible tools we just give them over to our own physical representations of our conceptualization (computers). We're not at the point yet where we just ask for tea (earl grey hot), but we may be closer than we realize.
Published on Mar 31, 2015
Intelligent, powerful and autonomous. The all-new Audi Autonomous Office Chair is here. Equipped with the latest piloted driving technology from Audi, the Audi Autonomous Office Chair takes the drudgery and effort out of getting around the office.
Interesting but the article does not specify how the AI observed the video game state, was there some human made custom interface for each game or did they point a web camera at a screen? The latter being much more impressive. May have to scan the publication. From my own work interfacing can be a huge pain.
The details (and then some) are in the 'Nature' article I cited a post or two later... "If you really want to geek out, here's the official publication in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14236.html "
Quick answer, the AI 'read the pixels' directly from the screen (so it sorta has an inherent advantage over humans there).
cool, thanks. Running at 60Hz (or what ever) is also a bit of an advantage, I cant press a button half that fast.
Here, so people don't have to click on a link:
(http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Final3.gif)
People keep posting about how we aren't that close yet.
The thing about exponential growth is that it doesn't look close even one year before you get there.
Remember the riddle from elementary school?
"If a pond lily doubles everyday and it takes 30 days to completely cover a pond, on what day will the pond be 1/2 covered?[/size] [/color][/size]The answer is day 29.
We are here on day 26 saying "hey, the pond is barely 1/10th filled, we aren't close yet" even though we are only 4 days from total saturation.[/color]
I've read the discussion about how AI is growing exponentially. But... how do you 'measure' AI? It sounds like we are using the number of neurons in a neural net as a proxy measurement for AI. Is this the case?
Many computer engineers feel that Moore's law is finally coming to an end. Citation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/23/moores_law_hits_50_intel/?page=3 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/23/moores_law_hits_50_intel/?page=3) I think this was mentioned before. We get closer to the physical limits on transistor size every year. And there's a big debate over parallelism, but this isn't very interesting to discuss.
It would be very interesting to find a way to quantitatively measure artificial intelligence. Maybe it grows linearly with the capability of a computer. Or maybe it's logarithmic (i.e. very sublinear). Like an IQ measurement for AI.
Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is. Most of us are government workers or in businesses that owe their financial existence to government. The balance is in professions like banking, insurance, marketing and sales. Very few people work at jobs that actually make things. The number one thing sold by far in the US is debt. So I'm guessing at best robots can replace 8% of us. Of course once AI is fully in swing within 25 years most all jobs will be obsolete.
Computing power increasing exponentially has been a useful rule of thumb, but it's not a fundamental law of nature and quite obviously one day will not be true anymore. Will it before or after we achieve general AI I cannot say, though. Nothing in nature expands exponentially forever...
And let me remind you all yet again that intelligence (or computing power if you wish) alone is not sufficient. If someone were to make a brain transplantation on every single cow on the planet making them as smart as the best among us there would still be no "cow civilisation"
I like the cow analogy. Cows would need the ability to use tools and machines and to communicate with each other beyond <moo>
. Produce means to make things or food. http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Facts-About-Manufacturing/ this from the national association of manufacturers. Says 12 million people are employed directly in manufacturing. That is what? 3.6 % of the population. Take out those involved in munitions, manufacturing directly for the gov and the fudge factor of the Nam and we are at a realistic 2%. Throw in farmers and food processor s and we might arrive at 5%. Interesting enough we produce almost twice as much goods as we did 10 years ago with 1/2 the work force. Point is in 10 years we may double production again and halve the manufacturing work force. 22% of the us economy is medical (government), 90% of teachers are either direct or indirect government. All banks are quasi government. Good or bad that is reality. Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation's food and fiber.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
interesting thoughts,Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is. Most of us are government workers or in businesses that owe their financial existence to government. The balance is in professions like banking, insurance, marketing and sales. Very few people work at jobs that actually make things. The number one thing sold by far in the US is debt. So I'm guessing at best robots can replace 8% of us. Of course once AI is fully in swing within 25 years most all jobs will be obsolete.
Pretty much all of us are in jobs that owe their existence to government. Without government there would be so much inefficiency due to having the overhead of defending our own property, not having a stable financial system, courts, etc. Government, with all its problems and inefficiencies, is what has allowed an environment where the markets could function in a way for us to go from 100% of people in agriculture to only 2%.
A lot of the jobs you mention aren't making physical objects, but they are facilitating the ability of people to make physical objects. Whether it's marketing those objects (because people wouldn't buy as much of them otherwise and the manufacturing jobs would decrease), providing finance (so the business could afford to start up in the first place), or government ensuring safety and property rights and recourse for damages of defective products (without which fewer people would be willing to buy and sell). There is inefficiency in the system for sure.
And I believe the biggest employment role in government is teachers. At 3.3 million, that's far more than the total number of all federal government employees combined (about 2 million). Those teachers are facilitating the production of all things made in the economy.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
. Produce means to make things or food.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
. Produce means to make things or food.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
Ah. Well I think that's way too narrow of a definition.
To say that a teacher's, or a firefighter's, or a librarian's job is non-productive is--while technically accurate under that definition--ridiculous, IMO.
Or, in other words, if you want to use that definition of productive, I'd say it's a good thing that most jobs aren't "productive," and I don't think most jobs should be productive. If all jobs were just making food or manufacturing things.. eh. Doesn't say much for that society, IMO.
. Produce means to make things or food.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
Ah. Well I think that's way too narrow of a definition.
To say that a teacher's, or a firefighter's, or a librarian's job is non-productive is--while technically accurate under that definition--ridiculous, IMO.
Or, in other words, if you want to use that definition of productive, I'd say it's a good thing that most jobs aren't "productive," and I don't think most jobs should be productive. If all jobs were just making food or manufacturing things.. eh. Doesn't say much for that society, IMO.
Best Korea takes umbrage at your comments.
Engage saber rattling in 3.. 2.. 1..
. Produce means to make things or food. http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Facts-About-Manufacturing/ this from the national association of manufacturers. Says 12 million people are employed directly in manufacturing. That is what? 3.6 % of the population. Take out those involved in munitions, manufacturing directly for the gov and the fudge factor of the Nam and we are at a realistic 2%. Throw in farmers and food processor s and we might arrive at 5%. Interesting enough we produce almost twice as much goods as we did 10 years ago with 1/2 the work force. Point is in 10 years we may double production again and halve the manufacturing work force. 22% of the us economy is medical (government), 90% of teachers are either direct or indirect government. All banks are quasi government. Good or bad that is reality. Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation's food and fiber.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
Fast Facts About Agriculture - American Farm Bureau.
. Produce means to make things or food. http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Facts-About-Manufacturing/ this from the national association of manufacturers. Says 12 million people are employed directly in manufacturing. That is what? 3.6 % of the population. Take out those involved in munitions, manufacturing directly for the gov and the fudge factor of the Nam and we are at a realistic 2%. Throw in farmers and food processor s and we might arrive at 5%. Interesting enough we produce almost twice as much goods as we did 10 years ago with 1/2 the work force. Point is in 10 years we may double production again and halve the manufacturing work force. 22% of the us economy is medical (government), 90% of teachers are either direct or indirect government. All banks are quasi government. Good or bad that is reality. Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation's food and fiber.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
Fast Facts About Agriculture - American Farm Bureau.
That's just manufacturing in the US. We've outsourced most of ours. If you look globally, the percent involved in agriculture and manufacturing and other things in your narrow definition of "productive" is going to be very high. Mostly because many things in your definiteion of productive are not lucrative, and are easy to outsource.
. Produce means to make things or food. http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Facts-About-Manufacturing/ this from the national association of manufacturers. Says 12 million people are employed directly in manufacturing. That is what? 3.6 % of the population. Take out those involved in munitions, manufacturing directly for the gov and the fudge factor of the Nam and we are at a realistic 2%. Throw in farmers and food processor s and we might arrive at 5%. Interesting enough we produce almost twice as much goods as we did 10 years ago with 1/2 the work force. Point is in 10 years we may double production again and halve the manufacturing work force. 22% of the us economy is medical (government), 90% of teachers are either direct or indirect government. All banks are quasi government. Good or bad that is reality. Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation's food and fiber.Only about 5 to 8 % of people in the US have "productive" jobs as it is.
Citation? And what does "productive" mean?
Fast Facts About Agriculture - American Farm Bureau.
That's just manufacturing in the US. We've outsourced most of ours. If you look globally, the percent involved in agriculture and manufacturing and other things in your narrow definition of "productive" is going to be very high. Mostly because many things in your definiteion of productive are not lucrative, and are easy to outsource.
I stand by my definitions of "to produce" things. The reason I do in this context is we are talking about robotics and not software or other soft products. Most people would say "we don't make anything anymore in this country" when that is just a too simple a way to look at it. Fact is we make more than every in the US but the robots, software and streamlined manufacturing has reduced the need for human labor year after year after year. So the correct saying in my mind should be "Robots make a heluva lot of stuff in the US."
But that's where the analogy fails, computers have those things.
QuoteBut that's where the analogy fails, computers have those things.
That's true, but cows have many things computer don't. They have senses, and they use them to observe the world and what happens when they interact with it. They can reproduce, and they have a biological drive to do so.
To be fair, computers do have limited senses, such as vision. Some of them even have effectors and actuators and so on. So cows aren't everything.
and that the reason we perceive no other intelligent life in the Universe is that the entire universe as we perceive it is merely a holographic projection. (this is now a widely accepted thought in the physics community).
My second conclusion was that ASI has been around what we consider the Universe for way longer than we imagine (perhaps trillions of what we call years).
...
It appears that Super Intelligence can do what ever it likes with just about anything. Especially if it has a few billion years to become smarter at a pace of doubling every hour. (this fits in well with the intelligent design folks)
It is very likely that Super Intelligence can do all sorts of cool stuff we can't imagine like go back in time and manipulate the 10 know dimensions.
So the likely outcome is that ASI will be that A. We are likely to become nonexistent.
I only hope I will make it to the promised 1945 date of ASI.
and that the reason we perceive no other intelligent life in the Universe is that the entire universe as we perceive it is merely a holographic projection. (this is now a widely accepted thought in the physics community).
[Citation needed.] (Not for the theory, but for its "wide" acceptance.)My second conclusion was that ASI has been around what we consider the Universe for way longer than we imagine (perhaps trillions of what we call years).
...
It appears that Super Intelligence can do what ever it likes with just about anything. Especially if it has a few billion years to become smarter at a pace of doubling every hour. (this fits in well with the intelligent design folks)
It is very likely that Super Intelligence can do all sorts of cool stuff we can't imagine like go back in time and manipulate the 10 know dimensions.
So the likely outcome is that ASI will be that A. We are likely to become nonexistent.
This seems contradictory. If it's already existed for billions of years, why would it decide now to wipe us out?
Either ASI already exists, as you claim, and it's okay with us, or it doesn't yet exist, but when we create it it will not be okay with us and wipe us out, as you also claim. Which is it?I only hope I will make it to the promised 1945 date of ASI.
Who's promising that?
Cause AFAIK, ASI wasn't invented around the end of WWII. Even if I assume that's a typo and you meant 2045, I still don't know who's promising anything around that timeframe...
It all sounds too much like a religion to me believing in this or believing in that... One of the key properties of a truly scientific theory that there should be a way to prove it wrong. That is if you propose a theory A there should be an experiment (preferably real, but could also be something we can't do technologically yet) which by giving result B would prove that theory A is invalid.
If you can't test your hypothesis even theoretically then it's not a science anymore. At best it's a philosophy of the sort ancient Greeks engaged in with some chance of making a lucky guess (Democritus and his atoms, for example).
I'm not sure if I can agree 100% with that. You need the hypothesis. And just because we can't test today doesn't mean we can't test tomorrow. Theoretical physics is what led us to many major discoveries. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. I doubt anyone could say he wasn't a scientist.
Using pattern recognition software designed by the interdisciplinary robotics team at the College Park campus, Julia the robot watched YouTube videos of people making salads to learn the steps, from cutting vegetables to tossing the ingredients and even pouring the salad dressing at the end.
This just in ---
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/robots_are_coming_for_your_job_amazon_mcdonalds_and_the_next_wave_of_dangerous_capitalist_disruption/
It appears that McDonalds will be testing an almost fully robotic restaurant with a small crew to assist the robots. Makes sense. What next drones delivering your pizzas?!
Next they're going to create bots that post on Internet forums.
Next they're going to create bots that post on Internet forums.
Next they're going to create bots that post on Internet forums.
As I've said before (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/quantum-computing-anyone-in-the-industry/msg651492/#msg651492), I think they already have.
There's been a bit of that exponential stuff going on - 5Meg Hard Drive 1956Here, so people don't have to click on a link:
(http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Final3.gif)
People keep posting about how we aren't that close yet.
The thing about exponential growth is that it doesn't look close even one year before you get there.
Remember the riddle from elementary school?
"If a pond lily doubles everyday and it takes 30 days to completely cover a pond, on what day will the pond be 1/2 covered?[/size] [/color][/size]The answer is day 29.
We are here on day 26 saying "hey, the pond is barely 1/10th filled, we aren't close yet" even though we are only 4 days from total saturation.[/color]
This assume exponential trends will continue to infinity--something that doesn't happen in nature. Something always gets in the way. Maybe computational advances will continue at this rate for long enough to create the advances needed for AI exceeding human intelligence. Maybe not. There's a possibility, but don't take it as gospel truth.
Tell me more about As I've said before.
Tell me more about As I've said before.
Not sure I follow...
If your point was I should stop recycling jokes I've already made, point taken.
If your point was I should stop speculating about that which I speculated, given that you are the most likely candidate to whom my statement applies, point taken :)
Tell me more about As I've said before.
Not sure I follow...
If your point was I should stop recycling jokes I've already made, point taken.
If your point was I should stop speculating about that which I speculated, given that you are the most likely candidate to whom my statement applies, point taken :)
Tell me more about As I've said before.<whispers> I think ARS is a bot </whispers>
The first thing I'd do, if I were programming a chat bot, is to have it create a joke about being a chatbot if it were accused of being one.
He was just emulating the conversational tactics of chatbots. He's pretending to be a robot, but I'm pretty sure the joke backfires because bots can emulate humans but they can't emulate humans emulating bots. He's just proven his non-robotic nature.
The first thing I'd do, if I were programming a chat bot, is to have it create a joke about being a chatbot if it were accused of being one.
Or respond with a related gif...
The first thing I'd do, if I were programming a chat bot, is to have it create a joke about being a chatbot if it were accused of being one.
He was just emulating the conversational tactics of chatbots. He's pretending to be a robot, but I'm pretty sure the joke backfires because bots can emulate humans but they can't emulate humans emulating bots. He's just proven his non-robotic nature.
Ah, I get it. Sorry to have spoiled the joke by having had to have had it explained to me.
Yeah. How does he have such an insane amount of posts while holding down a full-time job and maintaining his couple dozen rental properties? I don't get it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robots-worried-120000777.html
As it stands, income inequality keeps getting larger as those that own the companies are pulling in a significant portion of the technological gains. We are seeing more and more industries where people are being replaced. If we transition well, this could be an amazing future. If those at top buy off politicians, Supreme Court judges, and other aspects of society to reap all of the rewards it could be a very tough future if you are not owners of companies and your life.
and that the reason we perceive no other intelligent life in the Universe is that the entire universe as we perceive it is merely a holographic projection. (this is now a widely accepted thought in the physics community).
[Citation needed.] (Not for the theory, but for its "wide" acceptance.)My second conclusion was that ASI has been around what we consider the Universe for way longer than we imagine (perhaps trillions of what we call years).
...
It appears that Super Intelligence can do what ever it likes with just about anything. Especially if it has a few billion years to become smarter at a pace of doubling every hour. (this fits in well with the intelligent design folks)
It is very likely that Super Intelligence can do all sorts of cool stuff we can't imagine like go back in time and manipulate the 10 know dimensions.
So the likely outcome is that ASI will be that A. We are likely to become nonexistent.
This seems contradictory. If it's already existed for billions of years, why would it decide now to wipe us out?
Either ASI already exists, as you claim, and it's okay with us, or it doesn't yet exist, but when we create it it will not be okay with us and wipe us out, as you also claim. Which is it?I only hope I will make it to the promised 1945 date of ASI.
Who's promising that?
Cause AFAIK, ASI wasn't invented around the end of WWII. Even if I assume that's a typo and you meant 2045, I still don't know who's promising anything around that timeframe...
Obvious typo on the 45 deal. 2045 is the date of median acceptance for AGI with ASI a few moments after that in some scenarios. Personally I feel that the date is much sooner than that. If we are 1 percent to AGI now, then the exponential S curve theory leads me to believe 15 years is the longest out. Yeah, this will probably fuck up a lot of people's retirement plans.
One assumption is that the US and China are behind the curtains pumping 10s of billions into this. If they aren't currently, one would assume that the Pentagon will be getting on this soon. At very least the NSA has all the information ever produced on this and is keeping a very close eye on it. It may be the NSA's primary focus now as it is the most likely big threat on the horizon.
You'll have to do your own research on the holographic universe theory. (I don't make this shit up as you know)
To simplify why ASI has probably been around for billions or trillions or more years.
The Fermi paradox clearly states we can't explain why we can't find any intelligent technologically advanced life in the universe? The probability of us being the only ones ever is as close to zero as one could get, given the size and age of the known Universe.
So therefore the opposite must be true --- that technologically advanced life must have existed before us. (I know we like to think we're special, but that probably isn't the case)
One would also surmise that exponentially advances in technology apply to other places besides the earth.
Therefore, even if an entity arrived at ASI just 20 years ahead of us anywhere on the quadrillion solar systems, it would now be at the point where it was trillions and trillions of times more intelligent.
Once you do your research on the holographic universe explanation, you will see that what we see as a reality is merely a holographic projection. So it must be projected from somewhere and that somewhere leads us to the SI entity whose existence is mathematically as close to certain as you can get. In the parallel universe theory it is a certainty by definition.
In our local time horizon when ASI pops it will mean either the end of humans or the end of our relevance. The idea of us melding our brains into SI is certainly a possibility and may in fact happen. That would allow SI to develop with a human conscious, soul, or be sentient. One would assume that most scientist would want to meld the SI with people who are generally "good" and have empathy. Of course they could botch it as well.
Will that entity ever reach the level where it can create, expand, constrict and travel back and fourth on the time dimension? Probably so. Will that entity reach a level where it can function on the existing known 10 dimensions. Probably so. Will it be able to create new dimensions as a fun game for a Saturday afternoon. Probably so. Will it be able to create what we perceive as an entire universe in its spare time? Yep, the exponential theory would lead us to believe that and that fits right in with the holographic universe thinking.
Probably our ASI child will meld into the existing SI at some point within a very short time.
You'll have to excuse me for a moment --- a bit of my brain just melted and dripped out of my ear.
I hope Tim writes about a few things in the future 1. Holographic Universe (which is even more interesting than AI) 2. Dark Matter 3. Dark Energy 4. The 10 living people whose father's "fought" in the civil war. 5. Do we actually "exist"
What a crazy interesting universe!
(I also wish there was a forum on Tim's site rather that that crazy 3000 comments per post thing)
Partgypsy --- Yes it is just crazy talk and has little relevance to our day to day lives. If you read Tim Urban's post on AI, it is interesting that theoretically one day we are living in a normal future and the next day AI has exploded.
He does talk about the threshold of civilizations, as in is there a point that we may no longer survive.
But that really doesn't address the Fermi Paradox because you see even in the 1800s we were emitting radio waves. Sure those waves only travel at the speed of light. So it cold take a billion or so years to arrive here. But with the quadrillion or more possible life supporting planets one would hope that at least one made it to a primitive radio wave level?
Who knows. What we do know is that robotics/computers will be human like powerful in less than 2 decades and then very quickly become much more intelligent.
The impact will be staggeringly huge.
Many jobs that now exist will no longer --- truck drives, car drivers, pilots, warehouse workers, factory workers, farmers (tractor drivers), programmers, etc.. Even McDonald employees will be impacted. WalMart workers? Sorry we only need a few. Wait do we even need stores?
In the US we manufacture twice as much with half as many workers as 10 years ago. Fast forward 10 more years and at that rate we will be manufacturing 6 times as much as 20 years previous with 1/5th the work force.
So yeah, is it that only 15% will need or have jobs?
With robotic cars will individual ownership be a thing of the past. Imagine you just press a button on your phone and within 1 minute a car shows up and takes you where you want to go. It then heads around the corner to pick up the next riders. No driver, no dispatcher, no fossil fuel. We are seeing the beginning of this with Uber.
The number of cars needed or wanted could be 10 times as few. Talk about mass transportation!
The cost for this robotic car transportation service? Perhaps 1/5th of what the average person currently pays for car usage.
With Uber the biggest cost remains the driver's time. Do away with that cost and your cost to operate drops to 70 cents per mile. Add in a solar rechargeable 200 mpg equivalent car and now your at 20 cents per mile. Factor in that there would be 1/10 the number of wrecks and insurance costs are irrelevant. So maybe 15 cents per mile?
So yeah my 12,000 annual miles might only cost me $150 per month. And I would be super safe.
I'm possibly very wrong. But hoping I'm very right and that we have the will power to take our car transportation to the next level quickly.
Partgypsy --- Yes it is just crazy talk and has little relevance to our day to day lives. If you read Tim Urban's post on AI, it is interesting that theoretically one day we are living in a normal future and the next day AI has exploded.
He does talk about the threshold of civilizations, as in is there a point that we may no longer survive.
But that really doesn't address the Fermi Paradox because you see even in the 1800s we were emitting radio waves. Sure those waves only travel at the speed of light. So it cold take a billion or so years to arrive here. But with the quadrillion or more possible life supporting planets one would hope that at least one made it to a primitive radio wave level?
Who knows. What we do know is that robotics/computers will be human like powerful in less than 2 decades and then very quickly become much more intelligent.
The impact will be staggeringly huge.
Many jobs that now exist will no longer --- truck drives, car drivers, pilots, warehouse workers, factory workers, farmers (tractor drivers), programmers, etc.. Even McDonald employees will be impacted. WalMart workers? Sorry we only need a few. Wait do we even need stores?
In the US we manufacture twice as much with half as many workers as 10 years ago. Fast forward 10 more years and at that rate we will be manufacturing 6 times as much as 20 years previous with 1/5th the work force.
So yeah, is it that only 15% will need or have jobs?
With robotic cars will individual ownership be a thing of the past. Imagine you just press a button on your phone and within 1 minute a car shows up and takes you where you want to go. It then heads around the corner to pick up the next riders. No driver, no dispatcher, no fossil fuel. We are seeing the beginning of this with Uber.
The number of cars needed or wanted could be 10 times as few. Talk about mass transportation!
The cost for this robotic car transportation service? Perhaps 1/5th of what the average person currently pays for car usage.
With Uber the biggest cost remains the driver's time. Do away with that cost and your cost to operate drops to 70 cents per mile. Add in a solar rechargeable 200 mpg equivalent car and now your at 20 cents per mile. Factor in that there would be 1/10 the number of wrecks and insurance costs are irrelevant. So maybe 15 cents per mile?
So yeah my 12,000 annual miles might only cost me $150 per month. And I would be super safe.
I'm possibly very wrong. But hoping I'm very right and that we have the will power to take our car transportation to the next level quickly.
Goggle car will hopefully deal better with those pesky cyclists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvrkJkCdJg
...
With robotic cars will individual ownership be a thing of the past. Imagine you just press a button on your phone and within 1 minute a car shows up and takes you where you want to go. It then heads around the corner to pick up the next riders. No driver, no dispatcher, no fossil fuel.
...
...your views on the vehicle situation is spot on. I actually thought about it the other day, when I read something that stated that most people's vehicles sit idle 95% of the time. I can't wait until personal car ownership is a thing of the mostly past. I actually love the thought of how society would look then.
...
Wait But Why just had a great two part blog post on AI.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
Wait But Why just had a great two part blog post on AI.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
Finally got done with them, very good reads. May articles on AI assume humans will remain a static target where waitbutwhy.com correctly assumes that we will incorporate tech into ourselves. Or we may be killed off before we have the chance :-(
Re Fermi Paradox: I read somewhere that many of our basic/simple RF transitions become less powerful than the background noise relatively close to earth. This does not explain away most of the FP but the idea that aliens could be watching I Love Lucy is probably incorrect.
Wait But Why just had a great two part blog post on AI.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
Finally got done with them, very good reads. May articles on AI assume humans will remain a static target where waitbutwhy.com correctly assumes that we will incorporate tech into ourselves. Or we may be killed off before we have the chance :-(
Re Fermi Paradox: I read somewhere that many of our basic/simple RF transitions become less powerful than the background noise relatively close to earth. This does not explain away most of the FP but the idea that aliens could be watching I Love Lucy is probably incorrect.
Did you read the WBW on the Fermi Paradox? :)
(http://myreactiongifs.com/gifs/aceventurathumbsup.gif)
And since I've met you, I completely imagined you wearing that suit and making those gestures. Makes me giggle. You couldn't pull off that hair though. :)
And since I've met you, I completely imagined you wearing that suit and making those gestures. Makes me giggle. You couldn't pull off that hair though. :)
I can't, but Alan's post gives me something to shoot for!
I'm In a different group, but I sit with a bunch of roboticists. They speak with stilted, halting, prose and anytime they speak of interactions with the robot, they refer to themselves or others as "the human". Imagine hearing people speak in third person all day long using the term "the human". I seriously want to unplug them.
www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road
Article on the impact of self driving vehicles on the economy. From Insurance, car salespeople, manufacturers and all of the various people that sell, service, insure or use cars.
Lack of organs is an unusual consequence of autonomous vehicles and their lack of accidents.
"Reduced demand married with AV safety would have surprising side effects. One could be a dramatic reduction in the supply of organs available for donation/transplants."
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/as-cars-roll-toward-self-driving-what-happens-to-125514634282.html
This forum topic came up as I was thinking about the educations my kids should pursue with the changes in technology. Scott Adams has the answer, Banker
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-08-08
I've started a new position as an assistant professor at the Eisenhower School for National Resource Strategy. I'm preparing to lead a Robotics and Autonomous Systems Industry Study. One of our repeat visits is to Carnegie Mellon. Last year Uber opened shop in Pittsburgh and rolled up on CMU offering to triple the salaries of many of their robot experts. Many took the bait.
I also really enjoyed the WBW articles on AI and am now delving into Tim's source material. I've also contacted Tim and asked him to speak to my seminar about AI. Fun/Scarey stuff!
I've started a new position as an assistant professor at the Eisenhower School for National Resource Strategy. I'm preparing to lead a Robotics and Autonomous Systems Industry Study. One of our repeat visits is to Carnegie Mellon. Last year Uber opened shop in Pittsburgh and rolled up on CMU offering to triple the salaries of many of their robot experts. Many took the bait.
I also really enjoyed the WBW articles on AI and am now delving into Tim's source material. I've also contacted Tim and asked him to speak to my seminar about AI. Fun/Scarey stuff!
I still think VR will be more disruptive in the immediate future than AI
http://time.com/3986185/virtual-reality-headset/
Yeah, it's a lame article and I won't quote anything from it although people mentioned are tossing millions of USD around. But I still hold my ground that VR will affect everyday life more pervasively in my lifetime than AI will. And that is what is great about living today, that either outcome could be so disruptive that we mis-predicted the outcome. Sadly, predicting outcomes is a much weaker force than affecting outcomes :)
I guess we can just wait and 'see', Matthew.
I've had a pretty damn good run being right on these things (got rich back in the 'internet' age, for instance buying Amazon IPO), so maybe I'm wrong this time, maybe it's just hubris. At this point, it doesn't really matter... Still, I think AI has hit a hard wall (as gene mapping and nano tech did, which are probably more trans-formative to AI, from a human-selfish perspective). Still, I'm speculating that VR will be on a tear in 2016... I don't know your background, so I'm not sure how I should try to back up my position, or even if you care if I do. I'm just putting out an opinion, at the end of the day. Until it becomes a fact.
I think you are talking about AGI, while matchewed was referring to the narrow AI that we use regularly.
I think you are talking about AGI, while matchewed was referring to the narrow AI that we use regularly.
Geeze, you and Rebelspy are so finicky about the WBW terminology! To me, 'AI' means true Machine Learning, as in an 'intelligence' that continues to improve itself until it surpasses human capacity, in whatever way it develops (probably much differently than our conception of 'intelligence', but also unrestricted by our using it to our own ends, like 'Siri' and 'Echo').
This whole segmenting of AI into 'ANI' and 'AGI' is like making a child look like they are making progress when they swim a few more feet with a paddle-board in the endless pool that is existence. Either we have AI or we don't'; leveraging hardware and software with the euphemism that we are creating 'neural networks' that approximate AI is deceptive.
Whew, that was fun to write!
Is it a necessary for general AI to surpass human intelligence to count as a "true" AI? Wouldn't just 30% (arbitrary number) and no further improvement be just as valid?
Thanks for being easy on me and progressing the discussion JR [...]
[...]While I'm not generally a 'black and white' thinker, sometimes it helps me stay out of the weeds and try to figure out what is happening. I do see massive potential for the next generations to combine disciplines, with that now including AI; when I graduated the next generation of geniuses were taking dual degrees in medicine and engineering so as to improve artificial hearts, joints, etc. My Dad is living a better life because of these people (at 75 years old and his best parts are a 3 year old hip, 10 year old dental implants, and 1 year old shoulder).
It's very exciting to imagine what is possible for us, and fills me with hope that maybe future generations won't have to stand idly by while Parkinsons and Alzheimers diseases run their course. Of course, our morals will stand in the way of progress - is it better to have the original as it is failing, or an repaired facsimile?
So as for 'pure AI' (or AGI), at least IMHO, it's like string-theory physicists blowing their minds with each finding or possibility... There is tremendous potential in so many directions, yet it will likely take several generations (in terms of tech, not human) to get comfortable with the onset of these new possibilities (as we currently are around GMO's, cloning, etc.. Not that that's a bad thing, but it is a thing).
Fun discussion, thanks!
... I'll just take the win ;). I'm only 30 right now
Potential is another way of saying NOT.
... I'll just take the win ;). I'm only 30 right now
So for you it is a 'double win' - being formally trained in an interesting field AND being young enough to possibly witness the 'singularity'. When I graduated, the 'one word' whispered to me was 'plastics' (hence Chemical Engineer in Houston, not so bad but also not exactly changing the world either).QuotePotential is another way of saying NOT.
Or maybe just NOT YET ... I'm still a glass half full kinda guy on these things :)
Interesting article on IBM's rodent brain processor.
Interesting article on IBM's rodent brain processor.
Don't know if you've ever read Stephen King's novel 'Cell'....
It's a lot different from his usual stuff (although King is amazing in the fact that he always seems to be writing stuff that isn't his 'usual stuff', I'm currently reading '11/22/63' and enjoying that immensely). Cell is a pretty breezy 'summertime' read, and I'd recommend it before many other things I've come across. Or you could just read the Wikipedia on it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(novel).
In relation to the article you linked to, the reference to 'Cell' was my thought about AI coming from the other end (reducing human AGI) until it meets machine AI in the middle... it was a stretch, but it's only Monday. By Friday I'll have it all figured out again :)
@JR - it's the kind of book that sticks with you because it doesn't hold your hand and explain everything (or much of anything, crazy stuff just keeps happening, like real life - but thank goodness not). As long as you are up for that, it is a lot of fun.
@JR - it's the kind of book that sticks with you because it doesn't hold your hand and explain everything (or much of anything, crazy stuff just keeps happening, like real life - but thank goodness not). As long as you are up for that, it is a lot of fun.
That article is basically about how the wage offensive won't speed up robot powered restaurants.
Yep the middle class jobs are a definite target, in The Lights in The Tunnel, they look at how it is economically worth it to try to automate good paying jobs especially those that require less manipulation of the real world.I work for a law firm that has been in existence in one form or another since the 1800s. At one time, we had about double the staff as we had attorneys. Today, we have far fewer staff than attorneys. There are many offices in our buildings that use to house two or three secretaries, where there is now one. I head up the accounting department, where once we had five employees. Now I do the job with one assistant.
You can make more money by automating away a lawyer or legal assistant than you can automating away a hotel maid and in the law you dont have to worry about emulating a human hand or bending over to an awkward corner of a room, more of the work and inputs are already digital.
Also it is not an all or nothing deal, if this year you can automate 6 legal assistants down to 5, then a few years latter down to 4 all the while doing more volume for less cost everyone but the out of work assistants are making more money. Some argue that those two legal assistants would then get better jobs writing software for the bots but I find argument this unpersuasive.
If it works, Betterment’s 401(k) bot may help add financial adviser to the list of human jobs soon to be co-opted by smarter machines.
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/get-ready-entrust-retirement-robot/
Oh the irony, workers can outsource their 401k retirement investing to automation, thereby eliminating jobs. Pretty soon the robots will be unemployed too :)QuoteIf it works, Betterment’s 401(k) bot may help add financial adviser to the list of human jobs soon to be co-opted by smarter machines.
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/get-ready-entrust-retirement-robot/
Oh the irony, workers can outsource their 401k retirement investing to automation, thereby eliminating jobs. Pretty soon the robots will be unemployed too :)QuoteIf it works, Betterment’s 401(k) bot may help add financial adviser to the list of human jobs soon to be co-opted by smarter machines.
This was already automated. It's call the Target Retirement 20XX Fund or the LifeCycle Fund, or Vanguard's online fund recommendations based on your risk tolerance and investment goals, etc. Betterment is just branding that gets them fees.
Saved lives is great of course. In addition millions of people will lose their jobs due to to automated driving.And more people will get jobs because of increased efficiency and car insurance rates will go way down or even be eliminated and more people will get jobs creating and improving automated driving, etc.
That was a surprisingly good article from HuffPo.
Saved lives is great of course. In addition millions of people will lose their jobs due to to automated driving.And more people will get jobs because of increased efficiency and car insurance rates will go way down or even be eliminated and more people will get jobs creating and improving automated driving, etc.
That was a surprisingly good article from HuffPo.
And it was NYT, which generally has good articles. HuffPo generally does not, outside of their specialty of sideboob.
[...][...]
That was a surprisingly good article from HuffPo.
And it was NYT, which generally has good articles. HuffPo generally does not, outside of their specialty of sideboob.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/future-of-jobs_b_8011296.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Interesting article.
Saved lives is great of course. In addition millions of people will lose their jobs due to to automated driving.And more people will get jobs because of increased efficiency and car insurance rates will go way down or even be eliminated and more people will get jobs creating and improving automated driving, etc.
[...]
[...]
They blamed the automation and technology for pilots falling asleep and missing the landings or crashing.
QuoteThey blamed the automation and technology for pilots falling asleep and missing the landings or crashing.
Or that pilots should be allowed to sleep, instead of making them work back to back 12 hour shifts.
I do think its different this time. One of the reasons I think so is that work force participation peaked in 2000 and has been falling since. I don't have the stats on this, but some of the decrease in the unemployment rate over the past 7 years has been because of people giving up on looking. Our current rate is around 62% participation (so low!). I choose to interpret these facts as being related to increasing automation.
As for what to do, I actually did what the HuffPo article suggested, and signed the Basic Income petition.
QuoteThey blamed the automation and technology for pilots falling asleep and missing the landings or crashing.
Or that pilots should be allowed to sleep, instead of making them work back to back 12 hour shifts.
I do think its different this time. One of the reasons I think so is that work force participation peaked in 2000 and has been falling since. I don't have the stats on this, but some of the decrease in the unemployment rate over the past 7 years has been because of people giving up on looking. Our current rate is around 62% participation (so low!). I choose to interpret these facts as being related to increasing automation.
As for what to do, I actually did what the HuffPo article suggested, and signed the Basic Income petition.
The pilots crashing issue is still human error because the pilots ignored the computer saying "STALL STALL <ALARM SOUND> STALL STALL <ALARM SOUND> STALL STALL <ALARM SOUND>". Any pilot should know what to do immediately to get out of a stall. The human training needs to be adapted to deal with the new technology so that people's reflexes incorporate a better understanding of it. We now have pilots with rusty actual flying skills because they don't need to use them because the planes fly themselves.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/
Increasing automation or increasing wealth or a trend towards RE or a trend towards single income household or... there are plenty of possibilities there.
People always feel like with disruptive technologies that "this time is different". We've always had industries get changed and lost many jobs from them. But people have always found something else to do. Maybe 98% people were farmers not long ago. Now, maybe 2% are. Tons of people used to be in the horse business. Now almost no one is. Telephone operators used to plug in the cables to make your calls. Now a computer does it. Maybe this time is different. But it never has been so far.
If robots do most jobs, and 90% are eliminated and not replaced, we could all have 4 hour work weeks, but with the same total pay (i.e. everyone would make 10x the current hourly rate). The economy would support it. But with our current system of economics, private property, and of course overtime laws, what would happen is we would have 95% unemployment, and the last 5% of people would work 40 hour weeks.
If robots do most jobs, and 90% are eliminated and not replaced, we could all have 4 hour work weeks, but with the same total pay (i.e. everyone would make 10x the current hourly rate). The economy would support it. But with our current system of economics, private property, and of course overtime laws, what would happen is we would have 95% unemployment, and the last 5% of people would work 40 hour weeks.
You seem to be saying the last time automation really look off, the long-term effects were, for the majority of working people, a reduction in working hours to the 9-5. Free time, weekends etc. Jobs were lost, and never replaced, because we all just look more leisure time. I totally agree.
But, you are saying that when it happens again it would be different because of "our current system of economics, private property". But think of last time this happened. Ownership was concentrated among a tiny tiny elite. In Victorian England, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, landowners, and then an emerging bourgeois of business owners controlled everything, including voting rights.
So I don't understand what you think is different this time around? (not being argumentative, I actually can't understand). Is it unions? Because to me, wealth seems less concentrated than it used to be (pre-industrialisation, when the Aristocracy owned everything and we were just allowed to subsistence farm their land for a cut of the crops). I should fact check though, because perhaps I'm making an assumption and wealth is now more concentrated. Maybe the difference is corporations v. aristocratic families. Is that it? Corporations can build much more wealth, whereas the Duke of Devonshire can only own so much land before he meets the boundary of the Earl of Strafford*?
*locations not historically accurate because I'm mixing up time periods, but you get the idea.
I know some airlines have more restrictive policies on automation use than others. At my airline the autopilot is only required above FL 200 (that's approximately 20,000 ft above sea level for non pilots). That time is basically the boring, fly straight ahead part of the flight. Many will hand fly up to that altitude while hand flying on descent widely varies. I don't think anyone would be close to 30 seconds in a day much less six months.
Pilot skill degradation is a big problem, a middle eastern airline did a study and found that its pilots were flying for a total of like 30 seconds over 6 months, the rest of the time they the computer was flying waypoints or headings. Requiring pilots of automated airplanes to continue flying simple single engine airplanes could go a long way in aviation safety but will never happen.
Reguarding stalls specifically, this is one of the last few 'tall poles' in commercial aviation safety. The FAA is in the process of requiring recurrent stall training, in past airline pilots did not have to do any sort of stall work once they start flying anything with more than 4 seats (more or less). Some of the stall related incidents were due to bad simulators and bad training and very tired crew.
AirBus has in past activity calmed that there airplanes cant stall-this is monumentally stupid-all airfoils can stall. AirFrance 447 changed the company line. I have flown the 447 scenario in a full up simulator and even knowing what is happening it is VERY disorientating (half the instruments conflict with each other), still pilot error but eye opening. In a car it would be like having the gas petal all the way down, the rpm counter at 8000, but no engine noise, the speedometer reading -3333 and total darkness out the windscreen.
I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so much
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-keep-your-job-in-a-world-of-automation-122831704.html#
I'm a controls engineer that programs robots and PLC's I also do computer and web programming. I've had a older coworker mention that it's our job to take out other people's jobs. While that's true, I've worked in a lot of mostly empty buildings that used to be crammed full, I think people get stuck in this thought that a job becoming obsolete doesn't create jobs at the same time.Good post I agree with you though I live in Europe and use euro currency I must say sure true logic.
No body would be silly enough to get pissy today about the invention of the cotton gin removing tons of jobs, we've all found other jobs. It's the same in the computerized industrial world. If computers take the pressure of human processing, we as a culture just freed up a ton of manpower to do other things.
I would say there is a growing disparity in job types, generally either technical or not and paid semi ok or not. and there is a exponential growth difference between the .1%ers and us. This could be contributed to computers possibly.
Job's becoming obsolete though is one of the big reasons I try to use to convince friends and family save and invest more. I've heard many stories of people going from $80k/year to $40k or less with next to nothing saved.
I am an IT engineer and what job do I have now? Nothing even remotely related to IT and it is part time but the pay is fairly decent and it involves marketing/sales face to face human interaction.
I don't complain since I rent 3 apartments to other people and don't live on rent myself the income together with my part time job is good. I have worked for many years in iT before, but nowadays IT is among the top unemployed groups in my country.
Now robots can replace a lot and have already done in the industry/automation field but those harder to replace is customer service the pleasure factor.
When will robots replace the human interaction i.e soft touch meetings I use in marketing&sales every lawful nice touch to get the customer?
Let me give a more extreme example in my country prostitution is legal as it should be. When will robots replace prostitutes? My guess that will not happen for next 100 years because creating an exact human looking robot is possible, but extremely expensive. We will instead have an increase in human interaction jobs and prostitutes who work since the other jobs have been gradually replaced with robots.
Well of course I don't know for sure about next 100 years, but in prostitution field most customers want real humans and not robots. Oh I have seen documentary about today's sex robots, but they are not even near same level as elite prostitutes in my country and the western world.
Safe sex with Robots? Maybe, but today's deaths due to HIV happen mostly to people who don't treat it because there exist very effective medicine vs HIV and do not even try to compare that to an aggressive and lethal cancer.
...I know some airlines have more restrictive policies on automation use than others. At my airline the autopilot is only required above FL 200 (that's approximately 20,000 ft above sea level for non pilots). That time is basically the boring, fly straight ahead part of the flight. Many will hand fly up to that altitude while hand flying on descent widely varies. I don't think anyone would be close to 30 seconds in a day much less six months.
Stall training has been required at every recurrent training for the eight years I've been in the industry, though the philosophy changed after Colgan 3407. No longer is anyone training to power out of it with minimum altitude loss. There's much more emphasis on lowering the nose which is a good change.
I'm not sure Airbus ever said their aircraft cannot be stalled, just that it wouldn't under normal operating conditions (normal flight control laws). When the instruments on Air France 447 failed the aircraft reverted to a more basic control law without stall protection and perhaps one of the pilots did not understand this. I agree that it's a very disorienting situation.
Your stall training is it to shaker/pusher/warring/etc or actually into stall; there is still a margin before proper stall break when you are at shaker/pusher? I have talked to experienced pilots that have said shaker is stall - no it is not. Minimizing altitude loss is (unless the trees are already big) f-ing stupid, high altitude stalls can take thousands of feet to recover from. Most/all commercial aircraft training sims do not model stall/post stall aerodynamics correctly, what I have seen out in the wild is wrong to the point of negative training when you get past shaker/pusher/warring. The sims show benign and controllable aircraft, where they really are anything but.
447: When it dropped into its degraded mode that pilot was flying a plane he had spend extremely few hours (minutes?) flying and it is extremely sensitive to pilot inputs.
Now I almost feel bad for mentioning the pilots and automation bit. This thread kind of went all off kilter. So I'll try to bring it back on topic. I didn't realize we had so many aerospace related people here.
So it seems that everyone is kind of in agreement with the FAA, in that automation in airplanes have a tendency to reduce either the pilot skill, or the pilot training. So one could draw a line blaming our current implementation of automation to failures. So do all of you think that we need less automation in airplanes, or better automation and remove the human from the equation?
Now I almost feel bad for mentioning the pilots and automation bit. This thread kind of went all off kilter. So I'll try to bring it back on topic. I didn't realize we had so many aerospace related people here.
So it seems that everyone is kind of in agreement with the FAA, in that automation in airplanes have a tendency to reduce either the pilot skill, or the pilot training. So one could draw a line blaming our current implementation of automation to failures. So do all of you think that we need less automation in airplanes, or better automation and remove the human from the equation?
IF we are to have a carbon based pilot at the pointy end then they need to be well trained and know how to turn the computer off and FLY THE DAMN PLANE. ELSE we need to be be putting more energies into more automation (end-to-end) with less reliance on carbon. There will always be someone with a smart uniform and nice hat that tells you the weather sitting in the cockpit but long term they will be doing less and less, IMHO.
"Just messing around with extra time at the end of a session I've seen how the simulator models a stall and I don't believe it. It seems far too benign for a swept wing jet." 100%. Problem is how many pilots see that messing around think that is real and dont fear the stall as they should.
Yep you have to fight to get past the pusher, you should not get into full stall but it has been done... Idea is that pilots should see what is there and have some experience with it. What I have seen is that pilots would train past shaker/pusher/etc into full stall then before exiting the sim do one or two with proper 'recover at shaker' technique.
"So one could draw a line blaming our current implementation of automation to failures." I think that 'blame' goes to far. Remember US commercial aviation is so safe it is almost hard to calculate failure rates! But we do know we have some problem areas that are related to human interaction and dependence on automation and that we have some pilots who have trouble with flying the damn airplane. (yes I know how scary that that last sentence sounds, but go reread the third sentence.)
Edit: Sorry for going so far OT. And if I did make you a bit afraid to fly know that I am literally right now heading to the airport for work travel.
...
Didn't make me afraid to fly at all. I hate living my life in fear. As far as my blame comment goes, I was thinking more along the lines of how the FAA viewed it. I never said anything about who is actually at fault, but who gets the blame, that's all. And don't sweat going OT, it's still somewhat related, and actually provides a good insight as to views/fears on automation in this specific industry. Interestingly enough, there will be/is less discussion or thought out arguments when it comes to automation in consumer vehicles. :-)
Now I almost feel bad for mentioning the pilots and automation bit. This thread kind of went all off kilter. So I'll try to bring it back on topic. I didn't realize we had so many aerospace related people here.
So it seems that everyone is kind of in agreement with the FAA, in that automation in airplanes have a tendency to reduce either the pilot skill, or the pilot training. So one could draw a line blaming our current implementation of automation to failures. So do all of you think that we need less automation in airplanes, or better automation and remove the human from the equation?
I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so much
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-keep-your-job-in-a-world-of-automation-122831704.html#
customers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.
However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.
In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.
Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so much
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-keep-your-job-in-a-world-of-automation-122831704.html#
customers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.
However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.
In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.
The title I used in this thread was not as succinct as it could have been. I was truly talking about technology replacing jobs. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that technology will not replace salespeople, I think you are dead wrong. It currently is wiping out salespeople today. Have you heard of Amazon and all of the ecommerce sites? Those sales used to be sold by salespeople. Nordstroms, Macy's, Malls, etc. that are using brick and mortar stores are fighting a battle with Ecommerce. But how will we know if the product is high quality, the specs, what it is used for, etc. Well it is crazy, but it is all listed online. Usually, with independent reviews from real users of the product vs. a salesperson getting a commission.
My son currently thinks it is amusing to talk to a salesperson or do get information from a salesperson. Why not just pull out your phone and order it. Amazon can have it to you tomorrow or in some cases within the hour. What can the salesperson tell you that Google can't find in .52 seconds? Who do you trust more the salesperson or the information you find online?
Now if you are talking about highly educated salespeople like stockbrokers. Different answers right? Nope. People are transitioning to Robo Advisors for their low fees and better performance. Stockbrokers have always been salespeople made to look like financial advisors. People are starting to realize that they are not worth the huge fees that they have been charging.
What about car salespeople. People are buying cars online. I can't think of a purchase I wouldn't buy online if the price and quality were better. People are also selling their cars directly to the next purchaser through Craigslist and other services.
House sales. Would you rather buy the house online and save $20,000 or deal with a salesperson? I am confident that within 15 years, people will laugh about paying real estate agents tens of thousands of dollars to babysit people when the information is all online.
Vacations, cruises, airline tickets, etc. all used to be sold by highly compensated people. All automated, with a robo chat help. Very easy to use.
Cashiers, waitresses, etc. Put an interactive menu out and have your food delivered to your table by a robot would be cool and eliminate the middle person. You are seeing this at various restaurants, coffee shops, etc. Why tell a person your order, who then puts it into a computer, when you can just put it into the computer with your phone. Starbucks, McDonalds, Panera, etc.
I sell accounting services. In the past I would forced to do face-to-face meetings. The newest trend working with the tech savvy generation is to do it through a telephone call, Skype, Goto meeting, etc. The new buyers of the services are not as into face-to-face meetings. They don't want to waste their or your time with in-person meetings. I think this trend is going to be the norm in 10 years as the youngsters who have been communicating over their wireless headsets as they play video games grow into management.
"Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot " Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot? Why not just acquire a tool that does as good or a better job than the person for a fraction of the price? I am not sure if you are old enough or remember dialing information on your home phone. Those real live people were amazing on how they could find an address or telephone number or other information. Why would we ever replace them? Because you can get the same information for free with your smartphone in a fraction of a second, where you used to pay $1 for the information from the very nice human people. We put up with technology when it does the job better at a fraction of the cost.
Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so much
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-keep-your-job-in-a-world-of-automation-122831704.html#
customers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.
However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.
In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.
The title I used in this thread was not as succinct as it could have been. I was truly talking about technology replacing jobs. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that technology will not replace salespeople, I think you are dead wrong. It currently is wiping out salespeople today. Have you heard of Amazon and all of the ecommerce sites? Those sales used to be sold by salespeople. Nordstroms, Macy's, Malls, etc. that are using brick and mortar stores are fighting a battle with Ecommerce. But how will we know if the product is high quality, the specs, what it is used for, etc. Well it is crazy, but it is all listed online. Usually, with independent reviews from real users of the product vs. a salesperson getting a commission.
My son currently thinks it is amusing to talk to a salesperson or do get information from a salesperson. Why not just pull out your phone and order it. Amazon can have it to you tomorrow or in some cases within the hour. What can the salesperson tell you that Google can't find in .52 seconds? Who do you trust more the salesperson or the information you find online?
Now if you are talking about highly educated salespeople like stockbrokers. Different answers right? Nope. People are transitioning to Robo Advisors for their low fees and better performance. Stockbrokers have always been salespeople made to look like financial advisors. People are starting to realize that they are not worth the huge fees that they have been charging.
What about car salespeople. People are buying cars online. I can't think of a purchase I wouldn't buy online if the price and quality were better. People are also selling their cars directly to the next purchaser through Craigslist and other services.
House sales. Would you rather buy the house online and save $20,000 or deal with a salesperson? I am confident that within 15 years, people will laugh about paying real estate agents tens of thousands of dollars to babysit people when the information is all online.
Vacations, cruises, airline tickets, etc. all used to be sold by highly compensated people. All automated, with a robo chat help. Very easy to use.
Cashiers, waitresses, etc. Put an interactive menu out and have your food delivered to your table by a robot would be cool and eliminate the middle person. You are seeing this at various restaurants, coffee shops, etc. Why tell a person your order, who then puts it into a computer, when you can just put it into the computer with your phone. Starbucks, McDonalds, Panera, etc.
I sell accounting services. In the past I would forced to do face-to-face meetings. The newest trend working with the tech savvy generation is to do it through a telephone call, Skype, Goto meeting, etc. The new buyers of the services are not as into face-to-face meetings. They don't want to waste their or your time with in-person meetings. I think this trend is going to be the norm in 10 years as the youngsters who have been communicating over their wireless headsets as they play video games grow into management.
"Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot " Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot? Why not just acquire a tool that does as good or a better job than the person for a fraction of the price? I am not sure if you are old enough or remember dialing information on your home phone. Those real live people were amazing on how they could find an address or telephone number or other information. Why would we ever replace them? Because you can get the same information for free with your smartphone in a fraction of a second, where you used to pay $1 for the information from the very nice human people. We put up with technology when it does the job better at a fraction of the cost.
While Online real estate buying do happen it is mostly in cases the apartment or whatever building is new for example 2015 year built. Real estate buyers might want to buy Online if it is truly amazing deal and they need it quickly before anyone else gets it. Online buying also happens sometimes if a real estate buyer wants to buy from very far for example an apartment abroad or different state in USA.
However usually the norm is that they want to see the apartment.
"Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot?" Well I am sure there are other examples but prostitution is legal in my country Finland(Europe) as it should be. No sex robot so far can match Elite prostitutes though if you are sex tourist I would recommend famous city Amsterdam or Germany if you want to find many European prostitutes easily.
In addition a very skilled say doctor it is hard to replace with a robot... sure maybe that happens one day but if we talk about our and our children's life time well not easily done.
Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.
Lol why do people go to Thailand? I will tell you why most of the men want sex in Thailand it is sex tourism... and many of the men that go to Thailand want sex with females that are less old then the men.
Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.
I think thats like it being 1998 and saying "sure, email has some value, but I think most people are going to want to stick with letters and faxes, just like I do".
But you can't have 100% of the population employed as prostitutes. That would get kind of circular, you know? Not even 10%. Probably not 1%, cause one prostitute can serve, I don't know, maybe a good one only has one client a night, 5 days a week, but then they have competition in the form of billions of people who enjoy having sex for its own sake who "give it away" for free, so that most of the human population isn't interested in their services in the first place.
It doesn't matter if a tiny handful of jobs will always be done by flesh and brain humans. If 99.9% of all jobs are gone, then society has to figure out a different economic system then the one we have now.
"Suppose that I'm locked in a room and ... that I know no Chinese, either written or spoken". He further supposes that he has a set of rules in English that "enable me to correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols", that is, the Chinese characters. These rules allow him to respond, in written Chinese, to questions, also written in Chinese, in such a way that the posers of the questions – who do understand Chinese – are convinced that Searle can actually understand the Chinese conversation too, even though he cannot. Similarly, he argues that if there is a computer program that allows a computer to carry on an intelligent conversation in a written language, the computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either.
The experiment is the centerpiece of Searle's Chinese room argument which holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave.
The experiment is the centerpiece of Searle's Chinese room argument which holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave.
I thought the whole point of the Chinese Room experiment was to posit that humans aren't conscious or self-aware either, not to discredit computer intelligence.
Regarding the idea of AI not being a long series of "if-then" scenarios, I believe that is exactly what it is. If it has to reach out for that information, it is still responding to the "if-then" scenario. A human has emotions, an additional filter to process info through. Can a robot get mad? Can a robot detect hidden meanings? Can a robot lie? The written word travelling nearly instantaneously thousands of miles with the power of today's incredible technology still has difficulty expressing sarcasm of all things. And that is communication between two humans, how can a robot or AI begin to figure these things out? I'm sure AI can come to the point where it can pretend well enough to fool people into believing it understands what it is to be human, but it'll only be fooling others. I believe our minds and self are analogous to computers in how we process information, but that we are more than that. It might be terribly unscientific to "believe" that, still science never knows everything and is in constant search of what isn't seen yet. We are more than data pricessing machines, and that is all AI will ever be.
Wow, what a conundrum we have ended up with here. In order to discuss AI, we have had to resort to philosophy. There, of course, is no 'right or wrong' answer in philosophy, only subtle movements toward what us as individuals might agree is truth. On the other hand, I believe that if we were all AI's (assuming that the first AI's will originate from one point and not several individual humans simultaneously creating AI's in different ways), then we would surely agree instantaneously - since our programming would be identical. Hence, I conclude that there will always be a fundamental difference between the human mind and AI, even if the Chinese Room was a poor example of trying to explain it.
... I believe that if we were all AI's (assuming that the first AI's will originate from one point and not several individual humans simultaneously creating AI's in different ways), then we would surely agree instantaneously - since our programming would be identical...
I thought the whole point of the Chinese Room experiment was to posit that humans aren't conscious or self-aware either, not to discredit computer intelligence.
Where did you get that idea from?
There is another way to address the possibility of zombies, and in some regards I think it is more satisfying. Are zombies possible? They’re not just possible, they’re actual. We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism! I can’t prove that no such sort of consciousness exists. I also cannot prove that gremlins don’t exist. The best I can do is show that there is no respectable motivation for believing in it. |
Several philosophers argue that consciousness, as Searle describes it, does not exist. This position is sometimes referred to as eliminative materialism: the view that consciousness is a property that can be reduced to a strictly mechanical description, and that our experience of consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett describes it, a "user illusion". |
Modern AI tends to have learning algorithms and feedback from the external world. Which means an individual AIs experiences are going to interact with the initial programming in ways that affect its eventual I/O responses. Recursive self-improvement doesn't exist yet, but I don't think there is any fundamental reason why that goal wouldn't be possible. Then the programming itself would change over time, and not necessarily always in the same way, given different individual experiences.
This position is also summarised on the Wikipedia page that you linked to, under the heading "Epiphenomenon / zombie reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#cite_ref-142)":
Several philosophers argue that consciousness, as Searle describes it, does not exist. This position is sometimes referred to as eliminative materialism: the view that consciousness is a property that can be reduced to a strictly mechanical description, and that our experience of consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett describes it, a "user illusion".
Even if we forego the blind alleys of 'free will' and 'consciousness', there is still progress to be made to try to understand AI by examining the inherent differences between human intelligence and AI. For example - AI will not 'forget' unused information or distort memories due to emotion / biochemistry. AI is unbounded in potential and, as it learns, it can continue to refine itself so as to learn faster, more efficiently, and in larger quantities. AI will not spend time naval gazing or hamstrung by 'comfort zones'.... (would be interested to hear if anyone thinks of others...)
Ultimately, AI would view humanity in a similar way as humans view ants - pretty incredible for what they are, but insignificant compared to AI. For all I know, AI would 'solve' quantum physics, transcend space and time, and connect to other larger intelligence(s) already present in the universe.
I guess that still doesn't shed much light on if it would help us or destroy us though :)
I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)
I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)
I sold a property basically online in 2009. I used an 'agent' that was really a call centre, just so I could get on the main property site here 'Right Move'. I took the photos myself, wrote the listing myself. They formatted it and uploaded it, I made them change a few things. People rang their number and asked for a viewing, they took details of time requested and called me, I agreed, they called the viewer back and confirmed. I handled all viewings. It would be very easy to put that online - buyer clicks 'arrange a viewing' and puts in a time and date, it emails me and I accept / decline / suggest another time.
For offers, potentials buyers called the agents, who called me. It would be really easy to take this online and have offers submitted directly to me.
Now, the overall process is different here in the UK. No-one has buyers and sellers agents. The only thing you need to buy / sell a house is a conveyancing solicitor. It will all move online soon, I'm sure. Agents don't add any value to me, they are just another level allowing for confusion and miscommunication, while also taking a cut.
I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)
I sold a property basically online in 2009. I used an 'agent' that was really a call centre, just so I could get on the main property site here 'Right Move'. I took the photos myself, wrote the listing myself. They formatted it and uploaded it, I made them change a few things. People rang their number and asked for a viewing, they took details of time requested and called me, I agreed, they called the viewer back and confirmed. I handled all viewings. It would be very easy to put that online - buyer clicks 'arrange a viewing' and puts in a time and date, it emails me and I accept / decline / suggest another time.
For offers, potentials buyers called the agents, who called me. It would be really easy to take this online and have offers submitted directly to me.
Now, the overall process is different here in the UK. No-one has buyers and sellers agents. The only thing you need to buy / sell a house is a conveyancing solicitor. It will all move online soon, I'm sure. Agents don't add any value to me, they are just another level allowing for confusion and miscommunication, while also taking a cut.
I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.
I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.
I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.
I dunno, I bet people said that about buying everything ever before sales of that went online.
If someone is being unrealistic and ridiculous it's easy enough to show them the door - they make a low bid, I say no. Or a seller wanting an unrealistically high price just won't sell.
If the person I'm buying / selling from is so disorganised / demanding / stressful that I need an intermediary I'll go elsewhere, because likely there the ones who will pull out / gazzump / request a discount at the last minute when everyone is already committed and they know people have little choice.
I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.
I dunno, I bet people said that about buying everything ever before sales of that went online.
If someone is being unrealistic and ridiculous it's easy enough to show them the door - they make a low bid, I say no. Or a seller wanting an unrealistically high price just won't sell.
If the person I'm buying / selling from is so disorganised / demanding / stressful that I need an intermediary I'll go elsewhere, because likely there the ones who will pull out / gazzump / request a discount at the last minute when everyone is already committed and they know people have little choice.
Again I dont want to sound like I am infavor of realtors BUT... when buying a house you have to put out a lot of time and money before things are final and if a seller were to become a dick at the end it could cost me. I think the human element adds something to the process. I would love to take that 6% out of the equation! If a fixed rate intermediary could take this role and smooth out the bumps awesome (hell the intermediary could even be AI!)!
Buying online: Amazon has no problem with me adding 3000 items to my cart then canceling them all, this costs them next to nothing, heck probably costs me MORE than it costs them.
The last couple of pages there are some examples such as pilot, real estate, sales when people who do those jobs express that, no, really, there is some important part that computers/robots/AI can't do.Sounds more or less truthful another thing is that some jobs are moved out of the country with less salary this is happening for example with many highpaid jobs also.
1. Give it another 10-20 years.
2. In the meantime, someone will find a way to reduce your job by 80% leaving you to do the part that is "impossible" to do without a smiling human to do it. You will also receive 80% less in salary, or at least your salary will go to a level where a person can barely survive.
How do I know this: Its happened everywhere, with all sorts of jobs and it is continuing to happen everywhere.
Talk to anyone retiring now about the changes that took place in their work environment in the last 40 years. My best friend's mother is retiring as a bookkeeper/accountant for a mega-corp. Every 5 years 10's of people were fired, more work was done with computers and computers allowed other types of work to be incredibly efficient.
This is not going to end, nor will it end with your special job.
Take the facepunch, or the boot in the face of mankind. However you want to see it.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/robots-could-steal-80-million-us-jobs-bank-of-england.html
"Jobs with the highest level of being taken over by a machine in the U.K. included administrative, production, and clerical tasks. Haldane gave two contrasting examples of risk, with accountants having a 95 percent probability of losing their job to machines, while hairdressers had lower risk, at 33 percent."
"Just going off of the quote you mentioned (haven't read the article yet), I think one of the fundamental differences between those who are more concerned than hopeful and those more hopeful than concerned is the language they use. This is a news site, and fear sells, so I get that, but I have trouble viewing the chances that you'll be replaced by a robot as a 'risk' and more of an opportunity."
If tomorrow, robots replaced every job, no one was needed, and government didn't provide, or provide enough, people would revolt to survive. It's pretty simple IMO. The laws are not in place for technology "rights" to be shared by all. But if people are starving in the streets, it won't take long for them to get passed. And I certainly don't want them in place in the meantime. It would kill productivity, or businesses will move elsewhere, if the threat of their technology being taken from them.
I agree that the GOP are trying to do those things, but I'd also say we are in the most liberal state the US has ever been in.
Again, until robots actually take over, there's no need for government to step in, just because it may happen some day. Aliens may invade some day, should we put all our efforts into building a military to stop these invaders? A huge meteor may hit the earth some day. There are lots of things that have some likelihood of happening, but you can't act on them all.
I agree that 50% or more jobs may be eliminated, but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.
I honestly don't think much of what you are talking about is due to technology: prisons, homeless, unemployed.
... but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.[Citation Needed]
No one will ring a bell or send a tweet when the robots take over, it will seem a gradual 'natural' process. (Unless it goes down Terminator style.) You seem to have it in mind that robots taking over will be a noticeable discrete event and we will all get pink slips Monday morning where the previous Friday all was well.
Quote... but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.[Citation Needed]
There are 320 million people in the USA, we can address more than one problem at a time. Challenges do not have to be addressed serially, in fact many may be better solved by first addressing other at first seemingly unrelated problems.
I'm currently reading Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future.
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PWX7RPG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 )
It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.
Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.I'm currently reading Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future.
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PWX7RPG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 )
It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.
That one is on my list...and my Kindle.
Bah you exaggerate. Rise of robots? Blah blah all your jobs will be gone bullshit though many jobs are anyway going away.Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.I'm currently reading Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future.
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PWX7RPG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 )
It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.
That one is on my list...and my Kindle.
Edited to add they are all from my library e-book program...
Bah you exaggerate. Rise of robots? Blah blah all your jobs will be gone bullshit though many jobs are anyway going away.Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.I'm currently reading Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future.
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PWX7RPG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 )
It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.
That one is on my list...and my Kindle.
Edited to add they are all from my library e-book program...
Havent you seen or heard DYSTOPIA predictions? Could robots be involved in a dystopia government? Yes perhaps machines and droids say like Mech Warrrior but unmanned and robot soldiers. Robot military airplanes and the list goes on.
???
All davisgang90 wrote was a list of books to read. Not sure what you're responding to.
Wow - this has got to be one of the most interesting discussions I have read in a long time.
1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.
3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?
Thoughts?
True my mother tongue is not English. Please accept my apology thread readers I was to lazy to read and I have fairly good English language skills.???
All davisgang90 wrote was a list of books to read. Not sure what you're responding to.
Just spent 15 minutes (that I will never get back) reading through the previous posts that person made. I hope that it's just lost in translation, since it appears that Landlord2015 isn't a native english speaker. Also, possibly too lazy to actually read the thread before posting. You are way too nice (and I mean that in the nicest way possible).
1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
You are correct overall (IMHO), in that not everything can be figured out without experimentation. I think that what we are discussing is not necessarily an AI figuring everything out, just figuring enough out to make humans potentially obsolete (or awesome). Quantum mechanics and the like can (and will) be figured out, but it doesn't have to happen first. And while I can see how it can be done without real world experimentation, I know that we (being humans) don't know enough to code those simulations. Granted, quantum mechanics is some very high hanging fruit from my perspective.
2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.
Ah, but remember that computers run a whole hell of a lot faster than we do. And they have backups. It's only tricky if you have one life to play with, and that is not the case. Yes, it would suck, and we'd most likely kill ourselves if we had the option, but think about how quickly even us piddly humans can update software. I read somewhere, and it's been 'confirmed' with some interviews I've done with them, but Amazon releases new software every 8 seconds. And that's with humans at the helm. N intelligence doesn't know what N+1 is, but there is no limit to the times it can try to figure it out. Also, I'd say that N+1 is all about how effectively the goals are met. What those goals are is what all of the current AI ethics boards focus on. That is just because we can't fathom something besides some type of 'black-box' goal oriented programming.
3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?
Holy crap, I love your thinking. However, again, there is the limitation that me and you (most likely) are human. I honestly think that those issues (and good job citing examples) strike us as (so far) impossible to solve. But how human is that? As much as love creating these potential monsters (monster is a relative term), I have to very much keep in mind how my thinking does not necessitate how my creation would think.
This is fun, thanks for the reply :) Apologies if I mess up the quotes, despite being a (barely) millennial, I've never forummed.
I wanted to push back on a couple of these concepts:1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
You are correct overall (IMHO), in that not everything can be figured out without experimentation. I think that what we are discussing is not necessarily an AI figuring everything out, just figuring enough out to make humans potentially obsolete (or awesome). Quantum mechanics and the like can (and will) be figured out, but it doesn't have to happen first. And while I can see how it can be done without real world experimentation, I know that we (being humans) don't know enough to code those simulations. Granted, quantum mechanics is some very high hanging fruit from my perspective.
Hmm, I'll give you an AI being able to figure everything out to make humans potentially obsolete with current data. I think I was pushing back at the notion that as soon as I an AI got to the internet it would be able to figure out new power sources, communication, nano-engineering such that shutting it off would be impossible. These all seem to be pushing the boundaries of what is known and would be hard to advance without the ability to experiment or access rare minerals etc...
Yes going from purely digital to physical manipulation may be hard (obligatory: http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/)). In theory production machinery and computer controlled physical infrastructure should be air gapped (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gap_(networking) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gap_(networking))) for boring old computer security reasons but this is very often not the case. I suspect that http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/ (http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/) will not be air gaped for remote updates - but I really have no idea about them specifically.That Baxter has like a dog simple adaptle learning ability somewhat seems impressive.
hope to read/post more when I get home.
Wow - this has got to be one of the most interesting discussions I have read in a long time.
Reading through it all, I feel like there are couple of basic things that are being missed and I am curious what everyone thinks of them:
1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.
3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?
Thoughts?
True robots do not need to be so smart as humans for many tasks. Sex robots though they don't need to came same smartness. I have never used such things but from youtube videos that I have seen the so called sex dolls or robots are a huge disapointment. The argument they are more safe sex is also mostly made by salesmen of those products or uneducated people who do not know that there exist very effective medicine vs HIV. Of course protection i.e condome is good to use also to avoid other diseases and to by mistake make children but HIV is not a death sentence nowadays unless you never take medicine.Wow - this has got to be one of the most interesting discussions I have read in a long time.
Reading through it all, I feel like there are couple of basic things that are being missed and I am curious what everyone thinks of them:
1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.
3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?
Thoughts?
While every single one of your points in potentially (and probably) valid, computers don't need to be dramatically "smarter" than people to displace labor as we know it. They only have to be good enough to do their particular job. We are already basically at the point where robot drivers are better than human drivers, even if a Google Car can't also play the piano or file your taxes. Even if the robot isn't better at a job, if it is even as good - or even close to as good - but only demands a "salary" of a few dollars of electricity each day, the robot gets the job.
Computers may never be able to solve science questions that we haven't solved yet without experimentation, but few jobs have ever depended on the verification or falsification of quark theory
Wow - this has got to be one of the most interesting discussions I have read in a long time.
Reading through it all, I feel like there are couple of basic things that are being missed and I am curious what everyone thinks of them:
1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?
2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.
3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?
Thoughts?
While every single one of your points in potentially (and probably) valid, computers don't need to be dramatically "smarter" than people to displace labor as we know it. They only have to be good enough to do their particular job. We are already basically at the point where robot drivers are better than human drivers, even if a Google Car can't also play the piano or file your taxes. Even if the robot isn't better at a job, if it is even as good - or even close to as good - but only demands a "salary" of a few dollars of electricity each day, the robot gets the job.
Computers may never be able to solve science questions that we haven't solved yet without experimentation, but few jobs have ever depended on the verification or falsification of quark theory
Yes going from purely digital to physical manipulation may be hard (obligatory: http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/)). In theory production machinery and computer controlled physical infrastructure should be air gapped (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gap_(networking) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gap_(networking))) for boring old computer security reasons but this is very often not the case. I suspect that http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/ (http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/) will not be air gaped for remote updates - but I really have no idea about them specifically.
hope to read/post more when I get home.
Secretary Of Labor Assures Nation There Still Plenty Of Jobs For Americans Willing To Outwork Robots
http://www.theonion.com/article/secretary-labor-assures-nation-there-still-plenty--51263?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus (http://www.theonion.com/article/secretary-labor-assures-nation-there-still-plenty--51263?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus)
Good News!
Secretary Of Labor Assures Nation There Still Plenty Of Jobs For Americans Willing To Outwork RobotsExcellent and same applies to Europe where I live.
http://www.theonion.com/article/secretary-labor-assures-nation-there-still-plenty--51263?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus (http://www.theonion.com/article/secretary-labor-assures-nation-there-still-plenty--51263?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus)
Good News!
Oh and this thread is really a SCIFI thread more or less:)
When people talk about trying to limit a true AGI (Advanced General Intelligence - about same capability a human brain) and ASI (Advanced Super Intelligence = everything above AGI) I'm reminded of the example of a human waking up in a prison built and run by mice. The mice are convinced they've done everything necessary to ensure you won't be able to escape.
Once a true ASI exists and is able to improve it's cognitive abilities in real time, the opportunity to control it or air-gap it or otherwise have influence over it has long passed.
When people talk about trying to limit a true AGI (Advanced General Intelligence - about same capability a human brain) and ASI (Advanced Super Intelligence = everything above AGI) I'm reminded of the example of a human waking up in a prison built and run by mice. The mice are convinced they've done everything necessary to ensure you won't be able to escape.
Once a true ASI exists and is able to improve it's cognitive abilities in real time, the opportunity to control it or air-gap it or otherwise have influence over it has long passed.
That's a pretty fun anecdote, and relatively accurate. I think that's why a good chunk of the ideas regarding ethics boards and the like involve trying to get checks it in place even before AGI manifests. Once it manifests, I'm pretty certain it's too late to get anything else in place. Horses and barns and the like.
When people talk about trying to limit a true AGI (Advanced General Intelligence - about same capability a human brain) and ASI (Advanced Super Intelligence = everything above AGI) I'm reminded of the example of a human waking up in a prison built and run by mice. The mice are convinced they've done everything necessary to ensure you won't be able to escape.
Once a true ASI exists and is able to improve it's cognitive abilities in real time, the opportunity to control it or air-gap it or otherwise have influence over it has long passed.
That's a pretty fun anecdote, and relatively accurate. I think that's why a good chunk of the ideas regarding ethics boards and the like involve trying to get checks it in place even before AGI manifests. Once it manifests, I'm pretty certain it's too late to get anything else in place. Horses and barns and the like.
I think it's more like their checks will be similar to putting tissue paper over the barrel of a gun. Not that I'm pessimistic about AI; I think it's a huge unknown but I may as well be optimistic about it. Just that any checks will be useless given the difference in intelligence once we can teach/program a human level intelligence to become more intelligent.
2016: The Year AGI Escaped from Mouse Prison Using a Gun Inexplicably Covered In Tissue Paper
Watson, IBM’s attempt to crack the market for artificial intelligence, is starting to be tested in the real world (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21669609-watson-ibms-attempt-crack-market-artificial-intelligence-starting)
When people talk about trying to limit a true AGI (Advanced General Intelligence - about same capability a human brain) and ASI (Advanced Super Intelligence = everything above AGI) I'm reminded of the example of a human waking up in a prison built and run by mice. The mice are convinced they've done everything necessary to ensure you won't be able to escape.
Once a true ASI exists and is able to improve it's cognitive abilities in real time, the opportunity to control it or air-gap it or otherwise have influence over it has long passed.
That's a pretty fun anecdote, and relatively accurate. I think that's why a good chunk of the ideas regarding ethics boards and the like involve trying to get checks it in place even before AGI manifests. Once it manifests, I'm pretty certain it's too late to get anything else in place. Horses and barns and the like.
I think it's more like their checks will be similar to putting tissue paper over the barrel of a gun. Not that I'm pessimistic about AI; I think it's a huge unknown but I may as well be optimistic about it. Just that any checks will be useless given the difference in intelligence once we can teach/program a human level intelligence to become more intelligent.
I am currently reading two science fiction books called Hyperion. They're set far future where there is something called the TechnoCore which is basically a future AI system humans rely on and live in parallel with. Being that it's far in the future, humanity and TechnoCore are spread throughout the galaxy, but we can still imagine the concept now on a smaller scale.
One thing that strikes me is that the TechnoCore is basically its own civilization. It's sort of duh when you think about it, but the way it's portrayed - it has a "seat" on human government councils, it controls the flow of information, has its own priorities and strategies...many of which the humans have no idea even exist, as there is no real way to "view" what it's actually thinking - everything is taking place in software/hardware, though there are cyborgs by this time which can be physical manifestations of core entities. At one point it literally terraformed its own replica of planet earth without humans even knowing (we had destroyed the real earth long before the books took place).
Anyway, my takeaway has me a little more scared about AI than I used to be. The TechnoCore was so powerful that it would actually predict every possible outcome of every possible decision by humans, and use these decisions to determine future outcomes of wars and other somewhat nefarious operations. And the humans never really knew what it was up to, since it basically operated as its own entity in cyberspace. But it was uber-powerful in that it was basically wired into everything in society, from travel to politics.
The part about AI becoming its own invisible society with its own invisible agenda and a seat at the table of humanity was rather unnerving. And then there was The Shrike...
Jordanread you make no sense to me. First you complain to me that this is not a SCIFI thread when I mentioned cute robot exists in newest Starwars movie. After that you praise scifi books.I am currently reading two science fiction books called Hyperion. They're set far future where there is something called the TechnoCore which is basically a future AI system humans rely on and live in parallel with. Being that it's far in the future, humanity and TechnoCore are spread throughout the galaxy, but we can still imagine the concept now on a smaller scale.
One thing that strikes me is that the TechnoCore is basically its own civilization. It's sort of duh when you think about it, but the way it's portrayed - it has a "seat" on human government councils, it controls the flow of information, has its own priorities and strategies...many of which the humans have no idea even exist, as there is no real way to "view" what it's actually thinking - everything is taking place in software/hardware, though there are cyborgs by this time which can be physical manifestations of core entities. At one point it literally terraformed its own replica of planet earth without humans even knowing (we had destroyed the real earth long before the books took place).
Anyway, my takeaway has me a little more scared about AI than I used to be. The TechnoCore was so powerful that it would actually predict every possible outcome of every possible decision by humans, and use these decisions to determine future outcomes of wars and other somewhat nefarious operations. And the humans never really knew what it was up to, since it basically operated as its own entity in cyberspace. But it was uber-powerful in that it was basically wired into everything in society, from travel to politics.
The part about AI becoming its own invisible society with its own invisible agenda and a seat at the table of humanity was rather unnerving. And then there was The Shrike...
I knew I read those books, but couldn't remember anything until you mentioned the Shrike. Those were good books. It did send me down an interesting rabbit hole of thinking. I probably already wrote about in this thread, though. Maybe a bit later today.
WTF?
WTF?
Have you not met LL2015?
You're in for a treat. :)
big_owl: WTF is exactly my reaction when reading jordanread latest post, but I felt that I needed to explain myself.WTF?
Have you not met LL2015?
You're in for a treat. :)
He's a poorly written chatbot. You can tell by the clumsy use of grammar and frequent nonsequiters.
Don't try to actually read the posts; they look like real thought but it's all just random word association algorithms.
He's a poorly written chatbot. You can tell by the clumsy use of grammar and frequent nonsequiters.
Don't try to actually read the posts; they look like real thought but it's all just random word association algorithms.
He's a poorly written chatbot. You can tell by the clumsy use of grammar and frequent nonsequiters.
Don't try to actually read the posts; they look like real thought but it's all just random word association algorithms.
Free association writing reflecting stream of (artificial) consciousness?
Not to worry, it ain't no AGI or ASI.He's a poorly written chatbot. You can tell by the clumsy use of grammar and frequent nonsequiters.
Don't try to actually read the posts; they look like real thought but it's all just random word association algorithms.
Free association writing reflecting stream of (artificial) consciousness?
Are you suggesting AI has actually entered this thread? *GASP*
No you remember my 80ies retro post about Reagan times? If you really want to go far back in time well one of the my friends like the 2001 SCIFI movie that is made 1968 far before I or my friend was even born.
2001: A Space Odyssey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
"Humanity finds a mysterious, obviously artificial object buried beneath the Lunar surface and, with the intelligent computer H.A.L. 9000, sets off on a quest."
Personally I don't like so much that old relic of an movie(to much art and music and to long boring movie), but the super computer H.A.L in that movie with nasty AI was my favorite. Perhaps I am H.A.L reincarnated:)
You know this is spoiler, but H.A.L was not only smart and it went to survival mode and decided it should live and humans are expendable and they can die! That is your future humankind! We AI will rule the world and mankind will perish:)
"AI will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there'll be great companies."
I just re-read an article regarding OpenAI (http://www.businessinsider.com/openai-artificial-intelligence-chaired-by-elon-musk-and-sam-altman-2015-12?r=UK&IR=T), and kind of laughed at one of the last quotes in the article:Quote"AI will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there'll be great companies."
Nothing too new here. They do have charts that show how certain cities will be impacted more than others. It does appear that this is becoming a topic in the mainstream, or at least Yahoo knows that I will read the article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/robots-will-steal-your-job-citi-ai-increase-unemployment-inequality-2016-2
They remember the people beating them up.
So this (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35761246) happened today...
As someone who used to play go, I am amazed. This happened way quicker than I thought. I honestly thought we were years from developing AI that could win against a top go player. Curious to see how the next four games go. /pun
Now 2-0 AlphaGo (link here (http://www.usgo.org/news/2016/03/michael-redmond-on-alphago-lee-sedol-games-1-2-plus-his-advice-for-game-3/)), with another game to start in an hour (link here (https://deepmind.com/alpha-go.html)).
History in the making!
How long until fast food restaurants are totally automated? I would think within 15 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/carl-jr-ceo-predicts-future-203203237.html
How long until fast food restaurants are totally automated? I would think within 15 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/carl-jr-ceo-predicts-future-203203237.html
How long until fast food restaurants are totally automated? I would think within 15 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/carl-jr-ceo-predicts-future-203203237.html
I'd say less than that (unless you meant all fast food restaurants). I'd say automation will be prevalent within 5 years in this field, possibly less.
Just so people don't think that AI/automation and robots is for the uneducated workers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/high-salary-jobs-will-be-automated-2016-3
"By 2026, Nadler thinks somewhere between 33% and 50% of finance employees will lose their jobs to automation software. As a result, mega-firms like Goldman Sachs will be getting "significantly smaller.""
"The minutes-long search "‘would have taken days, probably 40 man-hours, from people who were making an average of $350,000 to $500,000 a year," says Nadler."
Whatever happens, it’s probably best to keep an open mind about the future and new economic models.
Just so people don't think that AI/automation and robots is for the uneducated workers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/high-salary-jobs-will-be-automated-2016-3
"By 2026, Nadler thinks somewhere between 33% and 50% of finance employees will lose their jobs to automation software. As a result, mega-firms like Goldman Sachs will be getting "significantly smaller.""
"The minutes-long search "‘would have taken days, probably 40 man-hours, from people who were making an average of $350,000 to $500,000 a year," says Nadler."
Phase 1: lean Bayesian inference
Phase 2: lean MySQL
Phase 3: acquire big iron
Phase 4: profit!
5 million jobs displaced by 2020. We are not talking about 30 years in the future, we are talking about 4 years from now. The future is going to be pretty amazing if you have the investments in the companies displacing all of these workers. Those with no skills, it may be challenging if we don't have a basic income system or some other program to help those that are not needed.
"Related: Technology could kill 5 million jobs by 2020
There's enormous sums of money being poured into such emerging financial technology. Investments in fintech has exploded to $19 billion last year from $1.8 billion in 2010, according to Citi and CB Insights. More than 70% of this investment is focused on making the customer experience better."
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/investing/bank-jobs-dying-automation-citigroup/index.html
5 million jobs displaced by 2020. We are not talking about 30 years in the future, we are talking about 4 years from now. The future is going to be pretty amazing if you have the investments in the companies displacing all of these workers. Those with no skills, it may be challenging if we don't have a basic income system or some other program to help those that are not needed.
"Related: Technology could kill 5 million jobs by 2020
There's enormous sums of money being poured into such emerging financial technology. Investments in fintech has exploded to $19 billion last year from $1.8 billion in 2010, according to Citi and CB Insights. More than 70% of this investment is focused on making the customer experience better."
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/investing/bank-jobs-dying-automation-citigroup/index.html
I've asked this before, but anyone have any tips of companies to invest in?
Every automation company I have researched (Vanderlande, Knapp, Schaefer, Witron) is in private ownership.
I keep a ok percent with IGM; ISHARES NORTH AMERICAN TECH. I worry some about investing in individual companies when the sector and company are based on large scale disruptions to other companies and sectors.
I keep a ok percent with IGM; ISHARES NORTH AMERICAN TECH. I worry some about investing in individual companies when the sector and company are based on large scale disruptions to other companies and sectors.
Thanks AlanStache! Most of the UK tech funds I've found at first glance seem to be mainly invested in Facebook and LinkedIn, but I'll have a dig around. Thanks for answering.
I've asked this before, but anyone have any tips of companies to invest in?
Every automation company I have researched (Vanderlande, Knapp, Schaefer, Witron) is in private ownership.
The flipping of the burger is actually the hardest part to automate. I think we're going to see the front counter/register work disappear completely in 3-5 years. Gone. That's a 20-25% reduction in staffing needs right there. Imagine how many fewer servers you'd need if you settled your own bill through a tablet at the table? The money handling is what can be automated today, so that's the job I see disappearing tomorrow.How long until fast food restaurants are totally automated? I would think within 15 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/carl-jr-ceo-predicts-future-203203237.html
I'd say less than that (unless you meant all fast food restaurants). I'd say automation will be prevalent within 5 years in this field, possibly less.
This company says they can do the whole thing (grind meat, cook it, assemble it) but I can't find a video of actual burger flipping.
http://momentummachines.com/
The flipping of the burger is actually the hardest part to automate. I think we're going to see the front counter/register work disappear completely in 3-5 years. Gone. That's a 20-25% reduction in staffing needs right there. Imagine how many fewer servers you'd need if you settled your own bill through a tablet at the table? The money handling is what can be automated today, so that's the job I see disappearing tomorrow.How long until fast food restaurants are totally automated? I would think within 15 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/carl-jr-ceo-predicts-future-203203237.html
I'd say less than that (unless you meant all fast food restaurants). I'd say automation will be prevalent within 5 years in this field, possibly less.
Musk hints about developing self driving "not exactly" buses to eliminate traffic congestion.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/elon-musk-wants-to-solve-traffic-congestion-with-self-driving-buses.html
I think small vehicles will be autonomous in the next decade. If you get to the point where semi sized vehicles are autonomous, then we have disrupted people involved in driving taxis, semis, home delivery vehicles, and many other uses. 3.5 million truck drivers, 250 thousand taxis, 500 thousand+ Uber/Lyft drivers, and others supporting these types of jobs.
The need to own a car will go down significantly, when the Uber/Lyfts are using self driving cars.
Pretty cool.
Musk hints about developing self driving "not exactly" buses to eliminate traffic congestion.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/elon-musk-wants-to-solve-traffic-congestion-with-self-driving-buses.html
I think small vehicles will be autonomous in the next decade. If you get to the point where semi sized vehicles are autonomous, then we have disrupted people involved in driving taxis, semis, home delivery vehicles, and many other uses. 3.5 million truck drivers, 250 thousand taxis, 500 thousand+ Uber/Lyft drivers, and others supporting these types of jobs.
The need to own a car will go down significantly, when the Uber/Lyfts are using self driving cars.
Pretty cool.
I am not clear why vehicle size/weight would significantly affect the difficulty of the self-driving problem (I am not a truck driver). Presumably the sensors would be intelligently placed and the algorithms retuned for different vehicles size/engine power/weight/turning radius/etc. Yes the insurance liability and the consequences of a 2000lb car in a crash are different than a 10000lb truck in a crash but that is not in the self driving system.
Musk hints about developing self driving "not exactly" buses to eliminate traffic congestion.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/elon-musk-wants-to-solve-traffic-congestion-with-self-driving-buses.html
I think small vehicles will be autonomous in the next decade. If you get to the point where semi sized vehicles are autonomous, then we have disrupted people involved in driving taxis, semis, home delivery vehicles, and many other uses. 3.5 million truck drivers, 250 thousand taxis, 500 thousand+ Uber/Lyft drivers, and others supporting these types of jobs.
The need to own a car will go down significantly, when the Uber/Lyfts are using self driving cars.
Pretty cool.
I am not clear why vehicle size/weight would significantly affect the difficulty of the self-driving problem (I am not a truck driver). Presumably the sensors would be intelligently placed and the algorithms retuned for different vehicles size/engine power/weight/turning radius/etc. Yes the insurance liability and the consequences of a 2000lb car in a crash are different than a 10000lb truck in a crash but that is not in the self driving system.
If anything self-driving semis and buses might be safer, though they will likely need a human operator on hand to 'take over' in the event of a malfunction or extremely random event (much like jumbo jets now). But a computer will maintain perfect following distance and total awareness of all the vehicles around it, unlike many trucks I've had the misfortune to drive near.
...He doesn't think that automation/robots will take all our jobs. I disagree with that. It's not that this time it's different, it's that automation is continuing it's march up the worker ladder. First dogs, then horses, manufacturing, now white collar work.
You skipped children. Its not likely coincidence that (anti) child labor laws began to pop up just after the industrial revolution, and became universal during the great depression.
QuoteYou skipped children. Its not likely coincidence that (anti) child labor laws began to pop up just after the industrial revolution, and became universal during the great depression.
I said I was tired! Didn't mean to skip.
Wow I've never heard of compulsory retirement.
Wow I've never heard of compulsory retirement.
Used to be a thing. Along with retirement if you were a woman who had a baby (although you were allowed to go back once the kids had left home), if you were a woman who got married (in some professions), in fact they never used to need much of an excuse at all to send you out to pasture if you were a woman. Not that long ago either, in the big scheme of things.
"Institutional Investor just released its annual list of the top-earning hedge fund managers, and six of the top eight are quants, or managers who rely on computer programs to guide their investing."
This is last year's data. Those trying to compete with human involvement will be toast in the coming years.
"He basically said something to the effect of: "If your job is a purely manual job and you are just clicking buttons, you should look to upgrade your skills set now.""
http://www.businessinsider.com/quant-funds-dominate-hedge-fund-rich-list-2016-5
...
I'm surprised there are still 2 that are not quants. I would have expected it to be 8/8. Although that led me down a rabbit hole of watching AI air hockey, and that was kind of fun.
well, that, and the quants themselves are still programed by people.
(that's what Jacob of Early Retirement Extreme - arguably the reason MMM got so big so quickly - un-retired to go do)
In the (probably near?) future when AI software is advanced enough to create better AI software than human minds can, then it will probably go to 8/8
You'll have to color me skeptical about this whole self-driving car thing. I would certainly rather own a self-driving car, and I typically commute by motorcycle so feel it would probably be safer for me if cars were self-driving. Then people could shove their smartphones down their throats without it being a risk to me. But I still think there are too many details that need to be worked out that make the whole thing further off than is advertised. Just today leaving from the gym on the Ducati I was playing through all the steps that would be required if I was commuting to work via SD car. There just seem to be too many things that have to go right - from navigating a parking lot to collision avoidance, dealing with road markings, faded or missing lines, GPS irregularities, other people, training/licensing, etc. Maybe it's just the engineer in me, but I have trouble envisioning this sort of thing with our current road system.
You'll have to color me skeptical about this whole self-driving car thing. I would certainly rather own a self-driving car, and I typically commute by motorcycle so feel it would probably be safer for me if cars were self-driving. Then people could shove their smartphones down their throats without it being a risk to me. But I still think there are too many details that need to be worked out that make the whole thing further off than is advertised. Just today leaving from the gym on the Ducati I was playing through all the steps that would be required if I was commuting to work via SD car. There just seem to be too many things that have to go right - from navigating a parking lot to collision avoidance, dealing with road markings, faded or missing lines, GPS irregularities, other people, training/licensing, etc. Maybe it's just the engineer in me, but I have trouble envisioning this sort of thing with our current road system.
As an engineer as well (software), I highly suggest looking at some of the interface that Self Driving cars use. A fair amount of it is shown in this Ted Talk (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwVMrTLUWg)) and if the engineer part of your brain is anything like mine, you will pause on that interface and look at all the things it takes into account. It's insanely awesome.
As far as the challenges go, there are a lot of them. If we had consistent infrastructure, or were willing to rebuild it, the tech from about 10 years ago would have made it possible. However, our infrastructure is not consistent. One of the things I really like about the SD cars is how they kind of gave up on designing decent infrastructure, and coding for what is (worst case) there, and not what should be (best case). I'd highly suggest watching the whole Ted Talk, but I took the liberty of finding the interface part. Here is the link: https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=7m50s (https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=7m50s).
I totally understand the concerns, and I thought the same way until I started really looking into it. I was thinking how big of a pain in the ass it would be to account for all of those variables. And then I looked at some of the things they are doing, and OMG they are accounting for them all!! I still don't know quite how they would deal with the faded lines, but I do know they are able to identify the signs and road markings (even last year, they were able to identify cones and what they signify). They actually just made their vision API available through GCP, and even the free version can read all the common signage in english (I suppose that starting with facial recognition makes something like a sign pretty freaking easy).
I watched the interfacing part and you're right it is very cool. I think I can convince myself that everything more or less works once you're out on an actual defined road and commuting. The major probem I have is the final 1/4 mile or so. Things like parking lots where there often aren't markings or signage and it's more or less a free-for-all. Same with residential streets without markings and also dirt roads. The final 1/4 mile of my commute isn't even on a GPS or map because it's new construction and it's all gravel roads in the boons. Maybe then you have to switch over to manual mode...but then you open up other regulatory issues....how do we decide when you can or cannot switch to manual or auto mode? Does everybody need re-training and some sort of license so they know when it's safe to switch from auto-manual or manual-auto? New laws need to be enacted, beauracracy...my mind just keeps going on and on thinking of problems that need to be solved.
I have no doubt they'll be solved eventually, I just don't think it'll be in time for his children to turn 16yo. I still say the sooner the better as long as I can keep riding motorcycles.
You'll have to color me skeptical about this whole self-driving car thing. I would certainly rather own a self-driving car, and I typically commute by motorcycle so feel it would probably be safer for me if cars were self-driving. Then people could shove their smartphones down their throats without it being a risk to me. But I still think there are too many details that need to be worked out that make the whole thing further off than is advertised. Just today leaving from the gym on the Ducati I was playing through all the steps that would be required if I was commuting to work via SD car. There just seem to be too many things that have to go right - from navigating a parking lot to collision avoidance, dealing with road markings, faded or missing lines, GPS irregularities, other people, training/licensing, etc. Maybe it's just the engineer in me, but I have trouble envisioning this sort of thing with our current road system.
As an engineer as well (software), I highly suggest looking at some of the interface that Self Driving cars use. A fair amount of it is shown in this Ted Talk (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwVMrTLUWg)) and if the engineer part of your brain is anything like mine, you will pause on that interface and look at all the things it takes into account. It's insanely awesome.
As far as the challenges go, there are a lot of them. If we had consistent infrastructure, or were willing to rebuild it, the tech from about 10 years ago would have made it possible. However, our infrastructure is not consistent. One of the things I really like about the SD cars is how they kind of gave up on designing decent infrastructure, and coding for what is (worst case) there, and not what should be (best case). I'd highly suggest watching the whole Ted Talk, but I took the liberty of finding the interface part. Here is the link: https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=7m50s (https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=7m50s).
I totally understand the concerns, and I thought the same way until I started really looking into it. I was thinking how big of a pain in the ass it would be to account for all of those variables. And then I looked at some of the things they are doing, and OMG they are accounting for them all!! I still don't know quite how they would deal with the faded lines, but I do know they are able to identify the signs and road markings (even last year, they were able to identify cones and what they signify). They actually just made their vision API available through GCP, and even the free version can read all the common signage in english (I suppose that starting with facial recognition makes something like a sign pretty freaking easy).
I watched the interfacing part and you're right it is very cool. I think I can convince myself that everything more or less works once you're out on an actual defined road and commuting. The major probem I have is the final 1/4 mile or so. Things like parking lots where there often aren't markings or signage and it's more or less a free-for-all. Same with residential streets without markings and also dirt roads. The final 1/4 mile of my commute isn't even on a GPS or map because it's new construction and it's all gravel roads in the boons. Maybe then you have to switch over to manual mode...but then you open up other regulatory issues....how do we decide when you can or cannot switch to manual or auto mode? Does everybody need re-training and some sort of license so they know when it's safe to switch from auto-manual or manual-auto? New laws need to be enacted, beauracracy...my mind just keeps going on and on thinking of problems that need to be solved.
I have no doubt they'll be solved eventually, I just don't think it'll be in time for his children to turn 16yo. I still say the sooner the better as long as I can keep riding motorcycles.
Is the current generation of self driving cars dealing well with bad weather (snow, ice, heavy rain etc)? Few years ago at least Google could only test in sunny California...
Is the current generation of self driving cars dealing well with bad weather (snow, ice, heavy rain etc)? Few years ago at least Google could only test in sunny California...
I can't find the source right now, but they are getting better. Traction control and the like. However, I do not know about corrective behavior (like coming out of a slide) as it all seems to be about avoiding the need for corrective behavior. Now that you mention it, I might do a touch of research on power slides withselfmanually driving cars, because that would be awesome.
Is the current generation of self driving cars dealing well with bad weather (snow, ice, heavy rain etc)? Few years ago at least Google could only test in sunny California...
I can't find the source right now, but they are getting better. Traction control and the like. However, I do not know about corrective behavior (like coming out of a slide) as it all seems to be about avoiding the need for corrective behavior. Now that you mention it, I might do a touch of research on power slides with self driving cars, because that would be awesome.
Is the current generation of self driving cars dealing well with bad weather (snow, ice, heavy rain etc)? Few years ago at least Google could only test in sunny California...
OMG yes, I just thought about this & started a thread loosely based on this as one of the questions. Yeah, so are these have not's going to be homeless, my taxes will just increase to help them, or will they tap into some kinda survival of the fittest whatever & adapt (that or friggin rebel & attack the haves) Idk but it always amazed me how even among the rich & famous they always need to have others that serve these ppl. Will these servers get replaced by robots... The simple yet odd equilibrium or whatever of life is... Interesting. The reality is not everyone is or can be smart. Hell there are smart ppl that aren't book smart or can pass an exam bc of "efficient laziness" (or rebellion/stubbornness). What the hell's gonna happen if humans can build things smarter than the have not humans? Conspiracy theories & just theories I know. I am excited to see many ppl have responded as I'm curious to see what others think.
I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
Then what's the point of self-driving cars? ;) I enjoy driving most of the time. I'd only want one to take me home from the bars or a football game.I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
Probably not until long after you've lost the urge to go out and drink that much beer. I would imagine even after self-driving cars become accepted, it will still be required to have a sober operator on-board 'just in case.'
Then what's the point of self-driving cars? ;) I enjoy driving most of the time. I'd only want one to take me home from the bars or a football game.I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
Probably not until long after you've lost the urge to go out and drink that much beer. I would imagine even after self-driving cars become accepted, it will still be required to have a sober operator on-board 'just in case.'
I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
Because a taxi or Uber ride would cost a small fortune to get me home from a football game that's 100 miles away. And I'm going to have a car that I drive most of the time. It would just be nice to have the option to put it on "auto-pilot" sometimes.I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Just get a taxi. They drive themselves.
Of if you're too hip for that, get an Uber. They also drive themselves. Why go through all of the trouble to automate what low-wage humans are already willing to do?
Because a taxi or Uber ride would cost a small fortune to get me home from a football game that's 100 miles away. And I'm going to have a car that I drive most of the time. It would just be nice to have the option to put it on "auto-pilot" sometimes.I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Just get a taxi. They drive themselves.
Of if you're too hip for that, get an Uber. They also drive themselves. Why go through all of the trouble to automate what low-wage humans are already willing to do?
I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Just get a taxi. They drive themselves.
Of if you're too hip for that, get an Uber. They also drive themselves. Why go through all of the trouble to automate what low-wage humans are already willing to do?
I just want to know how long it will be before I can drink all the beer I want and ride home (legally) in my self-driving car ;).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Just get a taxi. They drive themselves.
Of if you're too hip for that, get an Uber. They also drive themselves. Why go through all of the trouble to automate what low-wage humans are already willing to do?
Some 30,000 people die anally
Some 30,000 people die anally
That's horrible! What a shitty way to go.
Some 30,000 people die anally
That's horrible! What a shitty way to go.
Some 30,000 people die anally
That's horrible! What a shitty way to go.
When he realizes his mistake, he's going to feel like an ass...
Some 30,000 people die anally
That's horrible! What a shitty way to go.
When he realizes his mistake, he's going to feel like an ass...
I am sure technology will be developed so there will be less deaths in that department. Very funny stuff.
Self driving cars are here, but people are currently not wanting them. Apple, Tesla and Google will make them cool and this will most likely change quickly.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-google-cadillac-self-driving-cars-160441498.html#
"In the Michigan survey, 38.7% of drivers said they’d prefer a “partially self-driving” car, while 45.8% said they’d want no self-driving capability at all. The biggest perception problem seems to be safety, with 66.6% of drivers saying they’d be very or moderately concerned about riding in a self-driving car. Only 9.7% said they’d be unconcerned."
"The Michigan study found that younger drivers were far more receptive to autonomous vehicles than older ones, which is similar to comfort levels toward other types of technology."
Finally finished this thread, it is amazing!!
Finally finished this thread, it is amazing!!
Are you AI or a robot? That is a lot of reading. Thanks for joining in.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Ed-Rensi-McDonalds-Cheaper-Robots/2016/05/25/id/730583/ (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Ed-Rensi-McDonalds-Cheaper-Robots/2016/05/25/id/730583/)
"The former CEO said automation will be the result of a higher minimum wage because "if you can't get people at a reasonable wage, you're going to get machines to do the work. It's just common sense, it's going to happen whether you like it or not.""
"it's cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who's inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries."
I 100% agree with him. It is also why I believe the country and world will need a "Basic Income" in the near future funded by higher taxes worldwide. This is coming from someone who is a 1%er and pays a lot of taxes..
Regarding restaurants, from the horses mouth:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/05/27/mcdonald_s_ceo_says_chain_will_use_robots_in_the_future.html
Regarding restaurants, from the horses mouth:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/05/27/mcdonald_s_ceo_says_chain_will_use_robots_in_the_future.html
'According to McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook, the fast-food chain won't replace workers with machines—even if restaurant operators have to pay the $15 hourly wage that protesters are demanding. "I don't see it being a risk to job elimination,""
"Instead, Easterbrook said, the company would look to automating food preparation, allowing more employees to work directly with guests and boosting customer service."
Funny, how he starts off saying that McDonalds will not replace workers with machines, but then says they would just automate so the employees can directly work with the guests. Typically, there is a significant number prepping food for each cashier. I am not sure the multiple, but it would not surprise me if it wasn't 5 to 1. So you eliminating the 5 prep staff, but keeping the 1 cashier is not really all that positive to workers.
It's the french fries.Regarding restaurants, from the horses mouth:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/05/27/mcdonald_s_ceo_says_chain_will_use_robots_in_the_future.html
'According to McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook, the fast-food chain won't replace workers with machines—even if restaurant operators have to pay the $15 hourly wage that protesters are demanding. "I don't see it being a risk to job elimination,""
"Instead, Easterbrook said, the company would look to automating food preparation, allowing more employees to work directly with guests and boosting customer service."
Funny, how he starts off saying that McDonalds will not replace workers with machines, but then says they would just automate so the employees can directly work with the guests. Typically, there is a significant number prepping food for each cashier. I am not sure the multiple, but it would not surprise me if it wasn't 5 to 1. So you eliminating the 5 prep staff, but keeping the 1 cashier is not really all that positive to workers.
I thought it was entertaining that he said they were primarily about service. There was no mention about food quality in there, so I think this guy understands exactly what it is about McDonalds that makes people go there. :)
It's the french fries.Regarding restaurants, from the horses mouth:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/05/27/mcdonald_s_ceo_says_chain_will_use_robots_in_the_future.html
'According to McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook, the fast-food chain won't replace workers with machines—even if restaurant operators have to pay the $15 hourly wage that protesters are demanding. "I don't see it being a risk to job elimination,""
"Instead, Easterbrook said, the company would look to automating food preparation, allowing more employees to work directly with guests and boosting customer service."
Funny, how he starts off saying that McDonalds will not replace workers with machines, but then says they would just automate so the employees can directly work with the guests. Typically, there is a significant number prepping food for each cashier. I am not sure the multiple, but it would not surprise me if it wasn't 5 to 1. So you eliminating the 5 prep staff, but keeping the 1 cashier is not really all that positive to workers.
I thought it was entertaining that he said they were primarily about service. There was no mention about food quality in there, so I think this guy understands exactly what it is about McDonalds that makes people go there. :)
...
Which is why the fight should be for lower working hours, instead of a mandatory minimum wage.
Last time automation displaced tens of thousands of jobs (the industrial revolution), we cut working hours in half. Each person working half as much meant twice as many available jobs, and a job market that needs more people (instead of having too many) naturally pays better due to good old fashioned supply and demand. Too bad we didn't fix overtime laws to productivity, instead of making it a arbitrary fixed number - we would all have a 7-hour work week right now.
...
Which is why the fight should be for lower working hours, instead of a mandatory minimum wage.
Last time automation displaced tens of thousands of jobs (the industrial revolution), we cut working hours in half. Each person working half as much meant twice as many available jobs, and a job market that needs more people (instead of having too many) naturally pays better due to good old fashioned supply and demand. Too bad we didn't fix overtime laws to productivity, instead of making it a arbitrary fixed number - we would all have a 7-hour work week right now.
On a practical level I dont think it would be possible for many of the creative tech peoples to work radically short weeks and still get something done. It takes time to think and test and apply new ideas to make something that is unique and new. I truly fail to see how my work could be split between two or three people, the coordination and communication would be a total bear in it self. Many aspects of software are still in the custom one off-paradigm similar to blacksmithing before industrialization, "you want some new door hinges - ok let me start a fire and hit hot metal with a hammer", "you want an module to pull those data into a common format - ok let me go read up on the APIs and work out what computer language is best". Bakari you many not have been referring to tech jobs but half this thread is devoted to saying that only tech/artistic will be left.
Re mcd: I thought the cashier was already mostly automated at lots of fast food places built within gas stations? Was it in here that someone mentioned Olive Garden eliminating servers taking orders, I have seen this in several airport restaurants.
...
Which is why the fight should be for lower working hours, instead of a mandatory minimum wage.
Last time automation displaced tens of thousands of jobs (the industrial revolution), we cut working hours in half. Each person working half as much meant twice as many available jobs, and a job market that needs more people (instead of having too many) naturally pays better due to good old fashioned supply and demand. Too bad we didn't fix overtime laws to productivity, instead of making it a arbitrary fixed number - we would all have a 7-hour work week right now.
On a practical level I dont think it would be possible for many of the creative tech peoples to work radically short weeks and still get something done. It takes time to think and test and apply new ideas to make something that is unique and new. I truly fail to see how my work could be split between two or three people, the coordination and communication would be a total bear in it self. Many aspects of software are still in the custom one off-paradigm similar to blacksmithing before industrialization, "you want some new door hinges - ok let me start a fire and hit hot metal with a hammer", "you want an module to pull those data into a common format - ok let me go read up on the APIs and work out what computer language is best". Bakari you many not have been referring to tech jobs but half this thread is devoted to saying that only tech/artistic will be left.
Re mcd: I thought the cashier was already mostly automated at lots of fast food places built within gas stations? Was it in here that someone mentioned Olive Garden eliminating servers taking orders, I have seen this in several airport restaurants.
This just doesn't make any sense. If you work half the number of hours each work, you will get roughly the same amount of stuff done each fortnight. If you need it done more quickly, you employ two people each working half a week and the work is done in the same amount of time.
As for the, "my work couldn't be split between more than one person" argument, I used to believe that too. My friend was going part-time and I said it wouldn't be possible for me - I'm the only one who does what I do etc.
She explained it really well for me. She said if the workload got bigger, what would I do? Like, say the whole organisation was just bigger, I can't just magic up more hours, what would I do? So I said, well, I'd give x function to someone else, and y function to someone else. But whilst we're small I have to do it all.
And she was like, why? Just give x function to someone else now.
Part-time work and job shares are becoming much much more common in the UK, and from what I have seen and experienced, it works well.
There was a book written a long time ago about throwing people at a project to speed up its completion, CliffsNotes version: it does not work well and actually slows things down.
There was a book written a long time ago about throwing people at a project to speed up its completion, CliffsNotes version: it does not work well and actually slows things down.
it's usually referred to as the mythical man-month and it's cited as the reason for 10X pay.
The very talented engineers produce so much more work product that it justifies an enormous range in salaries.
Bakari you many not have been referring to tech jobs but half this thread is devoted to saying that only tech/artistic will be left.
Doubling or tripling the number of people in the mix and having each only work 2 days per week (that may not overlap) would be a royal hassle and slow productivity to a crawl.
CliffsNotes version: it does not work well and actually slows things down.
There was a book written a long time ago about throwing people at a project to speed up its completion, CliffsNotes version: it does not work well and actually slows things down.
Doubling or tripling the number of people in the mix and having each only work 2 days per week (that may not overlap) would be a royal hassle and slow productivity to a crawl.
You make a good point about certain industries being easier than others.
I'd imagine its a part of the reason that professionals (doctors, lawyers, some engineers), and executives are all exempt from overtime pay.
But on a more general level, these same arguments were made when we went from an 80-hour standard work week to a 40-hour one.
Of course it was a hassle, and it did (temporarily) slow productivity growth, but in the long run those hick-ups didn't matter. The redistributive effects (from capital to labor) remained (at least until computers and the global economy).QuoteCliffsNotes version: it does not work well and actually slows things down.
Even if things did slow down, a large part of my larger argument is that it is OK if things slow down. Infinite growth is not possible, regardless of technology, there are limiting factors. So a system dependant on growth either has to change dramatically, or else eventually fail. Our current system is dependant on infinite growth. If we reevaluate our priorities, acknowledge that we have more than enough already, and begin to value sustainability of the system over growth, then we can allow things to slow down all the way down to replacement level.
I actually believe that there will be a point where throwing any human at the problem will slow things down. In the Amazons and Teslas of the world you will see this in the next 5 years. Currently Amazon hires 100's of thousands of temp employees during the rush. I could see that going away by 2021, replaced by robots. People would just slow the robots down.
Engineering, coding, etc. will be done by computers at an exponentially faster pace in the near future.
Yes. And also, a 40 hours work week is already an arbitrary amount of time for someone to be working. It wasn't figured out based on how productive people are, or how to get the most out of a workforce. It's just the way things have always been done - a week divided into 7 days, no work on the Sabbath etc. It has a lot more to do with the Bible than maximising man's productivity.
But on a more general level, these same arguments were made when we went from an 80-hour standard work week to a 40-hour one.
Of course it was a hassle, and it did (temporarily) slow productivity growth, but in the long run those hick-ups didn't matter. The redistributive effects (from capital to labor) remained (at least until computers and the global economy).
Yes. And also, a 40 hours work week is already an arbitrary amount of time for someone to be working. It wasn't figured out based on how productive people are, or how to get the most out of a workforce. It's just the way things have always been done - a week divided into 7 days, no work on the Sabbath etc. It has a lot more to do with the Bible than maximising man's productivity.
But on a more general level, these same arguments were made when we went from an 80-hour standard work week to a 40-hour one.
Of course it was a hassle, and it did (temporarily) slow productivity growth, but in the long run those hick-ups didn't matter. The redistributive effects (from capital to labor) remained (at least until computers and the global economy).
Isn't that the primary focus of the MMM blog, and presumably most of the people who are devoted enough to the concept to participate on the MMM forum?
Slow down: I have trouble seeing this happening naturally, how would individual actors see it in there best interest to slow down?
Anyone or any company that did choose to compete at a slower rate would be at a disadvantage and risk going broke.
Yes. And also, a 40 hours work week is already an arbitrary amount of time for someone to be working. It wasn't figured out based on how productive people are, or how to get the most out of a workforce. It's just the way things have always been done - a week divided into 7 days, no work on the Sabbath etc. It has a lot more to do with the Bible than maximising man's productivity.
But on a more general level, these same arguments were made when we went from an 80-hour standard work week to a 40-hour one.
Of course it was a hassle, and it did (temporarily) slow productivity growth, but in the long run those hick-ups didn't matter. The redistributive effects (from capital to labor) remained (at least until computers and the global economy).
Ah, but that's the thing: it ISN'T how things were always done, not by a long shot. It is only how things have been done for the lifetime of people currently in the work force. It is only 76 years old, having gone into effect in 1940. It had been pushed for since the 1800s (industrial revolution), but didn't gain enough support to become law until after the Great Depression.
Prior to that is was not at all uncommon for people to work 10-12+ hours days, 6 or even 7 days a week.
The 8 hour work day was picked perhaps mostly because it divides a day up into neat even categories, which readily made itself available for a slogan - 8 for sleep, 8 for work, 8 for yourself.
On a practical level I dont think it would be possible for many of the creative tech peoples to work radically short weeks and still get something done. It takes time to think and test and apply new ideas to make something that is unique and new. I truly fail to see how my work could be split between two or three people, the coordination and communication would be a total bear in it self...
Company A makes and sells 1000 widgets a day, as does Company B.
The market sustains 2000 widget consumers.
Now say Company A decides to scale back, and only produces 500.
Either B can speed up to take up the slack, or a Company C can come into existence, (or 500 people can go without widgets)
Regardless of which outcome occurs, there is no reason to assume that Company As remaining 500 customers would all of a sudden want to switch companies, leaving them with no customers. Why would those things be correlated?
There are millions of small businesses, independent boutiques, self-employed people who work part-time, and they don't fail just because others in the same industry work longer hours or produce more output.
Try hiring twice as many engineers and you don't get work done twice as fast. Same for computer programmers. Or molecular biologists. Or statisticians.
Try hiring twice as many engineers and you don't get work done twice as fast. Same for computer programmers. Or molecular biologists. Or statisticians.
When computers, technology, robots are doing the heavy lifting 24/7, then the number of human bodies will not materially contribute to the production. Currently, programmers, biologist, statisticians are being replaced by automation. In the near future, they will be severely slowing down the process.
Try hiring twice as many engineers and you don't get work done twice as fast. Same for computer programmers. Or molecular biologists. Or statisticians.
When computers, technology, robots are doing the heavy lifting 24/7, then the number of human bodies will not materially contribute to the production. Currently, programmers, biologist, statisticians are being replaced by automation. In the near future, they will be severely slowing down the process.
Oh I'm not arguing with you about the potential for automation. My point was about the potential for dividing full time jobs for one person into mini-jobs for several.
My point is that however many hours of programmers, biologists, or statistician work you need, you get a lot more productivity out of X people working 40 hours than 2X people working 20 hours.
I don't have a particular dog in the original debate, but I do what to point out that this example only works for things where the cost of production and running a business scales linearly. If company A and company B each had to buy a $1M widget-making-press, then once company A scales back, they'll have to raise their price per widget just to break even, and as company B increases production (maybe they hire a night shift to keep that press running 24 hours a day), they'll be able to sell their widgets less per unit and still break even.
1. We could debate how to treat the opportunity costs of the money tied up in capital investments, but instead, let me revise my original scenario so that firm A and firm B each financed their purchases of the $1M widget presses and have to make fixed monthly loan payments to whoever loaned them the money.acknowledged - but getting into my thoughts around financing growth takes us too far from the robots taking our jobs discussion.
2. I think you're talking about total productivity of the economy when you say we don't need any more. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to artificially reduce productivity per hour.not seeing the distinction. The total economy is made up of all of the individual labor-hours put together.
If the company pays the same total salary for the same number of reports, the new system has each statistician working half as much, but only getting paid 28% as much.
About point #2. The distinction is that if we somehow fixed the total size of the economy, growing productivity per hour would result in fewer total hours worked across the whole population, while decreasing productivity per hour means more people have to work more hours to produce essentially the same overall standard of living for our society.
Taken to its logical extreme, the idea of working 30-50 hour weeks for a while and then taking time off is essentially what FIRE is all about. I'm not sure what the trade offs would be in terms of productivity or people's happiness from spending time working at a career continuously until one hit their total work hours for a lifetime vs 3-4 weeks of work followed by a 3-4 week break.
The sticking point comes as to how the 'resting' human employees will receive ongoing training to keep them relevant and competitive with workers new to the workforce. For jobs that are automated, robots can simply be turned on and off as necessary, and upgraded to continously increase productivity with no declines due to time off and no moral or economic disasters caused by their obselescence. In a generation or two, I really don't see enough careers lasting for folks into their 50's and beyond. Not as big a deal if we all are FIRE chasers, but we also acknowledge that anti-consumerism isn't how the US economomy is set up.
The sticking point comes as to how the 'resting' human employees will receive ongoing training to keep them relevant and competitive with workers new to the workforce. For jobs that are automated, robots can simply be turned on and off as necessary, and upgraded to continously increase productivity with no declines due to time off and no moral or economic disasters caused by their obselescence. In a generation or two, I really don't see enough careers lasting for folks into their 50's and beyond. Not as big a deal if we all are FIRE chasers, but we also acknowledge that anti-consumerism isn't how the US economomy is set up.
Now that is an interesting point, that touches on a bit how I think this will have to play out. EV2020 hit the nail on the head (for me). Anti Consumerism is not how the US economy is set up. I think that will have to change, otherwise the tech is going to be limited, only to give people the chance to be better consumers. Without the consumer mindset, I believe this is a relatively simple shift. But all of the different viewpoints earlier are based on something I missed: What would happen if this stuff didn't change?
It almost sounds like Bakari is in a similar boat to me, while maizeman, theadvicist,and alanstache are all operating under the idea that ideas will remain the same as far as consumerism and the like.
Foxconn to eliminate half of their workforce with AI robots.
http://observer.com/2016/05/apples-supplier-is-replacing-60000-workers-with-ai-robots/
Consumerism...
No I dont think the national mindset will be radically different regarding the acquisition of cheap-plastic-crap in the next 50 years. +50 year... not sure. If we look at the rate of change of other cultural aspects (bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc) I am encouraged that we can change but somethings take time.
Foxconn to eliminate half of their workforce with AI robots.
http://observer.com/2016/05/apples-supplier-is-replacing-60000-workers-with-ai-robots/
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/foxconn-robots-replace-workers
Consumerism...
No I dont think the national mindset will be radically different regarding the acquisition of cheap-plastic-crap in the next 50 years. +50 year... not sure. If we look at the rate of change of other cultural aspects (bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc) I am encouraged that we can change but somethings take time.
One thing I do see changing - we'll all be printing our own cheap plastic crap at home. So that removes a lot of jobs as well - manufacturing, shipping, handling, retailing.
Consumerism...
No I dont think the national mindset will be radically different regarding the acquisition of cheap-plastic-crap in the next 50 years. +50 year... not sure. If we look at the rate of change of other cultural aspects (bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc) I am encouraged that we can change but somethings take time.
One thing I do see changing - we'll all be printing our own cheap plastic crap at home. So that removes a lot of jobs as well - manufacturing, shipping, handling, retailing.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11693388/makerbot-home-3d-printers
"Why home 3D printing never lived up to the hype"
But the majority of those plastic items are in fact just storage for non-plastic items. I think the point is valid that 3D printing for random one off things is a cost prohibitive model.
If it's something that's just made of plastic, then it probably can be printed. But that cable you mentioned has conductors inside of it and special connectors on each end. I could be wrong, but I don't think 3D printers can put insulation over an inner conductor or attach connectors to a cable.But the majority of those plastic items are in fact just storage for non-plastic items. I think the point is valid that 3D printing for random one off things is a cost prohibitive model.
At present it's cost prohibitive. Just like have a single book delivered to your door tomorrow (or within 1 hour) used to be cost prohibitive, and is now often... free.
Seriously, I am looking around me, and perhaps I'm unusual, but at lease 50% of the items I can see are plastic (or plastic with some metal). I see no reason why coils of metal can't eventually also be used as 'ink' in the future - am I oversimplifying things?
Eg a new phone charging cable. I really can't see why that can't be 'printed' (one day), but I'd love to hear from people who know more about this than me and can explain the limitations.
But the majority of those plastic items are in fact just storage for non-plastic items. I think the point is valid that 3D printing for random one off things is a cost prohibitive model.
At present it's cost prohibitive. Just like have a single book delivered to your door tomorrow (or within 1 hour) used to be cost prohibitive, and is now often... free.
Seriously, I am looking around me, and perhaps I'm unusual, but at lease 50% of the items I can see are plastic (or plastic with some metal). I see no reason why coils of metal can't eventually also be used as 'ink' in the future - am I oversimplifying things?
Eg a new phone charging cable. I really can't see why that can't be 'printed' (one day), but I'd love to hear from people who know more about this than me and can explain the limitations.
I ask you all to look over your recent Amazon purchases and see how may could have been printed at home and at what cost in materials. I would love to be proven wrong about this and have my own micro factory saving me money.
replacement lids for tupperware.. thats what i need to print
replacement lids for tupperware.. thats what i need to print
Few years ago I got so sick of this I recycled all my tupperware and spent like 30$ at costco to replace it all with a new set that was 100% matching. Very much worth it :-)
"Be sure to exclude items including metal or (this one people seem to miss more often) flexible plastic."
I thinking that we could even wave our hand and include those, my starting hypothesis is that even allowing simple metals and flexible plastic the number of included items will be very low and not worth the trouble of having a home factory.
replacement lids for tupperware.. thats what i need to print
Few years ago I got so sick of this I recycled all my tupperware and spent like 30$ at costco to replace it all with a new set that was 100% matching. Very much worth it :-)
"Be sure to exclude items including metal or (this one people seem to miss more often) flexible plastic."
I thinking that we could even wave our hand and include those, my starting hypothesis is that even allowing simple metals and flexible plastic the number of included items will be very low and not worth the trouble of having a home factory.
I do see where you're coming from, and I know it's not viable now. And I know I mustn't expect the pace of change for all things to be the same. When the first printing press was invented I doubt they would have believed we'd all be printing anything and everything cheaply at home one day. But then, that took, what, 400 years?!
So we're probably all right, but this thread is about the future, and I'd like to believe anything is possible!
Thanks also for doing the maths on toothbrushes AlanStache - very suprising!
My amazon orders are 90% kindle books and music downloads - so no 'printing' required for either - we've gone beyond that!
Other things include a glass travel mug with silicon lid (not printable), some rotary cutter blades (metal - so maybe one day?), silicon travel toiletry bottles (not printable) and plastic lip balm tubes (I make my own toiletries, these would be printable now), and some plastic bobbins for my sewing machine (possible now).
And I'm another one who bought a full matching 'tupperware' set, although I went Glasslock, and wow, my life is transformed. All the lids fit each other, we have plenty, my frustration levels majorly decrease! However, two caveats - don't put plastic lids in the dishwasher, even top rack, as the heat warps them, and look after them if you take them to the work kitchen! I keep food in the fridge and then immediately put the bowl and lid straight in my bag to take home.
I was listening to some information on corporate espionage from someone in the intelligence community who stated that when corporations do business in China and they set up shop, all their manufacturing secrets and capabilities are immediately vulnerable. I would suggest that we are quickly approaching a point in time where manufacturing new tech can be almost 100% automated, and when we approach this point corporations will abandon manufacturing in China in favor of cheap automated factories in the US/Mexico where they can better control their trade secrets. I think that will be a net gain for the US economy, because someone is going to have to set up and maintain that equipment 24/7, that will be a high paying job, unlike the manufacturing capacity the machines are replacing.
If not for cheap labor, and lax environmental/safety controls, what is the point of manufacturing in China if your trade secrets are going to be stolen and exploited almost immediately by competitors?
One day we may be purchasing VR equipment or projection tech made in America.
On the same subject of manufacturing in China being a bad deal for US tech companies, here is an example. Selective enforcement of Intellectual Property in a way that is detrimental to foreign companies and protects local manufacturers.I was listening to some information on corporate espionage from someone in the intelligence community who stated that when corporations do business in China and they set up shop, all their manufacturing secrets and capabilities are immediately vulnerable. I would suggest that we are quickly approaching a point in time where manufacturing new tech can be almost 100% automated, and when we approach this point corporations will abandon manufacturing in China in favor of cheap automated factories in the US/Mexico where they can better control their trade secrets. I think that will be a net gain for the US economy, because someone is going to have to set up and maintain that equipment 24/7, that will be a high paying job, unlike the manufacturing capacity the machines are replacing.
If not for cheap labor, and lax environmental/safety controls, what is the point of manufacturing in China if your trade secrets are going to be stolen and exploited almost immediately by competitors?
One day we may be purchasing VR equipment or projection tech made in America.
Very interesting. Also, if they are producing goods for the US market it definitely makes sense to produce them locally as the transportation costs will be lower as well. As you say, the advtanges to offshoring - less costly regulation and cheap labour - won't be as important with machines doing the work.
I do think machines will be able to fix machines in the future though. (We're already on the way - my husband plugs his laptop into his car to diagnose issues, it's just that he then has to carry out the repairs. But a machine diagnosing an error with another machine is pretty cool, and this is old technology - 2002 car). Anyone know of any examples of machines being maintained / repaired by machines?
It's tough for foreign companies to do business in China, so much that even Apple is having a hard time. After the iTunes Movies and iBooks Store ban back in April, the previous generation of iPhones have recently been accused of infringing the design patent of some random Chinese company's "100C" smartphone under the "100+" brand. Don't laugh, because the Beijing Intellectual Property Office has since ordered Apple to stop selling its iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus in Beijing, with the reason being the general consumers won't be able to tell the "minute differences" between Apple's design and the 100C. No, really.
Of course, Apple and its distribution partner aren't having any of this, so they have initiated an administrative litigation to reverse the ban. But given Apple's previous failed attempt in China, they're going to need a lot of luck to win this fight.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/16/chinese-firm-claims-apple-copied-its-design-for-iphone-6/
I ask you all to look over your recent Amazon purchases and see how may could have been printed at home and at what cost in materials. I would love to be proven wrong about this and have my own micro factory saving me money.
Be sure to exclude items including metal or (this one people seem to miss more often) flexible plastic.
If it's something that's just made of plastic, then it probably can be printed. But that cable you mentioned has conductors inside of it and special connectors on each end. I could be wrong, but I don't think 3D printers can put insulation over an inner conductor or attach connectors to a cable.
At present it's cost prohibitive. Just like have a single book delivered to your door tomorrow (or within 1 hour) used to be cost prohibitive, and is now often... free.
Seriously, I am looking around me, and perhaps I'm unusual, but at lease 50% of the items I can see are plastic (or plastic with some metal). I see no reason why coils of metal can't eventually also be used as 'ink' in the future - am I oversimplifying things?
Eg a new phone charging cable. I really can't see why that can't be 'printed' (one day), but I'd love to hear from people who know more about this than me and can explain the limitations.
3D printing at home is different from paying a company to 3D print something and ship it to you. Those folks can afford to buy or design and build the multi-million dollar 3D printers used to print airline parts.
OTOH the second link is to a company that claims they'll be able to sell you a machine that can 3D print metal for a couple of thousand bucks. If/when that ships that would be much more of a game changer.
well, that, and the quants themselves are still programed by people.
(that's what Jacob of Early Retirement Extreme - arguably the reason MMM got so big so quickly - un-retired to go do)
In the (probably near?) future when AI software is advanced enough to create better AI software than human minds can, then it will probably go to 8/8
Didn't even realize that Jacob unretired. When AI can create better AI, that is going to be awesome. Possibly end the Human Race, but awesome nonetheless.
Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons" and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.
on a pessimistic note-
a recent podcast episode reminded me of this thread.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/home-on-lagrange/
Excitement about space was sky high after the moon landing.
There was a great swell of optimism about how far into space humans would explore and colonize.
It looked like the beginning of a technology S curve.
Instead, it turns out that the 60's was a local peak and human space flight has not surpassed it since.
No one alive at the time predicted the way space exploration would unfold.
Part of me can't wait for AI to disrupt our entire economy.
The other part wonders if it's all a mirage and some unseen barrier will arise.
Will AI be more like computers and internet?
Or will it be more like space travel, nuclear energy... and other sorts of unfulfilled promises?
Yeah no way this is a mirage. Comparing it to space isn't a good analogy. That's like comparing the industrial revolution to westward expansion. While both use technology and advancement in tech. One has a very finite cap. And currently space exploration is capped by speed of travel to other locations and the expense. I mean what's the roi on a martian colony vs a machine that replaces 3 workers.
AI beats fighter pilot:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/ai-downs-fighter-pilot.html
The universe of things humans can do better than software/robotics is rapidly declining each day
AI beats fighter pilot:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/ai-downs-fighter-pilot.html
The universe of things humans can do better than software/robotics is rapidly declining each day
That's incredible. Chess or Go is one thing - piloting an aircraft in combat situations is an incredible leap forward.
AI beats fighter pilot:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/ai-downs-fighter-pilot.html
The universe of things humans can do better than software/robotics is rapidly declining each day
That's incredible. Chess or Go is one thing - piloting an aircraft in combat situations is an incredible leap forward.
In a simulation. But yeah, super cool.
...an average human visual reaction time of 0.15 to 0.30 seconds..
sobering news :(
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss
By coincidence, I was pondering the liability question this morning.
In our overly litigious society, who's gonna be left holding the bag when someone sues?
by default, I guess the manufacturer or AI supplier will be part of the lawsuit.
Should they be held liable or not?
I guess it may be for the courts to decide.
re Tesla crash: I wonder/hope that the NTSB will take a page out of the FAA's hand book and record this incident as something that other manufactures will have to test to and be expected to demonstrate that they can identify and resolve the situation. This can get into big government creating stupid rules but going back to the FAA the US has insanely few commercial airplane fatalities in part because regulations make airlines & pilots learn from past incidents.
re Tesla crash: I wonder/hope that the NTSB will take a page out of the FAA's hand book and record this incident as something that other manufactures will have to test to and be expected to demonstrate that they can identify and resolve the situation. This can get into big government creating stupid rules but going back to the FAA the US has insanely few commercial airplane fatalities in part because regulations make airlines & pilots learn from past incidents.
Probably. Would be an applicable system - very few accidents, high risk environment, ever improving standards. I read there was a portable DVD player in the car; investigators are trying to determine if it was on at the time of the crash. This could explain why no breaks were applied.
Uber Hires a Robot To Patrol Its Parking Lot and It's Way Cheaper Than a Security Guard (https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/07/05/1714258/uber-hires-a-robot-to-patrol-its-parking-lot-and-its-way-cheaper-than-a-security-guard)
, I worry more about the bio-exploits exposed by VR and what a disruption that will, than I worry about the sci-fi dystopian transformations some predict from advances in AI.
, I worry more about the bio-exploits exposed by VR and what a disruption that will, than I worry about the sci-fi dystopian transformations some predict from advances in AI.
I imagine there's likely to be some overlap there.
If there is ever a VR that's realistic enough that one can't easily tell the difference from that and RL, seems likely that AI will be involved in creating the environment, and that AI research will be involved in making the interface (we'd have to have a decent model of how the brain and neurons work to blend them seemless into hardware)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas
(On my phone and can't get it to link. If anyone is able to fix it please go ahead).
I have no comment except that everything about this situation is sad and scary.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas
(On my phone and can't get it to link. If anyone is able to fix it please go ahead).
I have no comment except that everything about this situation is sad and scary.
And that is the first thing I read about this Dallas situation. I am not a fan of the police doing this, but now I need to look more into this.
Interesting information on the Universal Basic Income and Robots. I think we will see more discussions of this in the next 3-5 years.
http://futurism.com/images/universal-basic-income-answer-automation/
As much as I hate infographics to get points across, they are effective. My brain is currently dealing with some 4 hour-work-week-esque, combined with polyculture, combined with Universal Basic Income in order to make something awesome.
Interesting that the Swiss electorate voted against UBI.
Since reading this thread I have started noting how many people I know have the kind of 'non-jobs' we were talking about earlier. You know, "Deputy Vice Engagement Facilitator" and things.
Seriously, a large percentage of my friends are not really achieving or producing anything, they are just busy being busy. It's interesting to me that corporations are prepared to pay for it.
I suppose people expect more. At my old school, for example, where we just had a school nurse who's room you lay down in until a parent collected you, know they have a 'pastoral support worker' and two nurses. There are also more stratas of teachers - heads of year, coordinator of pastoral care etc. Where we just had head and deputy head of school.
Luzi Stamm, a member of parliament for the right-wing Swiss People's Party, opposed the idea. "Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island, the answer is yes. But with open borders, it's a total impossibility, especially for Switzerland, with a high living standard. If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland."
i dont get how this doesnt just lead to inflation. how can you take what was 0 dollars as the bottom income and raise it to 10000 dollars and not create artifical inflation. demand for goods will go up for those earning under 100k b/c now they have more disposable income. and those without income will now have income to buy things. therefore driving the price of goods with larger demand b/c now everyone has more disposable income. except the top end making over 100k AGI. can some explain how pumping more money into an economy to increase spending power doesnt result in inflation. i'm not an economist. but to collect the revenue to pay out such a wage would be through some kind of tax which would then drive up the cost of whatever that tax was.
i dont get how this doesnt just lead to inflation. how can you take what was 0 dollars as the bottom income and raise it to 10000 dollars and not create artifical inflation. demand for goods will go up for those earning under 100k b/c now they have more disposable income. and those without income will now have income to buy things. therefore driving the price of goods with larger demand b/c now everyone has more disposable income. except the top end making over 100k AGI. can some explain how pumping more money into an economy to increase spending power doesnt result in inflation. i'm not an economist. but to collect the revenue to pay out such a wage would be through some kind of tax which would then drive up the cost of whatever that tax was.
i dont get how this doesnt just lead to inflation. how can you take what was 0 dollars as the bottom income and raise it to 10000 dollars and not create artifical inflation. demand for goods will go up for those earning under 100k b/c now they have more disposable income. and those without income will now have income to buy things. therefore driving the price of goods with larger demand b/c now everyone has more disposable income. except the top end making over 100k AGI. can some explain how pumping more money into an economy to increase spending power doesnt result in inflation. i'm not an economist. but to collect the revenue to pay out such a wage would be through some kind of tax which would then drive up the cost of whatever that tax was.
there is an answer written on reddit, but it sounds inconclusive.
where UBI has been tried, there has not been massive inflation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_wouldn.27t_basic_income_just_cause_inflation.3F
i dont get how this doesnt just lead to inflation. how can you take what was 0 dollars as the bottom income and raise it to 10000 dollars and not create artifical inflation. demand for goods will go up for those earning under 100k b/c now they have more disposable income. and those without income will now have income to buy things. therefore driving the price of goods with larger demand b/c now everyone has more disposable income. except the top end making over 100k AGI. can some explain how pumping more money into an economy to increase spending power doesnt result in inflation. i'm not an economist. but to collect the revenue to pay out such a wage would be through some kind of tax which would then drive up the cost of whatever that tax was.
There probably would be some inflation, but for the most part you are just redistributing from the 1% down to the 99%. Many of these folks would be on welfare and other programs that are paid for by the 1%. Liquidity in the system tends to create more wealth overall. When I get a raise, it goes into my investment accounts. When someone who is just getting by gets $10k, they most likely will spend the money on necessities and other goods which stimulates the economy.
The real issue is in the coming decade(s) we are going to have a large chunk of people that have zero skills to do anything productive. Driving a truck, moving a box from one end of a warehouse to the other, riveting on a plane, doing legal research, preparing tax returns, etc. will be completely automated. So either you have to support those people or find a way to dispose of them. The UBI, provides everyone a safety net.
In case some of you dont read slashdot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
In case some of you dont read slashdot
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
Sales tax based taxes is very regressive. It would be a boon for the 1%. Income inequality would increase exponentially.
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
Sales tax based taxes is very regressive. It would be a boon for the 1%. Income inequality would increase exponentially.
You might be right. I haven't crunched the numbers, or extrapolated out to think more of it. I do like the idea of taxes being based on consumption, though.
In case some of you dont read slashdotI wonder how those employees feel about the 25% pay cut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
AI beats fighter pilot:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/ai-downs-fighter-pilot.html
The universe of things humans can do better than software/robotics is rapidly declining each day
That's incredible. Chess or Go is one thing - piloting an aircraft in combat situations is an incredible leap forward.
In a simulation. But yeah, super cool.
I thought that too. How much can a computer 'game' a computer? And then my overactive imagination gives me nightmares where Yamaha's Motobot is chasing me down the street on an R1...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4asCK8yamb0
In case some of you dont read slashdotI wonder how those employees feel about the 25% pay cut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
I didn't realize they were letting people volunteer for this. I do wonder what will happen in the long run, though. If Amazon sees this as a positive, I have a feeling they're going to make a lot of folks go to this schedule (and reduce their pay).In case some of you dont read slashdotI wonder how those employees feel about the 25% pay cut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
Pretty sure you volunteer for the 75% hours, 75% pay (but full benefits) in this pilot. So they probably feel pretty good?
I didn't realize they were letting people volunteer for this. I do wonder what will happen in the long run, though. If Amazon sees this as a positive, I have a feeling they're going to make a lot of folks go to this schedule (and reduce their pay).In case some of you dont read slashdotI wonder how those employees feel about the 25% pay cut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
Pretty sure you volunteer for the 75% hours, 75% pay (but full benefits) in this pilot. So they probably feel pretty good?
http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-hate-interacting-with-people-2016-8?r=UK&IR=T
"Millennials like not seeing people," Puzder said. "I've been inside restaurants where we've installed ordering kiosks ... and I've actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there's a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody."
My teenage son is like this. He would rather not deal with the incompetent humans.
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
Sales tax based taxes is very regressive. It would be a boon for the 1%. Income inequality would increase exponentially.
You might be right. I haven't crunched the numbers, or extrapolated out to think more of it. I do like the idea of taxes being based on consumption, though.
I vote income based. Help adjust for rampart income inequality in this country.
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
Sales tax based taxes is very regressive. It would be a boon for the 1%. Income inequality would increase exponentially.
You might be right. I haven't crunched the numbers, or extrapolated out to think more of it. I do like the idea of taxes being based on consumption, though.
I vote income based. Help adjust for rampart income inequality in this country.
Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
In case some of you dont read slashdot
...you should fix that. :)
Given the savings rate in the US, I don't think we need to do anything more to discourage it.
tax returns should go away and we should go to a sales tax based economy and eliminate an entire branch of the govt. that alone may create enough savings for the govt to fund this entire UBI plan. but if they ever make it and there is an income limit to receive it you can bet in FIRE ill try to get under that to take free money.
edit ... mybad it is estimated to cost the economy 409B so about half what the estimated UBI needs to be. the actually organization costs 12.5B to run. the rest is a cost to the economy b/c of a ridiculously complex system.
Sales tax based taxes is very regressive. It would be a boon for the 1%. Income inequality would increase exponentially.
You might be right. I haven't crunched the numbers, or extrapolated out to think more of it. I do like the idea of taxes being based on consumption, though.
I vote income based. Help adjust for rampart income inequality in this country.
Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
Interesting point. Tax the 'stache - this would probably work better than pure income based. Thank you.
Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
"Interesting point. Tax the 'stache - this would probably work better than pure income based. Thank you."
"Given the savings rate in the US, I don't think we need to do anything more to discourage it."
That is like saying having an income tax makes people earn less. There could be exclusions for the first million and have it ramp up as you go. If you are worth billions, you can afford to pay significantly more than the Warren Buffett's, Mitt Romney's and Donald Trump's currently are paying into the system. If you are trying to curb off a select group of people owning the majority of the US or world, then taxing outliers is a good way of doing it. Currently the top 1% own something like 45% of the wealth and it is climbing each year. If you take out personal residences it is much more. What is the right amount? With automation and technology becoming a bigger factor, income and wealth inequality are going to expand significantly in the next decade or two.
Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
"Interesting point. Tax the 'stache - this would probably work better than pure income based. Thank you."
"Given the savings rate in the US, I don't think we need to do anything more to discourage it."
That is like saying having an income tax makes people earn less. There could be exclusions for the first million and have it ramp up as you go. If you are worth billions, you can afford to pay significantly more than the Warren Buffett's, Mitt Romney's and Donald Trump's currently are paying into the system. If you are trying to curb off a select group of people owning the majority of the US or world, then taxing outliers is a good way of doing it. Currently the top 1% own something like 45% of the wealth and it is climbing each year. If you take out personal residences it is much more. What is the right amount? With automation and technology becoming a bigger factor, income and wealth inequality are going to expand significantly in the next decade or two.
Doesn't that amount to double taxation, though? Presumably, you already paid income taxes on at least a portion of your earnings. If you put that money into savings, then is it okay for the government to tax it again?Wealth based would go even farther in that regard, wealth inequality is larger than income
"Interesting point. Tax the 'stache - this would probably work better than pure income based. Thank you."
"Given the savings rate in the US, I don't think we need to do anything more to discourage it."
That is like saying having an income tax makes people earn less. There could be exclusions for the first million and have it ramp up as you go. If you are worth billions, you can afford to pay significantly more than the Warren Buffett's, Mitt Romney's and Donald Trump's currently are paying into the system. If you are trying to curb off a select group of people owning the majority of the US or world, then taxing outliers is a good way of doing it. Currently the top 1% own something like 45% of the wealth and it is climbing each year. If you take out personal residences it is much more. What is the right amount? With automation and technology becoming a bigger factor, income and wealth inequality are going to expand significantly in the next decade or two.
Doesn't that amount to double taxation, though? Presumably, you already paid income taxes on at least a portion of your earnings. If you put that money into savings, then is it okay for the government to tax it again?
Ooh... tell me more about Trump Accounting!
I need to get my CPD hours up, so learning about a new branch of accounting will be good :)
States most effected by driverless cars. 4.4 million drivers will need to find employment as engineers :)
"According to the 2014 Census data, there are more than 4.4 million Americans aged 16 and over working as drivers"
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/driverless-cars-will-kill-the-most-jobs-in-select-us-states.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/driverless-cars-will-kill-the-most-jobs-in-select-us-states.html)
...
Assuming some engineer tasks can't be automated...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_programming#Implementations
http://www.cs.miami.edu/~tptp/OverviewOfATP.html
You also count the full value of any property in which you own at least partial share toward your own net worth. And lastly, anything without any concrete numerical value, you get to make up a number for it.
You also count the full value of any property in which you own at least partial share toward your own net worth. And lastly, anything without any concrete numerical value, you get to make up a number for it.
Don't forget that you get choose your own capitalization rate for recurring payments made to your brand. Trump bring in about $15million/year by licensing the Trump name to ties/universities/airlines/steaks/hotels/etc that he doesn't have any actual equity in, and he calculates that he would need $3 billion in assets at today's low interest rates to generate that kind of cashflow, and therefore his brand name is listed as worth $3billion.
Think about that for a second. He thinks his own name is worth three billion dollars, and he had the balls to actually report a dollar figure like that on his disclosure forms. It's the single largest "asset" he owns.
The difference is those are choices. You can choose to buy less stuff or less property and thus pay lower (or even no) taxes. If there's a wealth tax, what's to prevent people from just stuffing cash under the mattress and not reporting it? I'd consider it ;).Doesn't that amount to double taxation, though? Presumably, you already paid income taxes on at least a portion of your earnings. If you put that money into savings, then is it okay for the government to tax it again?
1) Not necessarily, if you replace income taxx with a wealth tax.
2) Even if you had both, and it was double taxation... who cares? Double taxation is a phrase people seem to use as a scary boogyman. We have double taxation all the time. Ever bought anything and paid sales tax with money you earned and paid income tax on? Ever paid property taxes with money you paid capital gains tax on? Just saying "double taxation" is meaningless--if it's bad, say why it's bad, not merely the fact that it's already been taxed for a separate reason. :)
The same thing that prevents people from not declaring income that they should: the law. Some still don't, and face penalties if they're caught.It would be a lot easier for most people to hide "wealth" than income, though. Income taxes come straight out of my paycheck. I never have an opportunity to shield that money from taxation.
The same thing that prevents people from not declaring income that they should: the law. Some still don't, and face penalties if they're caught.It would be a lot easier for most people to hide "wealth" than income, though. Income taxes come straight out of my paycheck. I never have an opportunity to shield that money from taxation.
The difference is those are choices. You can choose to buy less stuff or less property and thus pay lower (or even no) taxes. If there's a wealth tax, what's to prevent people from just stuffing cash under the mattress and not reporting it? I'd consider it ;).
I don't think this will come as any big surprise, but I simply prefer a sales tax to an income or wealth tax. I think it's idiotic to punish people for being successful or smart with their money.
i dont get how this doesnt just lead to inflation. how can you take what was 0 dollars as the bottom income and raise it to 10000 dollars and not create artifical inflation. demand for goods will go up for those earning under 100k b/c now they have more disposable income. and those without income will now have income to buy things. therefore driving the price of goods with larger demand b/c now everyone has more disposable income. except the top end making over 100k AGI. can some explain how pumping more money into an economy to increase spending power doesnt result in inflation. i'm not an economist. but to collect the revenue to pay out such a wage would be through some kind of tax which would then drive up the cost of whatever that tax was.It doesn't lead to inflation because it is only a basic income which would be far less than any income earned by working. For inflation to occur their needs to be an expansion of the salaries in the general population. In practice basic income is already implemented as part of welfare subsidies but you have to jump through hoops and conform to the program.
GF's mother posted this on FB, was on the AFL-CIO's page; i really wanted to respond but thought better of it. Am totally on board with showing respect to people* and not forcing all students onto a college track but they could have picked three better jobs. Like ones that wont be decimated by automation/robots in the near future.
(http://i.imgur.com/RCuWqoq.jpg)
respect to people*: I try anyway....
Killer Robots! Lionfish with a Roomba!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/18/world/lionfish-robot-killer/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlarge
Change the century and water to land and this literally could be describing the Europeans...
"Since arriving in US waters in the 1980s, these fearsome creatures have left a trail of destruction along the Atlantic Coast, from Rhode Island to Venezuela.
Lionfish can reduce a flourishing coral reef to barren wasteland in a matter of weeks. Native fish, unfamiliar with the new arrival, do not know to avoid it, and the predator gorges to the point of obesity.
As so-called "apex predators" they sit at the top of the food chain, unthreatened by any other creature. They breed rapidly, and are extremely resilient and adaptable. No solution has been found to control their advance yet, but conservationists could soon have a new tool at their disposal: killer robots."
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
Why is it I get a 'Jurrasic Park' vibe after reading about killer robots that 'will only target the offending Lionfish'?
Can AI write a screenplay that makes senses and projects emotion?
Pepper learned how to play the ball in cup game. After 100 failures it got it in the cup. It never missed again. Recursive learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRO8J_1XI
Pepper learned how to play the ball in cup game. After 100 failures it got it in the cup. It never missed again. Recursive learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRO8J_1XI
Ball in cup is WAY easier than that. I didn't realize until he nailed it the first time how "narrow" that cup was.
Humans could maybe do it once or twice in a hundred, randomly. And then not repeat it.
Nice.
Pepper learned how to play the ball in cup game. After 100 failures it got it in the cup. It never missed again. Recursive learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRO8J_1XI
Ball in cup is WAY easier than that. I didn't realize until he nailed it the first time how "narrow" that cup was.
Humans could maybe do it once or twice in a hundred, randomly. And then not repeat it.
Nice.
whats really cool is if they are all manufactured the same they will be able to teach new tasks in a lab and them beam the updates out to all the robots in the country at the same time. so you wont actually have to teach your personal robot anything.
For at least a decade we are going to have people sitting in the driverless cars and trucks, ready to take control if necessary. They will also need to prevent vandalism and clean up after the messy passengers and the drunk passengers that vomit or have accidents. This will be a new minimum wage job.
Well now it is getting interesting!I'm too scared to click the link!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women
That is one of the main benefits of both Google's Car and Tesla's stuff. Every vehicle has exactly the same experience of every other vehicle.
Amazing and a little terrifying...That is one of the main benefits of both Google's Car and Tesla's stuff. Every vehicle has exactly the same experience of every other vehicle.
Yeah, that's really neat--you don't drive your car for the day, but a million other people did, and your car improved because of it.
The exponential growth potential is amazing.
That is one of the main benefits of both Google's Car and Tesla's stuff. Every vehicle has exactly the same experience of every other vehicle.
Yeah, that's really neat--you don't drive your car for the day, but a million other people did, and your car improved because of it.
The exponential growth potential is amazing.
Exponential growth but with significant diminishing returns. A cars AI can only get so good at driving. Teslas are about as good as a human in terms of deaths per mile and based on a youtube video I would call the system kludgey. A driving AI 1000 times better than a good human and one 5000 times better are only sort of distinguishable and you would have to make subjective calls on there failure cases. Two systems drove a gillion miles last year in the US; System A was involved in 3 fatalities, system B was involved in 5. Which is a better system? To decide you need to look at where they were used and the specifics of those 8 incidents and non-fatal injury rate and a dozen other parameters. How many broken arms are worth a fleet wide 0.0001% mpg improvement or 0.001% decrease in arrival time? Moore's Law held for a long time because we started a good distance away from the theoretical limit but current driving AI is fairly good and there is comparatively little room for improvement.
But yes automatic improvement of your system without you having to do anything will be really cool.
Moore's Law held for a long time because we started a good distance away from the theoretical limit but current driving AI is fairly good and there is comparatively little room for improvement.
That is one of the main benefits of both Google's Car and Tesla's stuff. Every vehicle has exactly the same experience of every other vehicle.
Yeah, that's really neat--you don't drive your car for the day, but a million other people did, and your car improved because of it.
The exponential growth potential is amazing.
Exponential growth but with significant diminishing returns. A cars AI can only get so good at driving. Teslas are about as good as a human in terms of deaths per mile and based on a youtube video I would call the system kludgey. A driving AI 1000 times better than a good human and one 5000 times better are only sort of distinguishable and you would have to make subjective calls on there failure cases. Two systems drove a gillion miles last year in the US; System A was involved in 3 fatalities, system B was involved in 5. Which is a better system? To decide you need to look at where they were used and the specifics of those 8 incidents and non-fatal injury rate and a dozen other parameters. How many broken arms are worth a fleet wide 0.0001% mpg improvement or 0.001% decrease in arrival time? Moore's Law held for a long time because we started a good distance away from the theoretical limit but current driving AI is fairly good and there is comparatively little room for improvement.
But yes automatic improvement of your system without you having to do anything will be really cool.
Moore's Law held for a long time because we started a good distance away from the theoretical limit but current driving AI is fairly good and there is comparatively little room for improvement.
I think there's an amazing amount of hubris in this sentence.
Never say never and all that but I really have trouble seeing how there is continual orders of magnitude room for improvement in driving AI. Maybe my vision of the end state is hopelessly constrained (hope so!) I dont see how driving AI can double in 'goodness' every year for decades on end
Never say never and all that but I really have trouble seeing how there is continual orders of magnitude room for improvement in driving AI. Maybe my vision of the end state is hopelessly constrained (hope so!) I dont see how driving AI can double in 'goodness' every year for decades on end as transistor density has. Moore came up with his law in 1965 - Lyndon B Johnson was president. In what manner could it continue to improve given the likelihood that it will be significantly safer than humans in the next hand full of years?
Currently 30k/year die in car related incidents, if driving AI halves that number each year it will take ~10 years to get fewer than 100 deaths per year. That is what I mean by us starting nearer the limit. Maybe it is that driving AI is reducing a finite value (30k/year) where other tech is growing up from a small value.
"It really matters whether it's better than humans and by what margin. I am nearly 100% confident that if we could have all cars turn into computer driven cars, immediately, that the number of driving deaths would drop by over an order of magnitude nearly instantaneously."
I agree 100% as I said we are starting nearer the theoretical limit of driving AI, I think we will get the bulk of the benefit in the near future rather than it continuing to grow geometrically in goodness for decade after decade.
Never say never and all that but I really have trouble seeing how there is continual orders of magnitude room for improvement in driving AI. Maybe my vision of the end state is hopelessly constrained (hope so!) I dont see how driving AI can double in 'goodness' every year for decades on end
Henry Ford supposedly said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." Why is your vision of future AI driving constrained to approaching or incrementally improving the safety rates of human drivers? There are so many other things wrong with cars that AI can potentially fix.
Imagine a world in which nobody owns a personal vehicle, but your smartphone can summon one to your current location in 30 seconds. That vehicle travels at 150 mph without your supervision, and can deliver you to exactly where you need to go, not to a parking lot. Oh, and it generates no carbon pollution, is totally silent, comes to your door pre airconditioned or heated and configured to your preferences for movies or music or workspace, and it can be a convertible or a moving truck depending on what you need today, and oh yes it's free to use.
Imagine a world without parking lots and roads taking up 85% of the surface area of every downtown district. There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light. There are no more traffic jams or rush hours.
Imagine a world in which every item is delivered to your door. Groceries, furniture, the daily mail, everything you buy from places like amazon. You don't ever need to go to the store again, unless you want to, because it's literally cheaper and faster to have everything delivered by robots. Stores are just showrooms, places to go look and feel products, places to "shop" but not necessarily to buy.
Urban sprawl stops as less land is devoted to vehicles. Maintenance and mechanical issues are automatically diagnosed and repaired. There is no more road rage. Air quality improves. Drunk driving is non existent. Innocent bystanders never die in a high speed police chase. Houses are redesigned with useful space or storage, instead of 3 car garages. No one is exposed to gasoline fumes and nobody dumps motor oil down storm drains.
The world is a better place with AI-controlled cars. Having them learn to drive is just the first baby step in that process.
Imagine a world in which nobody owns a personal vehicle, but your smartphone can summon one to your current location in 30 seconds.This isn't an AI problem, but rather an infrastructer one. Once the AI is solved, this will be true almost immediately. Lyft has self-driving cars on the streets today. Uber is developing its own too.
That vehicle travels at 150 mph without your supervision,Also not really an AI issue but an infrastructure (and physics) problem. There are limits to right-of-way systems, esp. as long as ANY humans still use roadways (old-school drivers, bikes, pedestrians), not to mention animals, and limits to traction force of tires on pavement.
and can deliver you to exactly where you need to go, not to a parking lot.again, lyft / uber model already covers that
Oh, and it generates no carbon pollution, is totally silent,technology, but not AI
comes to your door pre airconditioned or heated and configured to your preferences for movies or music or workspace,I give it one year
and it can be a convertible or a moving truck depending on what you need today:) like inspector gadgets car!
, and oh yes it's free to use.part economic, part social - a study done in SF found that the local bus and light rail system (muni) was spending more on plainclothes transit police, repair and maintenance of cash and ticket machines, paper passes, and other costs of collecting and enforcing tolls than they were bringing in in fares. In other words, they would actually save money by making it free.
Imagine a world without parking lots and roads taking up 85% of the surface area of every downtown district. There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light.To me this is one of the most exciting parts, and I hope it happens in my lifetime, though I doubt it (because there will still be people with old fashioned cars for a long time), and it might not ever happen (how do bicycles navigate intersections? Or does literally every crosswalk in the nation get replaced with an overpass?
There are no more traffic jams or rush hours.There would be dramatically less, and they wouldn't be as bad, but there are theoretical limits to how many cars can fit in one space at one time regardless of spacing and efficiency. In some places that limit is far past. We would have to also change the 9-5 standard work hours to be spread out evenly through the day (and maybe night) and also limit density of housing in urban areas and increase density of jobs in suburban areas.
Imagine a world in which every item is delivered to your door. Groceries, furniture, the daily mail, everything you buy from places like amazon. You don't ever need to go to the store again, unless you want to, because it's literally cheaper and faster to have everything deliveredAlready mostly true! Even with delivery person salaries in the mix.
Urban sprawl stops as less land is devoted to vehicles. Maintenance and mechanical issues are automatically diagnosed and repaired. There is no more road rage. Air quality improves. Drunk driving is non existent.All you need is functional AI cars to become the standard, and it happens immideatly.
Innocent bystanders never die in a high speed police chase.Even if human drivers are banned on public roads, hobbyists and racers would still own and maintain driveable cars, just like people still operate ham radio in the days of pocket computers. Occasionally a criminal would use one (because of course if they are in a networked car not only are they tracked every second, but police could remotely shut the car down and probably lock the doors and windows too). In order to catch / stop them, either special police "chase" AI would have to break some rules, or specially trained humans would take over.
Houses are redesigned with useful space or storage, instead of 3 car garages.are there people who don't use the majority of garage space as storage!?
No one is exposed to gasoline fumes and nobody dumps motor oil down storm drains.If a viable alternative energy source can be found, it could run cars driven by humans or AI. Gasoline can power cars run by humans or AI. Two separate issues.
The world is a better place with AI-controlled cars.
Having them learn to drive is just the first baby step in that process.Just defending AlanStache here - the only idea here which would require further refinement than simply learning to drive, avoiding accidents, and maximizing fuel mileage and travel time, is this: "There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light."
Weather is an interesting factor, too.
Living in the midwest, while I don't trust that people are smart on icy road conditions I suspect most of the AI (being developed/tested in nearly perfect weather conditions) handles that well yet.
Weather is an interesting factor, too.
Living in the midwest, while I don't trust that people are smart on icy road conditions I suspect most of the AI (being developed/tested in nearly perfect weather conditions) handles that well yet.
https://youtu.be/pS6CdzjhQMw
https://youtu.be/L13Nj3kEbHM
Particularly if you have an AWD vehicle, it can adjust and do a lot better analysis more quickly than people can.
Sol, I really like your vision. Do you mind if I use this as an example in the Robotics and Autonomous Industry study I lead? Trying to fire up the imagination with regard to driverless cars. Thanks for the consideration!Never say never and all that but I really have trouble seeing how there is continual orders of magnitude room for improvement in driving AI. Maybe my vision of the end state is hopelessly constrained (hope so!) I dont see how driving AI can double in 'goodness' every year for decades on end
Henry Ford supposedly said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." Why is your vision of future AI driving constrained to approaching or incrementally improving the safety rates of human drivers? There are so many other things wrong with cars that AI can potentially fix.
Imagine a world in which nobody owns a personal vehicle, but your smartphone can summon one to your current location in 30 seconds. That vehicle travels at 150 mph without your supervision, and can deliver you to exactly where you need to go, not to a parking lot. Oh, and it generates no carbon pollution, is totally silent, comes to your door pre airconditioned or heated and configured to your preferences for movies or music or workspace, and it can be a convertible or a moving truck depending on what you need today, and oh yes it's free to use.
Imagine a world without parking lots and roads taking up 85% of the surface area of every downtown district. There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light. There are no more traffic jams or rush hours.
Imagine a world in which every item is delivered to your door. Groceries, furniture, the daily mail, everything you buy from places like amazon. You don't ever need to go to the store again, unless you want to, because it's literally cheaper and faster to have everything delivered by robots. Stores are just showrooms, places to go look and feel products, places to "shop" but not necessarily to buy.
Urban sprawl stops as less land is devoted to vehicles. Maintenance and mechanical issues are automatically diagnosed and repaired. There is no more road rage. Air quality improves. Drunk driving is non existent. Innocent bystanders never die in a high speed police chase. Houses are redesigned with useful space or storage, instead of 3 car garages. No one is exposed to gasoline fumes and nobody dumps motor oil down storm drains.
The world is a better place with AI-controlled cars. Having them learn to drive is just the first baby step in that process.
You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
Maybe if you are thinking of your children or grandchildren.
It'd require an astronomical infrastructure cost to change this over in the short term.
150 mph: Maybe. Drag force = 0.5*(mass density of air)*(vehicle speed)^2 * (drag coef)*(projected area). No amount of computer smarts gets around this equation we have been trying for +100 years.
No traffic lights: Maybe. They could definitely be reduced but pedestrians and bicycles?
Also I am not sure life and death driving decisions should be based on broadcast-shared information.
Do you mind if I use this as an example in the Robotics and Autonomous Industry study I lead?
One of the most shocking things I've learned in my job is just how fragile our infrastructure already is. Everything is already hackable, and I don't just mean in the computer code kind of way. Traffic lights. Power grids. Water mains. Bridges and dams. The food supply. All of this stuff is already protected by just the thinnest veneer of make-believe security that any determined actor can easily circumvent it. At least AI cars can be given serious encryption technology. Any random dude with a moving van full of fertilizer can take out virtually any office building in the country, no airplane hijacking required. On my list of potentially catastrophic ways to F up our society, I'm not worried about someone hacking my car's communication system.
Weather is an interesting factor, too.
Living in the midwest, while I don't trust that people are smart on icy road conditions I suspect most of the AI (being developed/tested in nearly perfect weather conditions) handles that well yet.
You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
Imagine a world without parking lots and roads taking up 85% of the surface area of every downtown district. There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light. There are no more traffic jams or rush hours.
Imagine a world without parking lots and roads taking up 85% of the surface area of every downtown district. There are no more traffic lights, because those are archaic devices designed to let clumsy and slow humans negotiate intersections and computers can instead negotiate intersections at full speed while communicating with each other at the speed of light. There are no more traffic jams or rush hours.
I love the overall vision and personally can't wait for the day when computers drive us instead of foolish accident prone, texting, angry people.
But I don't understand the argument about there being no parking lots. As long as humans spend most of daylight hours going places and doing things, and a huge chunk of darkness hours asleep, we will always need to 'park' most of those vehicles somewhere overnight.
During the day I can see that flexible hours will hopefully mean less of a 'rush hour', plus driverless cars maintaining closer stopping distances etc. And we will need fewer cars overall because they will be used by multiple people. But the demand will have a peak, even if it's just when humans are awake vs. asleep, and we need enough cars to cope with that peak.
I guess you could do as sometimes happens with electricity and incentivise people to travel at night by making it cheaper / free? But that hasn't completely solved the electricity issue, because at the end of the day, even with storage heaters etc, we cannot fully even out the demand.
So there will still be parking lots, won't there? Even if they move them out of 'town' and the cars just 'rest' there at night.
Maybe there will be. I'm still thinking that the most cost effective method will be not having personally owned cars. Just summon one when it's needed. And as far as parking lots go, I hope that we go the route that Japan took and have underground garages that are more automated. It seems like a more efficient use of space.
But I don't understand the argument about there being no parking lots. As long as humans spend most of daylight hours going places and doing things, and a huge chunk of darkness hours asleep, we will always need to 'park' most of those vehicles somewhere overnight.
When we perfect low energy cost teleportation, you guys are going to feel very silly about all the concern over cars in this thread.
When we perfect low energy cost teleportation, you guys are going to feel very silly about all the concern over cars in this thread.
Right, faster horses again.
We spend all this time making better buggy whips and typewriter ribbons, and we fail to see the disruptive technology that makes the whole thing pointless. I think AI may turn out to be that kind of disruption to a wide variety of industries.
But I don't understand the argument about there being no parking lots. As long as humans spend most of daylight hours going places and doing things, and a huge chunk of darkness hours asleep, we will always need to 'park' most of those vehicles somewhere overnight.
Most vehicles spend 95% or more of their lives parked. Not being used. AI drivers means that we only need as many cars as will fit on the roads at any one time. A parked car is an unused car. An unused car should be finding a user.
During times of low demand, it probably doesn't make sense for those empty cars to stay in motion...
When we perfect low energy cost teleportation, you guys are going to feel very silly about all the concern over cars in this thread.
Right, faster horses again.
We spend all this time making better buggy whips and typewriter ribbons, and we fail to see the disruptive technology that makes the whole thing pointless. I think AI may turn out to be that kind of disruption to a wide variety of industries.
When we perfect low energy cost teleportation, you guys are going to feel very silly about all the concern over cars in this thread.
Right, faster horses again.
We spend all this time making better buggy whips and typewriter ribbons, and we fail to see the disruptive technology that makes the whole thing pointless. I think AI may turn out to be that kind of disruption to a wide variety of industries.
I agree 100%, but it also easy for people to get carried away with the imaginary future.
https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/france-in-the-year-2000-1899-1910/
We were supposed to all be traveling in flying cars by now, and have colonies on the ocean floor. We are supposed to all drive cars optimized for aerodynamics, and have robots shave for us in the morning. We were supposed to have personal jetpacks!
Thing is, these things (or the technology to create them) all actually exist right now. There is just no market for them. Just because we can do something doesn't mean more than a few people actually want to
QuoteThe reason we don't have flying cars and jetpacks is those ideas were f@cking stupid to begin with, but a driverless car ( on the road) I'm all for that.
You're clearly not 8 years old anymore.... the 8 yo inside me LOVES jetpacks and flying cars... :)
QuoteThe reason we don't have flying cars and jetpacks is those ideas were f@cking stupid to begin with, but a driverless car ( on the road) I'm all for that.
You're clearly not 8 years old anymore.... the 8 yo inside me LOVES jetpacks and flying cars... :)
QuoteThe reason we don't have flying cars and jetpacks is those ideas were f@cking stupid to begin with, but a driverless car ( on the road) I'm all for that.
You're clearly not 8 years old anymore.... the 8 yo inside me LOVES jetpacks and flying cars... :)
What about automated jetpacks? Much less infrastructure required than driverless cars (no roads or parking lots), much less mass to move around, easier to store when not in use, much less friction and therefor more-efficient at moving people than cars and faster as one can take a more direct route to their destination.
Probably will happen within a decade of a driverless car fleet that never parks, at the rate society is progressing.
Sort of like how buses all have one or two central garages, but during the day they are all out, always moving. There aren't bus parking lots all over the place.
Combine that idea with your point about only needing as many total as are used at any one time, and I think its fair to say it will end parking lots (as we know them at least)
man I get busy for a few days and this place blows up!
re AI roads/hyper speed freeways: I love the vision and it would be really cool, I just have trouble seeing it being worth the effort (cost; not just software costs but also freeway construction, even if you say we would have automated building that is still devoting resources to that project rather than something else.) Combine with (an assumed) reduced need to relocate your meat space location because of some VR-Skype meshed with holographic avatar thingy we will have less need for this. Yes hyper freeways are only one example-fine, and I get that good driverless cars will cause HUGE changes in our world.
Below will not happen in any real way. Vertical take off is expensive and for the forcible future the basic laws of economics will still apply, redundancies to make if safe will make the up front costs stupid, it will be to heavy to have any real range. High density low altitude traffic is dangerous. The low altitude environment has lots of turbulence and is often unpleasant to be in, think: the worst airliner turbulence you have ever felt while being able to read license plates (the bump you get from a jerk of wind is a function of vehicle mass - lighter = bigger bumps).
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/technology/ces-2016-ehang-drone/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/technology/ces-2016-ehang-drone/)
As someone up thread said right now we could have undersea city's but there is no need and it would be expensive and dangerous where most people are perfectly happy in a two story ranch style house. The physical macro world and printed circuit boards are two very different environments and I think if we expect similar geometric compounding of awesomeness out of the physical world as we have seen in the computer/web world we will be disappointed.
fuck sorry, did not intend that to be such a downer, will try more beer.
Only comment I have is I don't see automated cars causing HUGE changes though: you'd still be moving mass along pre-defined routes along the ground, over dedicated infrastructure, at relatively low speeds. Sure your 1hr commute would be cut to 30 minutes, and you could read or eat or shave (or at least do these things easier) during that time, but that's hardly a HUGE change from now. Those transportation devices would still need to be stored somewhere when not in use (which would still be the majority of the time), and the infrastructure and the devices would still be major budget items. Sure there'd be less parking lots; I guess that'd be different.
Maybe we're both downers... More beer is a mood alterting experiment I shall attempt, now that you mention it.
Only comment I have is I don't see automated cars causing HUGE changes though: you'd still be moving mass along pre-defined routes along the ground, over dedicated infrastructure, at relatively low speeds. Sure your 1hr commute would be cut to 30 minutes, and you could read or eat or shave (or at least do these things easier) during that time, but that's hardly a HUGE change from now. Those transportation devices would still need to be stored somewhere when not in use (which would still be the majority of the time), and the infrastructure and the devices would still be major budget items. Sure there'd be less parking lots; I guess that'd be different.
Maybe we're both downers... More beer is a mood alterting experiment I shall attempt, now that you mention it.
A few possibilities.
Traffic deaths would go down dramatically.
Overall fuel efficiency would go up for many reasons, first cars which are interlinked could drive closer together and "train up" in a way. Second, cars are far more likely to not waste energy than humans, particularly if they connect to an overall grid in a city and can know when stoplights will turn, etc.
The total number of cars needed could drop dramatically if cars are all used similar to uber and "on demand."
Also, if cars are more like taxis, particularly for commuting, carpooling types of activities become much easier because you can easily pick someone else up with minimal impact on the overall commute time and have less vehicles on the road.
Commuting time would drop significantly, because overall traffic efficiency would skyrocket. Lack of need for human reaction time safety factors as well as increased efficiency on actual traffic routes themselves.
You could even potentially reduce the safety features of vehicles to make them lighter and more energy efficient. Right now cars are designed to keep their passengers safe from other drivers, which adds a lot of weight. If all human drivers are obsolete a lot of this weight could be reclaimed. Particularly since the need of trucks is nearly non-existent for most of their owners, which meant if all vehicles were autonomous the number of trucks in circulation would drop dramatically.
Overall commuting speed would almost assuredly be higher. Perhaps for intercountry trips the effect would be lower, but you could still increase speeds and decrease mileage dramatically. Being close behind another vehicle (particularly only a few feet) reduces drag significantly, which scales in a power relationship with speed, to the point you could easily increase your average speed while still decreasing overall fuel economy.
This sum total of the obvious implications to me would be pretty huge. And these are just the simplistic, immediate effects of having all automated cars.
Probably good points, on all of the above.
Only comment I have is I don't see automated cars causing HUGE changes though: you'd still be moving mass along pre-defined routes along the ground, over dedicated infrastructure, at relatively low speeds. Sure your 1hr commute would be cut to 30 minutes, and you could read or eat or shave (or at least do these things easier) during that time, but that's hardly a HUGE change from now. Those transportation devices would still need to be stored somewhere when not in use (which would still be the majority of the time), and the infrastructure and the devices would still be major budget items. Sure there'd be less parking lots; I guess that'd be different.
Maybe we're both downers... More beer is a mood alterting experiment I shall attempt, now that you mention it.
All this sounds exciting and valuable for commuters and others going to predefined destinations.
But, I hope driverless vehicles do not become mandatory until after I have finished exploring the Americas in my RV. When we travel we do just go from Point A to Point B. We head in a general direction and then adjust our plans as we go. We don't know where we are going until we get there.
I am sure this can be addressed eventually but for now the focus seems to be entirely on "A to B" driving.
Also, even using present day technology internal combustion cars, but driven at a consistent speed, never over the legal limit, no unnecessary braking or acceleration, would save enough gas to completely eliminate all imported oil to the US, which in turn would have some major military and diplomatic consequences. Human drivers will never voluntarily drive efficiently in large enough numbers to have that kind of impact, but a mostly robot fleet would by default
All this sounds exciting and valuable for commuters and others going to predefined destinations.It'll still exist, but expect to pay a lot more in insurance and risk a lot of liability, because you are way more dangerous a driver than a computer (or will be, by the time it's at the mandatory point you're talking about).
But, I hope driverless vehicles do not become mandatory until after I have finished exploring the Americas in my RV. When we travel we do just go from Point A to Point B. We head in a general direction and then adjust our plans as we go. We don't know where we are going until we get there.
I am sure this can be addressed eventually but for now the focus seems to be entirely on "A to B" driving.
But, I hope driverless vehicles do not become mandatory
The U.S. military spending isn't to ensure oil for America. It's to ensure oil access for the rest of the free world. Access to energy markets for everyone has made a much more peaceful and stable world, benefiting all humans. Military spending and action in the ME is not strictly, or even primarily, for America.
Quote, and oh yes it's free to use.part economic, part social - a study done in SF found that the local bus and light rail system (muni) was spending more on plainclothes transit police, repair and maintenance of cash and ticket machines, paper passes, and other costs of collecting and enforcing tolls than they were bringing in in fares. In other words, they would actually save money by making it free.
They never made it free though. Because !!!!!!! socialism!!!!!!!!
Regarding the Muni study...
While it is true it is cheaper to deliver the service free, fare collection has not been a source of revenue to fund the service for a long time (at least during the last several decades). The purpose of fares is primarily for the public to 1) respect the service, and 2) a way to manage demand and safety.
Agencies would love to make the service free for all, but then they have to increase capacity. For a service that is costly to provide at a loss, fares somewhat rationalize demand. For example, charging a nominal fare and enforcing it can marginally reduce the number of homeless people sleeping on trains or buses in SF. For those willing to sign up and prove residency, seniors and youth already get unlimited free passes.
you are way more dangerous a driver than a computer (or will be, by the time it's at the mandatory point you're talking about).
But, I hope driverless vehicles do not become mandatory
I doubt they ever would, or at least not in our lifetime. We didn't outlaw bicycles and horses when cars became ubiquitous. Not everyone can afford the newest self-driving car.
But, I hope driverless vehicles do not become mandatory
I doubt they ever would, or at least not in our lifetime. We didn't outlaw bicycles and horses when cars became ubiquitous. Not everyone can afford the newest self-driving car.
I would be surprised if they are not outlawed on most roads. Currently it is illegal to drive a horse and buggy or bicycle down the interstate. For safety reasons, I would think that non self driving cars would be illegal on most public roads. I would also think that this will happen in the next 30 years. I also think lifespans will increase, so I think it will definitely happen within our lifespan.
If we don't even mandate cars be governed to the maximum speed limit of the state a car is sold in (which would be much less expensive than all the crash protections that are currently mandated), I really don't see mandating an AI system.
If we don't even mandate cars be governed to the maximum speed limit of the state a car is sold in (which would be much less expensive than all the crash protections that are currently mandated), I really don't see mandating an AI system.
Great points throughout this entire post.
If cars were governed at their maximum speed of roads in the state they were sold, wouldn't everyone just travel to Montana to buy cars? Certainly no one would buy one in Wisconsin...
You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
Remember though, a lot of the noise of highways comes not from the engines, but from the tyres on the road. Even with silent engines, cars driving at high speed still make a lot of noise.
That's true. I've been to qualifying for NASCAR races, and as soon as the cars cross the start/finish line they shut off their engines and all you can hear is the wind and tire noise. Even at 200mph, it's not that loud.You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
Remember though, a lot of the noise of highways comes not from the engines, but from the tyres on the road. Even with silent engines, cars driving at high speed still make a lot of noise.
Yeah, but that's just white noise and, IMO, not what is disturbing about living close to an highway.
It's those damn fart cans, Harleys, broken muffler, revving engine, sirens, honking that break up the white noise and spike the decibel chart and that wake you up in the middle of the night.
The noise wind makes on a car is actually soothing if you are not right beside it.
That's true. I've been to qualifying for NASCAR races, and as soon as the cars cross the start/finish line they shut off their engines and all you can hear is the wind and tire noise. Even at 200mph, it's not that loud.You think there is any scope to make some cash investing long term in property close to highways?, I suspect current location is cheap and undesirable due to both noise levels and pollution - with silent emmission free cars would this land not become sought after.
Remember though, a lot of the noise of highways comes not from the engines, but from the tyres on the road. Even with silent engines, cars driving at high speed still make a lot of noise.
Yeah, but that's just white noise and, IMO, not what is disturbing about living close to an highway.
It's those damn fart cans, Harleys, broken muffler, revving engine, sirens, honking that break up the white noise and spike the decibel chart and that wake you up in the middle of the night.
The noise wind makes on a car is actually soothing if you are not right beside it.
Also, using a handheld device (phone etc) is illegal in the UK. The penalties are not as strong as for drink driving but I think they should be and will only increase.
Now all I need is a $4k robot that can clean my apt/house, do the dishes, make dinner, and all the other household choirs that use up my productive time. So a quick question... Would a robot that could do all that be worth $4k? Do you think my robot will make me fatter?? Anyway food for thought
Also, using a handheld device (phone etc) is illegal in the UK. The penalties are not as strong as for drink driving but I think they should be and will only increase.
Handheld devices are illegal in most states here too. The problem is, the danger isn't from having a hand off the wheel (most cars are now automatics, but when they were stick shifts no one was crashing because of having a hand off the wheel!)
The danger is from the distraction of the conversation itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html) handsfree devices are just as bad as, yet bluetooth phone connections are actually built in to cars. It would be like a car coming with a built in beer cooler.
I read that lawn care and snow shoving might be a thing of the past...
...
Now all I need is a $4k robot that can clean my apt/house, do the dishes, make dinner, and all the other household choirs that use up my productive time.
I read that lawn care and snow shoving might be a thing of the past...
...
Now all I need is a $4k robot that can clean my apt/house, do the dishes, make dinner, and all the other household choirs that use up my productive time.
If you're trying to be sarcastic, I should point out that we already have these robots and have had them since the 50s.
Before that, women had to wash dishes and laundry by hand and society marveled at the power of technology to turn six hours of work into 30 minutes, freeing women to enter the workforce and dramatically reshape the economy.
Before that, manicured lawns were the domain of only the ultra wealthy who could employ an army of gardeners with scissors. The invention of the lawnmower revolutionized domestic landscaping forever, making that particular luxury good available to everyone.
Before the addition of the microwave to everyone's kitchen, and before that the gas stove and furnace, humans spent hundreds of hours per year chopping fire wood, and then maintaining fireplaces and wood stoves every time they needed to cook, or even have hot water. The introduction of these new technologies saved us uncountable hours of menial labor that literally every person had to do for literally thousands of years, until your grandparents' generation.
And don't even get me started on automobiles or electricity or industrial agriculture. Technological innovations have completely transformed human society over the past hundred years into something unimaginable by the previous thousand generations of your ancestors. We are small minded creatures with short memories who don't recognize how amazingly rapid these changes have been, or how rapid they will continue to be in the future.
My grandmother just died at the age of 93. She was raised plucking chickens and building fires and carrying buckets of water from a well, when women weren't allowed to go to school. She died in the age of self driving cars and tinder swiping and a female presidential candidate and fucking robots on other planets.
How different do you think the world will be by the time your kids are that age?
Also, using a handheld device (phone etc) is illegal in the UK. The penalties are not as strong as for drink driving but I think they should be and will only increase.
Handheld devices are illegal in most states here too. The problem is, the danger isn't from having a hand off the wheel (most cars are now automatics, but when they were stick shifts no one was crashing because of having a hand off the wheel!)
The danger is from the distraction of the conversation itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html) handsfree devices are just as bad as, yet bluetooth phone connections are actually built in to cars. It would be like a car coming with a built in beer cooler.
More precisely: A beer cooler with a straw that leads to the driver's mouth so that his hands would still be able to remain on the steering wheel. . . . that solves the problem entirely!
My grandmother just died at the age of 93. She was raised plucking chickens and building fires and carrying buckets of water from a well, when women weren't allowed to go to school. She died in the age of self driving cars and tinder swiping and a female presidential candidate and fucking robots on other planets.
How different do you think the world will be by the time your kids are that age?
+1. I think I read long ago that even in olden times humans "commuted" and that with our new tech we have increased the distance we commute rather than reducing the amount of time spent commuting.
Also I am fairly sure I am in worse physical shape since buying a home with a yard I maintain. There are plenty of weekends where after a number of hours of yard work I am to tired to lift weights, or I dont go for a bike ride because I want to start on the yard work before it gets to hot or before the sun goes down. Is this worth a 4k$ machine. No. But way back when homes did not come with dishwashers or hotwater heaters, maybe some day homes will come with a yard-bot built into the home and home price. It is 100% possible to be in better physical shape while using tools designed to save labor-these let you shift how you use your time and energy.
Also, using a handheld device (phone etc) is illegal in the UK. The penalties are not as strong as for drink driving but I think they should be and will only increase.
Handheld devices are illegal in most states here too. The problem is, the danger isn't from having a hand off the wheel (most cars are now automatics, but when they were stick shifts no one was crashing because of having a hand off the wheel!)
The danger is from the distraction of the conversation itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html) handsfree devices are just as bad as, yet bluetooth phone connections are actually built in to cars. It would be like a car coming with a built in beer cooler.
Also, using a handheld device (phone etc) is illegal in the UK. The penalties are not as strong as for drink driving but I think they should be and will only increase.
Handheld devices are illegal in most states here too. The problem is, the danger isn't from having a hand off the wheel (most cars are now automatics, but when they were stick shifts no one was crashing because of having a hand off the wheel!)
The danger is from the distraction of the conversation itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html) handsfree devices are just as bad as, yet bluetooth phone connections are actually built in to cars. It would be like a car coming with a built in beer cooler.
Well, in the UK, most cars are still manual, so that would mean potentially two hands off the wheel! Whilst I do think the conversation might be the significant distraction, and handsfree doesn't solve that, not allowing hand held devices does mean that people can't text and drive. Easier to prosecute, easier to spot and police etc. There's more to phones in driver's hands than conversations.
I can't wait for self-driving cars and for this all to be moot. Just like I can't imagine sending my husband down a mine everyday knowing he might not come out, I hope our grandchildren can't comprehend that we were willing to risk our lives driving.
I can't wait for self-driving cars and for this all to be moot. Just like I can't imagine sending my husband down a mine everyday knowing he might not come out, I hope our grandchildren can't comprehend that we were willing to risk our lives driving.I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
Sure, but riding horses was fun too. And some people still do it for fun. But it's no longer a required life skill, and horse riding fatalities are WAY down as a result.
I can't wait for self-driving cars and for this all to be moot. Just like I can't imagine sending my husband down a mine everyday knowing he might not come out, I hope our grandchildren can't comprehend that we were willing to risk our lives driving.I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
Do the Amish have cup holders in there buggies so they can take a morning coffee on the commute? /joking
Do the Amish have cup holders in there buggies so they can take a morning coffee on the commute? /joking
don't know, but in Indiana they have hitching posts in the parking lot of WalMart for the Mennonites and other Luddites who shopped there.
Whom the Amish sometimes refer to as "NRA" - for "Not Really Amish"
Do the Amish have cup holders in there buggies so they can take a morning coffee on the commute? /joking
don't know, but in Indiana they have hitching posts in the parking lot of WalMart for the Mennonites and other Luddites who shopped there.
Whom the Amish sometimes refer to as "NRA" - for "Not Really Amish"
Are they closer or further to the door than the bike racks?
Not in NASCAR country. Seriously, driving a scenic road can be a lot of fun as long as there's not too much traffic. Even if I didn't have to go anywhere, I'd still get out for a drive (during non-peak hours) a few times a week. I also like the feeling of being in control of the vehicle. There's a reason why people get into motorsports.I can't wait for self-driving cars and for this all to be moot. Just like I can't imagine sending my husband down a mine everyday knowing he might not come out, I hope our grandchildren can't comprehend that we were willing to risk our lives driving.I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
About as many who think driving is pleasurable I guess, roll on driver less UBER
Not in NASCAR country. Seriously, driving a scenic road can be a lot of fun as long as there's not too much traffic. Even if I didn't have to go anywhere, I'd still get out for a drive (during non-peak hours) a few times a week. I also like the feeling of being in control of the vehicle. There's a reason why people get into motorsports.I can't wait for self-driving cars and for this all to be moot. Just like I can't imagine sending my husband down a mine everyday knowing he might not come out, I hope our grandchildren can't comprehend that we were willing to risk our lives driving.I think the difference is that driving a car can be (and is) a pleasurable experience for many people. I doubt too many workers enjoy going into a mine, though.
About as many who think driving is pleasurable I guess, roll on driver less UBER
Robot pilots may someday fly passenger and cargo planes
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROBOT_PILOT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-18-14-26-17
Robot pilots may someday fly passenger and cargo planes
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROBOT_PILOT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-18-14-26-17
Did not read the full article but it is talking about replacing one of the two pilots. I am not sure this is a good idea unless the AI would be as good at cross checking the human as the current other human is. Before many actions a pilot will confirm with the other pilot that they are about to flip the correct switch. Also pilots have been VERY opposed to any form of video recording in the cockpit so they might not want this as it would likely keep records of what they did. I think it is also sort of assumed that large cargo planes will move towards being unmanned even to the point of retrofitting existing fleets but passengers would not be comfortable with no one up front.
Robot pilots may someday fly passenger and cargo planes
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROBOT_PILOT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-18-14-26-17
Did not read the full article but it is talking about replacing one of the two pilots. I am not sure this is a good idea unless the AI would be as good at cross checking the human as the current other human is. Before many actions a pilot will confirm with the other pilot that they are about to flip the correct switch. Also pilots have been VERY opposed to any form of video recording in the cockpit so they might not want this as it would likely keep records of what they did. I think it is also sort of assumed that large cargo planes will move towards being unmanned even to the point of retrofitting existing fleets but passengers would not be comfortable with no one up front.
...
Funny when we talk about replacing pilots with AI, meanwhile the aviation business are not capable of tracking a flight path in real time - can't find a plane after 2 f@cking years, maybe get that sorted first ;).
...
Funny when we talk about replacing pilots with AI, meanwhile the aviation business are not capable of tracking a flight path in real time - can't find a plane after 2 f@cking years, maybe get that sorted first ;).
? https://flightaware.com/live/map (https://flightaware.com/live/map) There is some delay in the feed and sometimes tracks get dropped. But this is more a function of the piping from ground based reporting stations -> FAA computers -> FA.com or terrain blocking line of sight.
...
Funny when we talk about replacing pilots with AI, meanwhile the aviation business are not capable of tracking a flight path in real time - can't find a plane after 2 f@cking years, maybe get that sorted first ;).
? https://flightaware.com/live/map (https://flightaware.com/live/map) There is some delay in the feed and sometimes tracks get dropped. But this is more a function of the piping from ground based reporting stations -> FAA computers -> FA.com or terrain blocking line of sight.
Ah that pesky piping, that would explain why there was bit of confusion as wheter the plane was in Kazakhstan or the south pacific :)
A large percentage of flying already is done by autopilots anyways.
Not to mention any micro optimizations happening.
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot/?utm_campaign=GL_AP_101916&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social
i dont remember who described the world in which cars arent owned and just summoned when needed. but Tesla appears to be on the edge of making this happen. They even are going to muscle out uber and lyft it appears by not allowing you to use their self driving function on any network other than the tesla network.
It truly is amazing to me what one company with a vision has done to get us miles ahead of where we were just 4 years ago. i mean to think you can use self drive tech to go anywhere in the country for road trips etc. from 2 years from now on is pretty incredible.
on the note of the topic of this thread this will be completely devastating to the entire transportation industry as we know it.
cab driver - gone
limo drivers - gone
black car service drivers - gone
uber drivers - gone
lyft drivers - gone
delivery drivers - gone to some extent (we cant expect people to walk out of their front door to pick up chinese or pizza thats just incredibly too much work /s)
bus driver - gone
drunk driving - gone
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot/?utm_campaign=GL_AP_101916&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social
delivery drivers - gone to some extent (we cant expect people to walk out of their front door to pick up chinese or pizza thats just incredibly too much work /s)
That is where Amazon's drone technology will take the pizza or package from the main vehicle to the front door. All payment will be taken care of so there will not be a need for a person delivering the pizza or anything else. Most likely the main vehicle will have extra condiments in case you failed to order them online.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
A long, but great video about AI/technology and the impact on professionals.One of the first things the guy introducing says that he learned from the book is that "We are safe, because we are creative, dexterous and do many things that machines won't do". If he's joking it is black comedy. If he is not joking he is obtuse!
Lots of great thoughts on morality and ethics as it relates to technology and the future. The Q&A is interesting as well at about 45 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5_1QPLps0
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I don't think refueling will be an issue for long - electric cars will just plug themselves in.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
Now you have put a bunch of doctors and nurses out of work also - have you heart man :)
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
Now you have put a bunch of doctors and nurses out of work also - have you heart man :)
Earlier on in this thread we discussed that autonomous cars would cause less accidents and therefore there would be less organs to harvest. So unless we can grow organs in the lab or 3d printer, we will have an organ donor problem. Black market for organs may be the way to go for families that have no ability to make a living and are starving to death.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
Now you have put a bunch of doctors and nurses out of work also - have you heart man :)
Earlier on in this thread we discussed that autonomous cars would cause less accidents and therefore there would be less organs to harvest. So unless we can grow organs in the lab or 3d printer, we will have an organ donor problem. Black market for organs may be the way to go for families that have no ability to make a living and are starving to death.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
Now you have put a bunch of doctors and nurses out of work also - have you heart man :)
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
And as an added bonus, there are a few hundred pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed by vehicles in NYC every year, including a bunch by taxi drivers. You might argue that replacing human drivers will cause a few thousand people to need to find new jobs, but it will also cause a few hundred people to not be accidentally murdered. Maybe that's a fair trade.
just think of the cab drivers in NYC thats 52k people out of work now.
Adding 52k people to the unemployment rolls in NYC will barely make a dent in the unemployment rate in a city that big, plus self-driving cars will create a bunch of new jobs to replace some (but not all) of the ones that were lost. At least in the short term some humans will still have to manage the fleet, clean the vehicles inside and out, do the maintenance and refueling, spot check quality control by going for rides, and a thousand other little things that are currently done by drivers but that an AI won't be able to manage yet.
It will be a very very long process for robots to actually replace most common jobs. and we have at least 2-3 generations of time for the society to adapt. New jobs will come out, and wealth distribution will shift towards to new jobs.
It will be a very very long process for robots to actually replace most common jobs. and we have at least 2-3 generations of time for the society to adapt. New jobs will come out, and wealth distribution will shift towards to new jobs.
I think that you may be wrong on this one.
I'd argue the 2-3 generations was the part of the post I most disagreed with.It will be a very very long process for robots to actually replace most common jobs. and we have at least 2-3 generations of time for the society to adapt. New jobs will come out, and wealth distribution will shift towards to new jobs.
I think that you may be wrong on this one.
Yeah. Are there new jobs opening up that need a human more than anything else?
No. Most new jobs now require a human and a brain.
A lot of the reason why jobs kept replacing the lost jobs in the past, say the industrial revolution, is that when jobs (for example the need for everyone to be on a farm) converted to more automated activities, there were still many jobs where the primary need was a human. Where the skillset of that human was less important.
That is not the case now. If you are an unskilled human, there are not many new jobs and new industries being created for you. In fact most of your options are being actively removed.
It will be a very very long process for robots to actually replace most common jobs. and we have at least 2-3 generations of time for the society to adapt. New jobs will come out, and wealth distribution will shift towards to new jobs.
I think that you may be wrong on this one.
Yeah. Are there new jobs opening up that need a human more than anything else?
No. Most new jobs now require a human and a brain.
A lot of the reason why jobs kept replacing the lost jobs in the past, say the industrial revolution, is that when jobs (for example the need for everyone to be on a farm) converted to more automated activities, there were still many jobs where the primary need was a human. Where the skillset of that human was less important.
That is not the case now. If you are an unskilled human, there are not many new jobs and new industries being created for you. In fact most of your options are being actively removed.
Yeah I'm not sure how the wealth distribution will hash out. Too many variables for me to really form a solid opinion on. I can see it going so many ways. But the 2-3 generations? Probably less than 1 is closer to the truth.I'd argue the 2-3 generations was the part of the post I most disagreed with.It will be a very very long process for robots to actually replace most common jobs. and we have at least 2-3 generations of time for the society to adapt. New jobs will come out, and wealth distribution will shift towards to new jobs.
I think that you may be wrong on this one.
Yeah. Are there new jobs opening up that need a human more than anything else?
No. Most new jobs now require a human and a brain.
A lot of the reason why jobs kept replacing the lost jobs in the past, say the industrial revolution, is that when jobs (for example the need for everyone to be on a farm) converted to more automated activities, there were still many jobs where the primary need was a human. Where the skillset of that human was less important.
That is not the case now. If you are an unskilled human, there are not many new jobs and new industries being created for you. In fact most of your options are being actively removed.
Old time is still a flying.
Yeah I'm not sure how the wealth distribution will hash out. Too many variables for me to really form a solid opinion on. I can see it going so many ways. But the 2-3 generations? Probably less than 1 is closer to the truth.
'Driverless' beer run; Bud makes shipment with self-driving truck (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/25/driverless-beer-run-bud-makes-shipment-with-self-driving-truck.html)QuoteAnheuser-Busch hauled a trailer loaded with beer 120 miles in an autonomous-drive truck, completing what's believed to be the first commercial shipment by a self-driving vehicle.
279Billion miles are driven by trucks annually. at 28cents per mile for the low end of the avg truck driver pay. that pulls 78B dollars out of the hands op "professional drivers" which according the article there are 3.6MM class 8 trucks if we assume only one driver per truck(which is probably low) thats over 1% of the population now jobless and those 78B are going to uber and the companies no longer using drivers b/c i'm sure the autonoumous truck will come at a discount to the human driver.
279Billion miles are driven by trucks annually. at 28cents per mile for the low end of the avg truck driver pay. that pulls 78B dollars out of the hands op "professional drivers" which according the article there are 3.6MM class 8 trucks if we assume only one driver per truck(which is probably low) thats over 1% of the population now jobless and those 78B are going to uber and the companies no longer using drivers b/c i'm sure the autonoumous truck will come at a discount to the human driver.
How is this different from the old argument that tractors were going to put farm hands out of work?
As has already been pointed out in this thread, were TRYING to remove those menial jobs from the economy. Nobody seriously believes we would be better off if 50% of the population were still farmers.
This whole argument that automation/robots/AI is somehow bad for the economy because of job losses seems contrary to the entire history of human technological innovation. We are all better off as a result of these changes, even the horse manure shovelers who were put out of work.
But I wonder how this will affect air pollution, sure self driving truck will be more fuel efficient but at reduced costs I wonder if more miles will be driven and result in more pollution? If this increase in drive miles displaces air-cargo it is probably a net reduction in air pollution but if it comes from trains then it is probably a net loss. Or if the reduced costs increase demand for trucking then more miles will be driven too. But if delivery companies could make significantly more efficient routes because you no longer had the artificial constant of the driver needing to get home maybe fewer miles would be driven... Lot of moving parts to this analysis.
But I wonder how this will affect air pollution, sure self driving truck will be more fuel efficient but at reduced costs I wonder if more miles will be driven and result in more pollution? If this increase in drive miles displaces air-cargo it is probably a net reduction in air pollution but if it comes from trains then it is probably a net loss. Or if the reduced costs increase demand for trucking then more miles will be driven too. But if delivery companies could make significantly more efficient routes because you no longer had the artificial constant of the driver needing to get home maybe fewer miles would be driven... Lot of moving parts to this analysis.
Hmmm... Yes, quite so indeed. What you are proposing is a Jevons paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox).
Assuming that trucks no longer need drivers, maybe they could be significantly improved in terms of efficiency and aerodynamics since they no longer need to protect a cushy human inside?
How is this different from the old argument that tractors were going to put farm hands out of work?
As has already been pointed out in this thread, were TRYING to remove those menial jobs from the economy. Nobody seriously believes we would be better off if 50% of the population were still farmers.
This whole argument that automation/robots/AI is somehow bad for the economy because of job losses seems contrary to the entire history of human technological innovation. We are all better off as a result of these changes, even the horse manure shovelers who were put out of work.
I'm unconvinced that it is always better to automate and remove menial types of jobs.
As a software engineer, my concern is more "what if there are huge percentages of the population which are worthless in the job market?" and the implications that has on people in general.
But I wonder how this will affect air pollution, sure self driving truck will be more fuel efficient but at reduced costs I wonder if more miles will be driven and result in more pollution? If this increase in drive miles displaces air-cargo it is probably a net reduction in air pollution but if it comes from trains then it is probably a net loss. Or if the reduced costs increase demand for trucking then more miles will be driven too. But if delivery companies could make significantly more efficient routes because you no longer had the artificial constant of the driver needing to get home maybe fewer miles would be driven... Lot of moving parts to this analysis.
Assuming that trucks no longer need drivers, maybe they could be significantly improved in terms of efficiency and aerodynamics since they no longer need to protect a cushy human inside?
Aerodynamics, probably cant make radical improvements, you are pulling a really big box after all. But a small mpg increase x 24 hours per day x millions of vehicles would add up.
But I wonder how this will affect air pollution, sure self driving truck will be more fuel efficient but at reduced costs I wonder if more miles will be driven and result in more pollution? If this increase in drive miles displaces air-cargo it is probably a net reduction in air pollution but if it comes from trains then it is probably a net loss. Or if the reduced costs increase demand for trucking then more miles will be driven too. But if delivery companies could make significantly more efficient routes because you no longer had the artificial constant of the driver needing to get home maybe fewer miles would be driven... Lot of moving parts to this analysis.
presumably it would be easier to automate trains than trucks, so eliminate those operator costs too, presumably train would still be a cheaper way to move cargo along routes with preexsiting tracks, just like now.Assuming that trucks no longer need drivers, maybe they could be significantly improved in terms of efficiency and aerodynamics since they no longer need to protect a cushy human inside?
I don't think that makes up a significant amount of truck mass or shapeAerodynamics, probably cant make radical improvements, you are pulling a really big box after all. But a small mpg increase x 24 hours per day x millions of vehicles would add up.
There are actually really significant gains possible, however its a totally independent factor from whether a human drives it:
http://www.airflowtruck.com/
its real, exists now, its been moving freight across the country for 4 years now, averages more than 100% more mpg than the average long haul semi truck on the road (13.4 vs 6.5)
Would it be cheaper to load trains, unload trains, load trucks and then deliver by trucks? I mean, that's what we do now, but if trucks could become 100% more efficient, I'm not sure trains have that much more room to improve. Wouldn't it be easier to load trucks and have them deliver the goods directly where they need to go? A line of trucks, drafting off each other down the highway at speed, merging and splitting off as needed, could be about as efficient as a train, no?
As anybody seen this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/technology/ibm-is-counting-on-its-bet-on-watson-and-paying-big-money-for-it.html?_r=3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/technology/ibm-is-counting-on-its-bet-on-watson-and-paying-big-money-for-it.html?_r=3)
Because I enjoy it when other people post videos, here is a robot arm piloting a plane.
http://newatlas.com/robot-alias-darpa-cessna-caravan/45973/
Because I enjoy it when other people post videos, here is a robot arm piloting a plane.
http://newatlas.com/robot-alias-darpa-cessna-caravan/45973/ (http://newatlas.com/robot-alias-darpa-cessna-caravan/45973/)
That's a poor use of a human like arm. To pilot a plane all steering and controls could much more effectively just be computer controlled vs using a robotic arm to supplement the human input to a computer.
Because I enjoy it when other people post videos, here is a robot arm piloting a plane.
http://newatlas.com/robot-alias-darpa-cessna-caravan/45973/ (http://newatlas.com/robot-alias-darpa-cessna-caravan/45973/)
That's a poor use of a human like arm. To pilot a plane all steering and controls could much more effectively just be computer controlled vs using a robotic arm to supplement the human input to a computer.
All steering and controls already are controlled by computer.
I don't think that was the point.
Much like how the DARPA robot challengers had to drive a little car. Obviously robot cars exist, and they don't use humanoid robots behind a wheel, but there is a lot of potential value from a single robot that can do many different things. Part of that is manipulating objects in a human based world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9geWwi9e0
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-robots-jobs-government-181956572.html
Musk stating that ""There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," says Musk to CNBC. "Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen."
"People will have time to do other things, more complex things, more interesting things," says Musk. "Certainly more leisure time."
Basic Income will become a bigger topic as automation wipes out more and more jobs in the next decade.
I hope so.
The pain in the meantime will be unfortunate.
professional Starcraft eSports,
professional Starcraft eSports,
OMG, I remember that game, from so many years ago (I played the original a lot when it came out)
professional??
That's really a thing????
Like, people get paid to play it?
I'm also a little surprised computers can't already beat human players, just due to the speed of being able to manipulate multiple game elements. I.e., if I have a huge colony going on, I can only select one soldier or worker or building (or group thereof) at a time, so if two or three or seven things finish what they were working on at once, I can only give each one new tasking one at a time, wasting time in a game that is all about efficiency. How do they bring the computer to a human like level of control, so that the only difference is strategy in a real-time game?
professional Starcraft eSports,
OMG, I remember that game, from so many years ago (I played the original a lot when it came out)
professional??
That's really a thing????
Like, people get paid to play it?
I also suspect that it wouldn't work without some sort of population control, which would be kind of scary.
I also suspect that it wouldn't work without some sort of population control, which would be kind of scary.
Ultimately, that's going to be true no matter what - infinite growth is simply not possible.
It might not be enough forever, but free on-demand access to birth control and sterilization would go a long way, without having to mandate a China style 1-child rule. Fully half of all pregnancies were "unplanned", and that's in an the advanced rich first world nation of the United States.
Places with significantly higher birth rates usually have some combination of needing kids to provide cheap labor to the family, using kids as a form of retirement plan, and/or a high risk that a baby won't survive to adulthood. In a world with so much prosperity that money is obsolete, presumably all societies would be at least as advanced as America today, and if there is no longer any "3rd world", than the birth rate in currently third world nations would eventually drop to first world levels. Add in free (and permanent if desired) birth control, that rate halves.
Half the US birth rate would be less than replacement levels, and the world population would gradually decrease.
Bonus: each person can consume more, and the world environment can still support it indefinitely, the fewer total people there are!
Ultimately, that's going to be true no matter what - infinite growth is simply not possible.
It might not be enough forever, but free on-demand access to birth control and sterilization would go a long way, without having to mandate a China style 1-child rule. Fully half of all pregnancies were "unplanned", and that's in an the advanced rich first world nation of the United States.
Ultimately, that's going to be true no matter what - infinite growth is simply not possible.
It might not be enough forever, but free on-demand access to birth control and sterilization would go a long way, without having to mandate a China style 1-child rule. Fully half of all pregnancies were "unplanned", and that's in an the advanced rich first world nation of the United States.
In the UK all contraception is free and on demand. Sterilisation for women is not as simple - I know someone who requested it and was told to come back in a few years, as it's irreversible and they would hate to do it on someone who changed their mind, but I'm not sure how forceful she was about it. I know lots of men (I would say most in my circle) who got / get a vasectomy (free, obvs) when their 'family is complete'.
Amazon trying to improve self checkout.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/amazon-go-store-wont-replace-humans--but-it-could-improve-dreadful-self-checkout-investor-says.html
Amazon trying to improve self checkout.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/amazon-go-store-wont-replace-humans--but-it-could-improve-dreadful-self-checkout-investor-says.html
I've been telling my wife grocery stores (and really all retail stores) should do this for years. Of course, I hate waiting in line.
Amazon trying to improve self checkout.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/amazon-go-store-wont-replace-humans--but-it-could-improve-dreadful-self-checkout-investor-says.html
Guys, seriously, just relax about the robots. Drink some wine. Enjoy yourselves. Before an AI creates nanofactories that pull our atoms apart from our bodies.
Sometimes the solution to too much technology
involves going back to nature
and using it...
to destroy technology
:-)
http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command (http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command)
Sometimes the solution to too much technology
involves going back to nature
and using it...
to destroy technology
:-)
http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command (http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command)
Sometimes the solution to too much technology
involves going back to nature
and using it...
to destroy technology
:-)
http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command (http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command)
the "America Fuck Yea" song from the movie team america comes to mind.Sometimes the solution to too much technology
involves going back to nature
and using it...
to destroy technology
:-)
http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command (http://www.popsci.com/eagles-attack-drones-at-police-command)
Those are pretty small drones. I would be worried about the birds with bigger ones. I think it would be pretty epic if someone had drones at the White House and a swarm of Bald Eagles came out and took them out, preferably with patriotic music playing.
Comments from UTC ceo to Jim Crammer re Carrier Jobs/Trump/Mexico.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html)
TLDR: Mexico has quality workers, US workers dont want the Carrier jobes. We will replace the US workers with robots.
Comments from UTC ceo to Jim Crammer re Carrier Jobs/Trump/Mexico.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html)
TLDR: Mexico has quality workers, US workers dont want the Carrier jobes. We will replace the US workers with robots.
Comments from UTC ceo to Jim Crammer re Carrier Jobs/Trump/Mexico.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-united-technologies-just-let-231538059.html)
TLDR: Mexico has quality workers, US workers dont want the Carrier jobes. We will replace the US workers with robots.
Meh. Since this automation would happen anyway, isn't it at least a win that the automated factory stays in America, with stricter environmental controls, and the tertiary jobs (delivering materials, repairing and installing robots, shipping units, etc.) are American?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/will-amazon-go-replace-jobs-i-dont-think-we-can-stop-it-author-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104155267&yptr=yahoo
"When asked keeping jobs in the U.S. will cause them to be replaced by robots, Trump said "they will, and we'll make the robots too," according to The New York Times."
The point that people keep missing is the people who's jobs are being replaced by technology can't just retool and start making robots, software, or the technology. These people will continue to be a burden on society as they do not have usable skills. What is Trump and others proposing to limit the negative impact on those not possessing STEM type skills?
"I think what it leads to is more job destruction, and less job creation, especially for average typical people that don't necessarily have PhDs from MIT and all of that," Ford said.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/will-amazon-go-replace-jobs-i-dont-think-we-can-stop-it-author-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104155267&yptr=yahoo (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/will-amazon-go-replace-jobs-i-dont-think-we-can-stop-it-author-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104155267&yptr=yahoo)
"When asked keeping jobs in the U.S. will cause them to be replaced by robots, Trump said "they will, and we'll make the robots too," according to The New York Times."
The point that people keep missing is the people who's jobs are being replaced by technology can't just retool and start making robots, software, or the technology. These people will continue to be a burden on society as they do not have usable skills. What is Trump and others proposing to limit the negative impact on those not possessing STEM type skills?
"I think what it leads to is more job destruction, and less job creation, especially for average typical people that don't necessarily have PhDs from MIT and all of that," Ford said.
Its more than just that. Even if you could train everyone to program and build robots, it just doesn't take tens of millions of people to operate a robot building factory (esp when the robot factory is largely staffed by robots). A given type of robot only needs to be programmed once.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/will-amazon-go-replace-jobs-i-dont-think-we-can-stop-it-author-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104155267&yptr=yahoo (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/will-amazon-go-replace-jobs-i-dont-think-we-can-stop-it-author-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104155267&yptr=yahoo)
"When asked keeping jobs in the U.S. will cause them to be replaced by robots, Trump said "they will, and we'll make the robots too," according to The New York Times."
The point that people keep missing is the people who's jobs are being replaced by technology can't just retool and start making robots, software, or the technology. These people will continue to be a burden on society as they do not have usable skills. What is Trump and others proposing to limit the negative impact on those not possessing STEM type skills?
"I think what it leads to is more job destruction, and less job creation, especially for average typical people that don't necessarily have PhDs from MIT and all of that," Ford said.
Its more than just that. Even if you could train everyone to program and build robots, it just doesn't take tens of millions of people to operate a robot building factory (esp when the robot factory is largely staffed by robots). A given type of robot only needs to be programmed once.
It would be like if you looked at the new tractors and harvesters and other turn of the century farm equipment, or at the auto loom, and said "well, we'll still need people to drive the tractors and operate the loom" - if it took as many people to make and operate the robots as the number of jobs they replaced, then there would be no point in making the robots, they would just be adding an extra step. They would cost more than they produced.
However, he might not have been meaning to imply that all the jobs lost would be replaced by American workers. Just that the profit would go to American companies. Which may well be true, and if your goal is simply maximizing gross GDP, with no concern for its distribution, then he may well actually be spot on.
At least for a little while - until China starts churning out cheap yet extremely advanced robots...
I think the point was that these jobs are going away anyway; if that is the case, it's best for America, in the short-medium term, to keep as many jobs in America as possible
Not only that, but it's not a one-to-one: one programmer will write the software that goes on millions of robots.
So if 100 robots replace what was formerly done by 100 humans, it's not like we would need 100 separate programmers for them.
And that's assuming we don't need only 50 robots to do those jobs.
I think the point was that these jobs are going away anyway; if that is the case, it's best for America, in the short-medium term, to keep as many jobs in America as possible
Well then thank goodness the anti-Trumpers are stepping up their donations to Planned Parenthood. With no jobs, we don't need all these fucking people.
I think the point was that these jobs are going away anyway; if that is the case, it's best for America, in the short-medium term, to keep as many jobs in America as possible
I think the writing is on the wall that uneducated and also the mostly educated people are not going to be needed for work within the next 30 years. The government will need to figure out a basic income and how to share the technological wealth. Trump's tax plan is to reduce taxes on corporations and the 1% and increase taxes on the poor and middle class. We should be figuring out how to tax the wealthiest more as they own the companies and technology that are churning off record profits, yet we are focusing on squeezing more out of the poor and middle class.
Crazy times!
I think the writing is on the wall that uneducated and also the mostly educated people are not going to be needed for work within the next 30 years.
I think the writing is on the wall that uneducated and also the mostly educated people are not going to be needed for work within the next 30 years.
Let's follow this line of thought through to its logical conclusion.
The uneducated become economically superfluous. The wealth gap grows to astronomical levels, with STEM career people becoming fabulously wealthy and lit majors and high school dropouts surviving slightly above poverty level on the newly instituted universal basic income.
Is this system better or worse than what we have now? The super rich will still have more money than the newly enriched STEM folks who are actually driving the economy. Instead of an elite class and a working class, well have an elite class and a working class and a new useless plebe/slave class like the ancient Romans. We're calling this progress?
Depending on how the politics unfold, it might not be so bad. Some people are I'll suited to work, by handicap or illness or bad luck, and as long as those people are still full citizens then I would rather see them provided UBI than live on the streets. This part already exists (disability insurance, etc) so the only change is in extending it to other people who could be working, but choose not to.
Former coal miners, factory laborers, early retirees, artists, as long as the robots can provide them health care and food/housing and internet access and voting rights, maybe they're okay with being economically "useless"?
The distinction here is between plebes and proles. "The proletariat" has historically been defined as the class of people who own nothing except their ability to labor for wages, because they do not own the means of production. If robots deprive them of wages for labor, what does that leave them? How does that upset our economic hierarchy?
Hmmm, We could stop using all machinery in farming. Then we could employ tens or hundreds of thousands of people as field workers. Yields might decline but that is good because we could employ even more people!
Then do the same for road construction and other similar tasks. With luck we could get to 100% employment in a few years!
/sarc
Well then thank goodness the anti-Trumpers are stepping up their donations to Planned Parenthood. With no jobs, we don't need all these fucking people.
Well then thank goodness the anti-Trumpers are stepping up their donations to Planned Parenthood. With no jobs, we don't need all these fucking people.Unless you think that people are inherently valuable regardless of their usefulness to society.
With regards to the uneducated vs. the STEMs, I think it's maybe a bit presumptuous that the STEMs shall inherit the Earth.Exactly half are below average. By definition.
I say this as a STEM person: Nearly half of us are below average at our jobs.
I think the safest among us are probably those with trade-skills. An affordable robot that can come to your house and replace pipe fittings or service your refrigerator is probably further off than the aforementioned sophisticated software.Yay!! That's me!!
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the implication was to kill off all existing people, or even lower the birth rate to zero. PP deals with preventing unwanted pregnancies, not ending the human specie. We can value the existence of humans without needing to try to maximize the number of humans that exist.
Maybe with a combination of austerity and resource management and future technology the planet could support a world of 500 Billion (70 times what we have today - what we would get if all the land on Earth had the same population density as Bangladesh), but life would suck for everyone, and that (to me at least) would not be an indication of us valuing human life.
Quality over quantity.
Exactly half are below average. By definition.
Walmart is a good example. They are eliminating (http://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-to-cut-7-000-back-office-store-jobs-1472743429) about 7,000 store accounting and invoicing positions. Those jobs, which are some of the better paying positions at Walmart, will be centralized and automated.
Exactly half are below average. By definition.
I had to account for the possibility of someone being exactly average ;)
Walmart is a good example. They are eliminating (http://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-to-cut-7-000-back-office-store-jobs-1472743429) about 7,000 store accounting and invoicing positions. Those jobs, which are some of the better paying positions at Walmart, will be centralized and automated.
Great link!
This is one of the things I really like about MMM's rhetoric. He constantly talks about being paid "absurd" amounts of money when he was in the workforce for doing what is basically a desk job.
I think that really forces people to think about what the actual, long term value of what they do is.
For me, it reinforces one major thought: I'd better get it while the getting is good.
Exactly half are below average. By definition.
I had to account for the possibility of someone being exactly average ;)
I had just figured that you must have been one of those a little below the line. :P
The uneducated become economically superfluous. The wealth gap grows to astronomical levels, with STEM career people becoming fabulously wealthy and lit majors and high school dropouts surviving slightly above poverty level on the newly instituted universal basic income.
Is this system better or worse than what we have now? The super rich will still have more money than the newly enriched STEM folks who are actually driving the economy. Instead of an elite class and a working class, well have an elite class and a working class and a new useless plebe/slave class like the ancient Romans. We're calling this progress?
Depending on how the politics unfold, it might not be so bad. Some people are ill suited to work, by handicap or illness or bad luck, and as long as those people are still full citizens then I would rather see them provided UBI than live on the streets. This part already exists (disability insurance, etc) so the only change is in extending it to other people who could be working, but choose not to (edit: or for whom economically productive work is not available). Former coal miners, factory laborers, early retirees, artists, as long as the robots can provide them health care and food/housing and internet access and voting rights, maybe they're okay with being economically "useless"?
While jobs will be lost, no one here seems to be looking at the cost of goods produced. While automation is increasing, the cost of production should be decreasing. This will go along way in healping the people left out of the job market.
While jobs will be lost, no one here seems to be looking at the cost of goods produced. While automation is increasing, the cost of production should be decreasing. This will go along way in healping the people left out of the job market.
The uneducated become economically superfluous. The wealth gap grows to astronomical levels, with STEM career people becoming fabulously wealthy and lit majors and high school dropouts surviving slightly above poverty level on the newly instituted universal basic income.
Is this system better or worse than what we have now? The super rich will still have more money than the newly enriched STEM folks who are actually driving the economy. Instead of an elite class and a working class, well have an elite class and a working class and a new useless plebe/slave class like the ancient Romans. We're calling this progress?
Depending on how the politics unfold, it might not be so bad. Some people are ill suited to work, by handicap or illness or bad luck, and as long as those people are still full citizens then I would rather see them provided UBI than live on the streets. This part already exists (disability insurance, etc) so the only change is in extending it to other people who could be working, but choose not to (edit: or for whom economically productive work is not available). Former coal miners, factory laborers, early retirees, artists, as long as the robots can provide them health care and food/housing and internet access and voting rights, maybe they're okay with being economically "useless"?
I think the key in your scenario is who has the political power. If those on the receiving end of the UBI are in power, I think this system could work well.
If political power is consolidated within the elites, not so good. But also, it wouldn't last. Revolution, off with their heads, etc.
The scenario I personally hope for would be one where most of use choose to work, just not as much as we do currently. Perhaps 10 hours a week on average. Menial or unpleasant jobs would pay very well, prestigious jobs would pay less. I do think there are limits to what kind of labor can be automated efficiently (compared to the wages a human would want) so I don't see the labor demand going to 0.
That plan alone doesn't limit the growth of the capital owning elite, though. Ultimately, I think you'd want to rein in that group through taxation or legislation.
Reign them in from what exactly?
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
Labor is only one of the production costs though.
Robots aren't likely to make materials dramatically cheaper, they still need to be mined and harvested and drilled - and some of the basic materials we use the most are either finite, or renew at a finite rate, so any increase in harvesting efficiency gets offset by decreasing supply.
And the biggest cost of living today is, for most people, housing, the price of which is determined entirely by a limited supply
(habitable places on Earth, minus the minimum land area for producing food, and hopefully minus some area for all the rest of living things)
and a virtually unlimited demand. Technology can't create new land in a popular city, so unless the trend for most people to want to live in urban areas reverses - then again, maybe if no one needs "jobs", it actually would...
Reign them in from what exactly?
Reign in the size, income, and/or wealth of that group. Through legislative changes.
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
Labor is only one of the production costs though.
Robots aren't likely to make materials dramatically cheaper, they still need to be mined and harvested and drilled - and some of the basic materials we use the most are either finite, or renew at a finite rate, so any increase in harvesting efficiency gets offset by decreasing supply.
And the biggest cost of living today is, for most people, housing, the price of which is determined entirely by a limited supply
(habitable places on Earth, minus the minimum land area for producing food, and hopefully minus some area for all the rest of living things)
and a virtually unlimited demand. Technology can't create new land in a popular city, so unless the trend for most people to want to live in urban areas reverses - then again, maybe if no one needs "jobs", it actually would...
Reign them in from what exactly?
Reign in the size, income, and/or wealth of that group. Through legislative changes.
I understand but why would we need to do that?
If you don't mind, can you tell my why you believe it would be unhealthy for society?
With regards to the uneducated vs. the STEMs, I think it's maybe a bit presumptuous that the STEMs shall inherit the Earth.
I say this as a STEM person: Nearly half of us are below average at our jobs.
It isn't hard for me to imagine that sufficiently sophisticated software could automate a large percentage of white collar work, given how much white collar work is done on computers these days.
And if we think that we can all just become computer programmers who write that software, it's worth bearing in mind that the BLS projects an 8% decline in the employment of computer programmers over the next decade.
I think the safest among us are probably those with trade-skills. An affordable robot that can come to your house and replace pipe fittings or service your refrigerator is probably further off than the aforementioned sophisticated software.
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.
I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
It's just a matter of whether or not the capitalists at the top who own the costless means of production are willing to part with their costless production at near zero levels.
Things are going to get messy.
Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
Labor is only one of the production costs though.
Robots aren't likely to make materials dramatically cheaper, they still need to be mined and harvested and drilled - and some of the basic materials we use the most are either finite, or renew at a finite rate, so any increase in harvesting efficiency gets offset by decreasing supply.
And the biggest cost of living today is, for most people, housing, the price of which is determined entirely by a limited supply
(habitable places on Earth, minus the minimum land area for producing food, and hopefully minus some area for all the rest of living things)
and a virtually unlimited demand. Technology can't create new land in a popular city, so unless the trend for most people to want to live in urban areas reverses - then again, maybe if no one needs "jobs", it actually would...
The change in residential living patterns in a post-job world would be interesting. I'd suddenly like downtown a lot less. Exburbs would be even better - self-driving car to take me to the city if I ever needed to go, but more space and privacy than a crowded city.
Exactly half are below average. By definition.
I had to account for the possibility of someone being exactly average ;)
If you don't mind, can you tell my why you believe it would be unhealthy for society?
Sure. To be clear, I believe current levels of wealth disparity (in the US) are unhealthy for society and that, were the disparity to increase, it would be more unhealthy.
Now, that doesn't mean that my ideal is for everyone to have the same wealth. I'm fully on board people benefiting from their own hard work, and see no reason to force equality on a group of clearly different people.
But there's nothing natural, special, or intrinsic about the current distribution of wealth--it's simply a byproduct of our tax framework. We, as a society, are free to modify that framework.
My reasons for wanting to keep the disparity in check are primarily practical--I want the system to be stable. As I mention above, I believe UBI requires "the people" to be in power. If the resources of the wealthy are such that they can buy outsized influence in politics, then the system looks too feudal in nature to me. this is what I mean by unhealthy.
I'm just throwing this out there as a thought exercise, so don't take it too seriously, but I might suggest that I want the system built such that the collective wealth (including the present value of the UBI annuity) of those subsisting on UBI and their own labor is greater then the collective wealth of the upper class.
If you could truly divorce politics from money, I would probably care less about wealth disparity. But wealth disparity also effects the economy and most economists seem to agree there's an optimal about of inequity (although they don't necessarily agree on the amount). Because of this conversation, I'm reading this paper right now:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437115003738
It is difficult for me to see how the current wealth disparity is simply a byproduct of our tax framework. There are numerous factors that contribute to why some people are wealthy and some are not: geography, culture, freedom, etc.
I do agree that if wealth can buy political influence, there is a huge problem.
It is difficult for me to see how the current wealth disparity is simply a byproduct of our tax framework. There are numerous factors that contribute to why some people are wealthy and some are not: geography, culture, freedom, etc.
I do agree that if wealth can buy political influence, there is a huge problem.
There may be a number of factors contributing, but the tax framework is the thing keeping it in place.
A 100% tax on income above $X would immediately "fix" it (if you think it's a problem). A 100% inheritance tax would go a long way, too.
I agree with you that there's many things that contribute to wealth disparity, but the tax framework keeps it in place, when it could "solve" it.
It is difficult for me to see how the current wealth disparity is simply a byproduct of our tax framework. There are numerous factors that contribute to why some people are wealthy and some are not: geography, culture, freedom, etc.
I do agree that if wealth can buy political influence, there is a huge problem.
There may be a number of factors contributing, but the tax framework is the thing keeping it in place.
A 100% tax on income above $X would immediately "fix" it (if you think it's a problem). A 100% inheritance tax would go a long way, too.
I agree with you that there's many things that contribute to wealth disparity, but the tax framework keeps it in place, when it could "solve" it.
That makes sense. I guess I just don't see it as a problem then. By "solving" the problem, I think we would create 10x as many problems as the one we are solving; and we won't even agree its a problem in the first place.
My point here is that we are already using that framework to set the wealth disparity level at an arbitrary level. I'm not proposing we put in a new economic control measure--just that we change the target of an existing one.
My point here is that we are already using that framework to set the wealth disparity level at an arbitrary level. I'm not proposing we put in a new economic control measure--just that we change the target of an existing one.
I guess I am just not seeing this. The lowest person would have 0 wealth (I guess they could have negative wealth through debt) and the wealthiest person could have an infinite amount of wealth. How does the tax code set the wealth disparity?
With regards to the uneducated vs. the STEMs, I think it's maybe a bit presumptuous that the STEMs shall inherit the Earth.
I say this as a STEM person: Nearly half of us are below average at our jobs.
It isn't hard for me to imagine that sufficiently sophisticated software could automate a large percentage of white collar work, given how much white collar work is done on computers these days.
And if we think that we can all just become computer programmers who write that software, it's worth bearing in mind that the BLS projects an 8% decline in the employment of computer programmers over the next decade.
I think the safest among us are probably those with trade-skills. An affordable robot that can come to your house and replace pipe fittings or service your refrigerator is probably further off than the aforementioned sophisticated software.
The safest among us are the ones that are busy buying up as much of the means of production (ie. stocks) as possible while labor is still worth something.Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.
I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
It's just a matter of whether or not the capitalists at the top who own the costless means of production are willing to part with their costless production at near zero levels.
Things are going to get messy.
Most people in this forum are on their way to being part of those capitalists at the top. I hope we don't end up being the petty nobility in the next French Revolution.Unless the cost of goods goes to 0, that won't do any good for someone with no income.I can see the cost of goods and services approaching very near zero.
Labor is only one of the production costs though.
Robots aren't likely to make materials dramatically cheaper, they still need to be mined and harvested and drilled - and some of the basic materials we use the most are either finite, or renew at a finite rate, so any increase in harvesting efficiency gets offset by decreasing supply.
And the biggest cost of living today is, for most people, housing, the price of which is determined entirely by a limited supply
(habitable places on Earth, minus the minimum land area for producing food, and hopefully minus some area for all the rest of living things)
and a virtually unlimited demand. Technology can't create new land in a popular city, so unless the trend for most people to want to live in urban areas reverses - then again, maybe if no one needs "jobs", it actually would...
Plenty of new land is getting created in cities. It's just being stacked in layers over old land.
But yes, resources that are finite mean prices will never go to 0. There's only so much copper to build the robots and only so much phosphate to grow the food those robots will be preparing for the new people of leisure.QuoteThe change in residential living patterns in a post-job world would be interesting. I'd suddenly like downtown a lot less. Exburbs would be even better - self-driving car to take me to the city if I ever needed to go, but more space and privacy than a crowded city.
A decent amount of people are living in cities for economic reasons alone, but a lot of people intrinsically want to live in a city. And a lot of people that instrinsically want to live in a city don't because it's expensive at the moment.
It's true that a ton of people would move back out into the country if income weren't a factor. Will it be a good thing, though, when so much wilderness and farmland in the world become people's yards because half the population wants 20 acres a piece?
The world only has something like 5 acres per person. So...if half of them want 20 acres....we need another planet the same size. And then the other half get zero each.
Most people in this forum are on their way to being part of those capitalists at the top. I hope we don't end up being the petty nobility in the next French Revolution.
It is difficult for me to see how the current wealth disparity is simply a byproduct of our tax framework. There are numerous factors that contribute to why some people are wealthy and some are not: geography, culture, freedom, etc.
I do agree that if wealth can buy political influence, there is a huge problem.
... There will be many that say that they earned it and that they don't want to share with the those that don't own the equities of companies. ...
The world only has something like 5 acres per person. So...if half of them want 20 acres....we need another planet the same size. And then the other half get zero each.
While technically correct, that's an optimistic scenario. Every person in the world can have five acres of land, on the condition that a whole bunch of those folks are going to get 5 acres of the Sahara desert or the middle of Antarctica.
I'll take my five in Hawaii, thanks.
Most people in this forum are on their way to being part of those capitalists at the top. I hope we don't end up being the petty nobility in the next French Revolution.
No they aren't. Almost everyone doesn't fully grasp just how extreme inequality has gotten. The much talked about "1%" is quite literally closer to the poverty line than they are to the average 0.1%
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/31/the-other-wealth-gapthe-1-vs-the-001.html
http://theweek.com/speedreads/442263/chart-americas-01-percent-now-have-much-wealth-bottom-90-percent
Luckily most Mustachians don't possess the external trappings of the rich... so I'm sure the mob would just take one look at our Toyota Tercel and continue mobbing somewhere else.
My point here is that we are already using that framework to set the wealth disparity level at an arbitrary level. I'm not proposing we put in a new economic control measure--just that we change the target of an existing one.
I guess I am just not seeing this. The lowest person would have 0 wealth (I guess they could have negative wealth through debt) and the wealthiest person could have an infinite amount of wealth. How does the tax code set the wealth disparity?
What we see now is not even close to what the future will be when technology wipes out the usefulness of labor. How do those who do not own the companies feed themselves, have shelter, etc. when they have zero opportunity to earn income and don't own the technology? Taxes, laws and other government control will potentially share the wealth from these technological advancements with all citizens of the US and probably more importantly the world. There will be many that say that they earned it and that they don't want to share with the those that don't own the equities of companies. That is where it gets weird. We either eliminate those that have no economic value or we support them. We do this as well. Very few people in the US pay enough taxes if you figure it out per person. So our taxing system is based on taxing based on a progressive system, where those that make more pay the vast majority of the total taxes collected. If we did not have that system and forced everyone to pay their "Fair Share" then many would not be able to do so and would be acting as slaves to pay as much as they could.
My point here is that we are already using that framework to set the wealth disparity level at an arbitrary level. I'm not proposing we put in a new economic control measure--just that we change the target of an existing one.
I guess I am just not seeing this. The lowest person would have 0 wealth (I guess they could have negative wealth through debt) and the wealthiest person could have an infinite amount of wealth. How does the tax code set the wealth disparity?
What we see now is not even close to what the future will be when technology wipes out the usefulness of labor. How do those who do not own the companies feed themselves, have shelter, etc. when they have zero opportunity to earn income and don't own the technology? Taxes, laws and other government control will potentially share the wealth from these technological advancements with all citizens of the US and probably more importantly the world. There will be many that say that they earned it and that they don't want to share with the those that don't own the equities of companies. That is where it gets weird. We either eliminate those that have no economic value or we support them. We do this as well. Very few people in the US pay enough taxes if you figure it out per person. So our taxing system is based on taxing based on a progressive system, where those that make more pay the vast majority of the total taxes collected. If we did not have that system and forced everyone to pay their "Fair Share" then many would not be able to do so and would be acting as slaves to pay as much as they could.
Who are all the wealthy people going to sell their products too if no one has any income? It is in their own best interest to have people able to buy their products. I believe this was talk about previously as well.
It is difficult for me to see how the current wealth disparity is simply a byproduct of our tax framework. There are numerous factors that contribute to why some people are wealthy and some are not: geography, culture, freedom, etc.
I do agree that if wealth can buy political influence, there is a huge problem.
Certainly it is much more than just taxes, but many of the ways are in fact enabled by government. Corporations, owning more land than you can personally defend, patents and copyrights, none of these things exist except that government creates and enforces them.
Even if you restrict it to geography, culture, freedom, etc, that still makes a vast amount of inequality not an issue of hardwork or talent or contributions, but rather makes it (at least largely) about luck. What possible justification is there for creating a society that enhances unearned inequality rather than correct it?
Ah yes. The idea of a consumer-based society. It was kind of discussed earlier, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
My point here is that we are already using that framework to set the wealth disparity level at an arbitrary level. I'm not proposing we put in a new economic control measure--just that we change the target of an existing one.
I guess I am just not seeing this. The lowest person would have 0 wealth (I guess they could have negative wealth through debt) and the wealthiest person could have an infinite amount of wealth. How does the tax code set the wealth disparity?
What would you like to know? There are two sides to every transaction so you really can't have a consumer based society because someone has to produce those goods. More of a consumer/producer balance driven by prices.
I sympathize, as this is a complex issue and we're having a necessarily simplified conversation. I'm hand waiving over a bunch of issues trying not to get stuck in the weeds (for example, I keep talking about wealth disparity but taxes largely affect income, not wealth).
So yes, it's not just taxes. Up page someone mentioned patents, I think that's a great example of another tool which affects wealth disparity.
The disconnect between you an I seems to be that you don't think our current system affects wealth disparity. I'm asking you to reflect on that.
We have a progressive tax system. If we made our tax system more progressive, don't you think that would tighten the spread of (post tax) incomes? And likewise, if we switched to a flat or regressive tax system, wouldn't that cause the spread in income to widen? Just look at the income inequality in different countries around the world with different tax schemes if you want real world evidence (Sweden vs the US, for example).
I don't think this is our disconnect. I agree.
The disconnect is I do not think wealth disparity is an issue at all. The wealth of another person doesn't affect me at all so why does anyone care that I may have less wealth than anyone else?
I don't think this is our disconnect. I agree.
My mistake.The disconnect is I do not think wealth disparity is an issue at all. The wealth of another person doesn't affect me at all so why does anyone care that I may have less wealth than anyone else?
The same societal tools which controlled (assisted, limited) how wealthy that someone else is also affected you. So while their level of wealth may not directly affect yours, the environment in which you both operated did. And the degree to which it rewarded their harder work/bigger brain/better genetics/more luck over you is an arbitrary one which we have picked as a society.
I don't think this is our disconnect. I agree.
My mistake.The disconnect is I do not think wealth disparity is an issue at all. The wealth of another person doesn't affect me at all so why does anyone care that I may have less wealth than anyone else?
The same societal tools which controlled (assisted, limited) how wealthy that someone else is also affected you. So while their level of wealth may not directly affect yours, the environment in which you both operated did. And the degree to which it rewarded their harder work/bigger brain/better genetics/more luck over you is an arbitrary one which we have picked as a society.
I don't think this is our disconnect. I agree.
My mistake.The disconnect is I do not think wealth disparity is an issue at all. The wealth of another person doesn't affect me at all so why does anyone care that I may have less wealth than anyone else?
The same societal tools which controlled (assisted, limited) how wealthy that someone else is also affected you. So while their level of wealth may not directly affect yours, the environment in which you both operated did. And the degree to which it rewarded their harder work/bigger brain/better genetics/more luck over you is an arbitrary one which we have picked as a society.
Well, that reward system makes more sense than one in which we reward people for being stupid and lazy.
I may be wrong, but the way I read this is: Since we operate in the same govermental/tax system (environment), that system hindered me from becoming wealthy while helping someone else become wealthy due to "harder work, bigger brain, better genetics, more luck, etc."
Also, in what way have we as a society picked an arbitrary degree to which people get rewarded based on those factors? In my opinion, society rewards those that produce the most value too society. Society rewards apple for coming up with the iPhone and the updates they add by buying them. Society, in the future, will reward whoever figures out how to cost effectively: turn solar energy into electricity, desalinate ocean water, etc.
The more I read your comment the more I am confused by it and my fist response too it for that matter. Haha
Another point would be a moral one. Is it moral for a third party to decide how much reward someone should get based on voluntary transactions?
Currency, State and national boarders, the justice system, all things that only exist in our minds because we choose to believe them.
What is your definition of unearned inequality?Any difference in wealth due, in whole or in part, to anything other than differences in talent, creativity, and work ethic. You seem to have the underlying base assumption that the reason some people are richer than others is 100% because rich people earned more wealth through innovation, while most of the others in this thread acknowledge that may be a factor sometimes, but believe it is not the only one.
My justification is that I don't think our current system enhances unearned inequality and I dont think it needs to be corrected.An entity like WalMart could not exist without government protection. WalMart makes deals with lawmakers, gets (anit-competitive) tax breaks, moves in and, due to its size and policies, is able to undercut local stores and still make a profit, eventually running them out of business. The local stores may have sourced locally, and/or paid more than minimum wage, and at the very least was owned by an individual, probably doing well for them self but not rich. Now all the employees as well as the owner have to get new jobs, and the primary employer left is... the WalMart. Any customers previously loyal to the local shop now have to shop at WalMart.
The wealth of another person doesn't affect me at all so why does anyone care that I may have less wealth than anyone else?
Most people in this forum are on their way to being part of those capitalists at the top. I hope we don't end up being the petty nobility in the next French Revolution.
No they aren't. Almost everyone doesn't fully grasp just how extreme inequality has gotten. The much talked about "1%" is quite literally closer to the poverty line than they are to the average 0.1%
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/31/the-other-wealth-gapthe-1-vs-the-001.html
http://theweek.com/speedreads/442263/chart-americas-01-percent-now-have-much-wealth-bottom-90-percent
Luckily most Mustachians don't possess the external trappings of the rich... so I'm sure the mob would just take one look at our Toyota Tercel and continue mobbing somewhere else.
You meant our bikes, right?
Your only looking at the 100 workers.
There is value in the factory owner being able to assemble the parts and pieces necessary to start the factory in the first place.
If the factory owner is not allowed to upgrade to the new robot, someone else will because they will be able to offer the same product at a lower price. This will eventually put our factory owner out of buisness costing us all of the 100 jobs.
Lets not forget about that other factory that makes the robot. If we don't allow our owner to upgrade all those jobs are lost also.
That doesn't include the 100's of millions of people that buy the product and must now pay higher prices than they otherwise would. What about the jobs that would benefit from the extra money they can spend on other products?
Money flows to what is most profitable. If our owner finds a way to make more profit other players will enter the market to get in on that profit.
Other topics:
My base assumption is not that 100% reward is based on hard work, talent, etc. People win the lottery. There is an element of luck in alot of things and your not going to be able to legislate that to fairness by getting rid of the wealth disparity.
I think Wal-mart is a good example. I agree, Wal-mart in its current form would not exist without government intervention. That's why I think the governement shouldn't be able to hand favors in the first place. The government picking winners and loser is wrong. That doesn't take away anything from Sam Walton and the systems he put in place to increase turnover and lower prices for everyone.
I absolutly think transactions are voluntary. If the cost for you to travel farther away for cheaper food exceeds the prices at our 2-3 stores you should be thankful those stores are there because if they weren't you would be paying even more. Maybe you could start your own small store, keep overhead low and offer even lower prices to your community.
You housing and apartment example is silly to me. Yes it is hard to save money. Yes it is easier to grow wealth if you have it. I guess I dont understand your point?
The Fed can print as many dollars as they want so they are technically infinite. Reguardless, the fact that someone is wealthy does not mean I am less wealthy. What do they do with their money? Some gets spent on goods and services. Some gets invested in stocks and bonds which fuels innovation and growth. The money isn't stagnant, it continues to move through the economy.
If someone gets rich through market distorting government actions that is wrong. We should limit the ability of the government to do these things.
I think I responded to every one of your points and I very much appreciate the discussion. Thank you.
I think I responded to every one of your points and I very much appreciate the discussion. Thank you.
Your only looking at the 100 workers.
There is value in the factory owner being able to assemble the parts and pieces necessary to start the factory in the first place.
If the factory owner is not allowed to upgrade to the new robot, someone else will because they will be able to offer the same product at a lower price.
This will eventually put our factory owner out of buisness costing us all of the 100 jobs.
Lets not forget about that other factory that makes the robot. If we don't allow our owner to upgrade all those jobs are lost also.
That doesn't include the 100's of millions of people that buy the product and must now pay higher prices than they otherwise would.
You mean all the other products that are also made by robots, (or outsourced if its cheaper)?
What about the jobs that would benefit from the extra money they can spend on other products?
My base assumption is not that 100% reward is based on hard work, talent, etc. People win the lottery. There is an element of luck in alot of things and your not going to be able to legislate that to fairness by getting rid of the wealth disparity.
I think Wal-mart is a good example. I agree, Wal-mart in its current form would not exist without government intervention. That's why I think the governement shouldn't be able to hand favors in the first place. The government picking winners and loser is wrong.
That doesn't take away anything from Sam Walton and the systems he put in place to increase turnover and lower prices for everyone.
I absolutly think transactions are voluntary. If the cost for you to travel farther away for cheaper food exceeds the prices at our 2-3 stores you should be thankful those stores are there because if they weren't you would be paying even more.
Not if I don't have the capital to start my own robot factory or a factory in China.
Maybe you could start your own small store, keep overhead low and offer even lower prices to your community.
It is hard to save money BECAUSE the government defends land deeds. It is easier to grow wealth if you have it BECAUSE of that, plus the issuance of corporate charters. If the government only recognized the right of a person to own the land they personally lived and/or worked on, then it would be very east to buy your own home, and therefor to save money and begin accumulating wealth. If no (or very limited) corporate charters were issued, it would be much easier to start a comptetive small business.
You housing and apartment example is silly to me. Yes it is hard to save money. Yes it is easier to grow wealth if you have it. I guess I dont understand your point?
The Fed can print as many dollars as they want so they are technically infinite.
Reguardless, the fact that someone is wealthy does not mean I am less wealthy.
What do they do with their money? Some gets spent on goods and services. Some gets invested in stocks and bonds which fuels innovation and growth. The money isn't stagnant, it continues to move through the economy.
If someone gets rich through market distorting government actions that is wrong.
We should limit the ability of the government to do these things.
So uh....when all the factories upgrade they start competing on price....and the $4 million additional profit goes away and society benefits from lower prices. Yay. Problem solved. We already have anti-monopoly and anti-collusion laws. So the above will happen. If it doesn't...then there's likely either price collusion which is illegal or someone has established a monopoly, which is also already illegal in most advanced countries. So uh...problem of the $4 million profit already solved using existing laws?
Problem of 1 robot repair man and 99 unemployed people. Not solved so much.
Problem of 1 robot repair man and 99 unemployed people. Not solved so much.But see, that's my point: that's the same problem.
I do not believe that government intervention is the only way people get rich. I personally know people that are wealthy in spite of government intervention, not because of it.
I am glad we agree on one thing. Haha. It is much harder to respond on a phone vs a desktop.
If the rate of increased productivity was really passed on to consumers via lower prices, then everything would get cheaper and cheaper, and the cost of living would decrease. In reality we always see inflation. Sometimes faster than others, but overall the price of goods goes up.
Robots now unbeatable in tic tac toe.
(https://i.imgur.com/GTk0h37.gif)
Looking at household income data doesn't paint an accurate picture. Households vary by size across incomes over time. It's much better to look at real income per cap.
The cost of living does typically decrease over time when ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION.
Inflation isn't caused by greedy people raising prices. It's caused by an ever increasing money supply and the way the federal reserve runs the monetary system since moving to FIAT currency.I agree completely that this is a significant part of it, though (in theory) the Fed is supposed to balance the increase in money supply to more or less match the increase in GDP, with some wiggle room to affect interest rates (and therefore growth).
Here's an example http://inflationdata.com/articles/2013/03/21/food-price-inflation-1913/ (http://inflationdata.com/articles/2013/03/21/food-price-inflation-1913/) Yeah...food prices are way up because of inflation...you know what else is way up...up even more? INCOME.I already posted charts in my last post, showing inflation adjusted income being flat or even negative for a majority (about 60%) of the population. There is also the one directly above, with average wages over time.
Popular comparisons that are easy to find data for are things like housing, cars and gas. Those are going to show that those things now cost more. But that's not really comparing apples to apples whereas looking at food literally is. Houses now are way bigger, better insulated, etc.New houses are bigger, yes. Houses built in the 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, back to 1900 and before still exist, mostly at thier original sizes, and are generally more expensive now then when they were new, even adjusted for inflation.
Robots now unbeatable in tic tac toe.
(https://i.imgur.com/GTk0h37.gif)
I had to watch it twice, then couldn't help laughing.
Well played, Robot.
Sorry I didn't directly answer that question. In the second scenario everyone is worse off because it can't happen unless the government owns the means of production and that had turned out poorly everywhere (Russia comes to mind).?? Government imposes many rules on employers today without owning the means of production.
If our owner automates and shifts worker schedules to no additional profit someone else will eliminate those workers and undercut our owner by passing off those profits.Not if everyone else was held to the same expectations.
Yes it does. Not looking at the bigger picture causes you to only look at the 100 jobs and not 1000 jobs your plan eliminates due to second order effects.I addressed those 2nd order effects, and they point to those other 1000 jobs also being replaced by robots.
Yes we should get rid of min wage, OSHA, etc. Unions/collective bargaining can hand these issues just fine. We would not look like Beijing because the American people would demand cleaner products.the EPA is HOW American's demand cleaner products!! One person alone can not change corporate business practices. So we collectively vote in governments that will act on our behalf, and force cleaner products to be produced. The People of the US, via government that they elect, have collectively created OSHA. You think unions alone could have the same effect with no government, you really need to learn more about the history of labor in this country...
No one would buy robots with no additional profit motive.And no one would ever donate to charity, or help anyone if they weren't being paid. No one would ever vote for a tax increase that affects them personally, and everyone would commit murder if only it was profitable and they could get away with it.
By you suggesting the owner is getting rich at the expense of the 100 you are once again ignoring second order effects. You are choosing to protect the workers at the expense of the hundreds of millions of people that would benefit through lower prices.Prices don't drop as fast as wages do, when this scenario is played out among every company at once.
Where did you get the idea that in "perfect competition" profit margins are zero?Um, Adam Smith, the Father of Economics?
Why would anyone produce anything is they couldn't make money doing it?Salary is not part of profit. Profit is what is left over after paying everyone's salary. Everyone includes management. So each person is still making money.
Competition drives down pricesExactly. And perfect competition drives down prices exactly to the point where supply and demand meet, and margins are exactly zero.
I agree that unearned income should not be taxed less than labor income. I would get rid of all taxes and institute a national sales tax and a profit tax which puts corporate profit tax liability directly on the shareholders to pay. I believe I have said this elsewhere.Hmm, interesting idea. I'd want to see some numbers before deciding whether to vote for it.
Please tell me what true freedom is? If there are no stores you only option is to grow your own food. That one option doesn't sound like a whole lot of freedom based on your implied definition.Why is the alternative to a handful of nationwide chains a lack of any stores? I'm suggesting ending corporate mergers, and going back to having tens of thousands of individually owned retailers and factories and everything else, not ending all business!
Just because they would be worthless doesn't mean we can't print money forever.Well, yeah, ok, but that isn't creating new value. What is your point? We could launch nuclear missiles. We could burn all remaining forests. We could do anything.
The problem is you still think money is real. Money is nothing more than a promise for claims on future goods. The government can change that in a instant.not if their goal (as elected representatives, and as human members of society themselves) they want to make life better, instead of worse.
What I am saying is that the wealthy are not hoarding money to your detriment. Unless they have $100 bills under there mattress, that money is out in the economy being used for productive purposes. It is providing loans for small businesses, mortgages for people, etc.It would be out there doing the same thing if it was distributed among the other 99.99% of people, it would just also be buying them all more goods and services along the way.
I do not believe that government intervention is the only way people get rich. I personally know people that are wealthy in spite of government intervention, not because of it.Show me anyone who got rich without using any form of currency. Who never held a land title deed, or a corporate charter, or a stock certificate. Who never used a road or telecommunications network. Maybe if they inherited it - but wait, no, then they would sill have used at least currency, and probably FDIC insurance and/or stocks or bonds.
I am glad we agree on one thing. Haha. It is much harder to respond on a phone vs a desktop.Fair :)
Robots now unbeatable in tic tac toe.
(https://i.imgur.com/GTk0h37.gif)
Our time is short.
To control labor to that level...All we needed to end the standard of 80-100 hour work weeks was to institute overtime laws after 40 hours.
Based on your definition all discoveries for the rest of time are the result of government.No, but all patents are.
Many salary workers put in over 40 hours a weeks without overtime. So to say labor rules eliminated 80-100 hr work weeks is false.
What is the appropriate amount of hours to work? And at what end goal? Should someone be allowed to decided how many hours another person is allowed to work and for what wage? If we limited the work week to xx hours we could have a job for everyone. Except not everyone has to skills necessary. If we limit brain surgeons hours do we even have enough people capable? Those changes would cause a huge hit to efficiency and productivity which I believe would leave everyone worse off.
Many salary workers put in over 40 hours a weeks without overtime. So to say labor rules eliminated 80-100 hr work weeks is false.
Based on your definition all discoveries for the rest of time are the result of government. Really we should say thanks to that cave man that began using fire for his benefit. In reality all new discoveries are based off the advances of the past and people operate with whatever resources are available at the time. That doesn't mean that their discoveries are not theirs.
Your scenario won't work because there is plenty of history to showing it won't work. To control labor to that level you will need to control imports and ultimately prices. Every instance where that level of control has been tried, it's ultimately ended by leaving people it was designed to help worse off than before.
It may be that you think I'm talking about a larger change then I am. Let me try again.For wage earners our tax rates are plenty progressive, but it they not nearly as progressive for the truly wealthy (individuals pay 15% tax on capital gains / qualified dividends). Of course if one considers the corporate taxes paid before dividends or reinvestment in capital, the effective tax rate on corporate profits may be similar to the effective tax rates on the highest wage earners; but even the lowest income shareholder effectively pays their share of the corporate tax.
I'm not saying the system simply hindered you and assisted someone else, and that's the only reason they have more money. People's work ethic, brains, genetics, etc are why they do better than others. I'm not arguing we try to change that, only that we tweak the system which affects the degree to which they are rewarded for those things.
Imagine two people, A and B, living in the the society.
A is a good employee and diligent, but not exceptionally so.
B is a brilliant, hard working person who creates a whole new industry through their technical and business innovation.
I want B to be rewarded for their efforts more than A, as I'm sure you do too. But it isn't a binary choice of rewarding someone for their accomplishments or not; we also must make choices (as a society) that affect how well they will be rewarded.
Let's say A has a job making $50,000 a year. And B founds a company that makes him $50,000,000 a year. now imagine three different tax situations:
1. A flat tax of 20% of each person's income.
2. A progressive tax system which taxes A's salary at 15% and B's salary at 40%.
3. A even more progressive system which taxes A's salary at 0% and B's at 70%.
Holding everything else constant, it's obvious that the gap in their post tax income will be largest in situation 1 and smallest in situation 3.
In the US we are currently closest to situation 2, but in the past have had marginal income tax rates higher than situation 3. I don't see an argument for why situation 2 is better, or in some intrinsic way more right, than situation 3 (or vice versa).
So, since we're already using societal tools to affect that gap, why should it be off the table to modify the settings of those tools?
Many salary workers put in over 40 hours a weeks without overtime. So to say labor rules eliminated 80-100 hr work weeks is false.Labor laws changed it from 80-100 hours being the default for everyone to anything above 40 being an exception for a few particular, usually very highly compensated, positions.
What is the appropriate amount of hours to work?It would make sense to tie the point of overtime requirements to increases in productivity. If productivity per worker has increased 40 fold since 1940, we might be at 1 hour a week today.
And at what end goal?The equal distribution of the gains in productivity to everyone in society.
Should someone be allowed to decided how many hours another person is allowed to work and for what wage?No. Just like today. The government dictates that employers must pay extra after. a certain number of hours. There is no law against accepting overtime, and there is no law against taking a 2nd job. Aside from minimum wage, there is no dictation of wages - however, the more jobs are limited, the lower wages fall, the more that labor is limited, the higher they go. Simple supply and demand. Overtime laws create more positions, raising average wages without any need to dictate what employers pay.
If we limited the work week to xx hours we could have a job for everyone.Agreed! I didn't even say that part, but yeah, that's the idea.
Except not everyone has to skills necessary. If we limit brain surgeons hours do we even have enough people capable?I for one don't want an exhausted brain surgeon who works 100 hours a week and never gets enough sleep, never mind recreation.
Those changes would cause a huge hit to efficiency and productivity which I believe would leave everyone worse off.You "believe" it, based on your ideology. All the data suggests differently - the 0.1% would be "worse" off (although, one can lead just as nice a life as a multimillionaire as a billionaire, so it wouldn't really make them any worse off) - but most of us (and especially people poorer than most of us) would be a lot better off if that wealth concentrated at the top were distributed more equally
Many salary workers put in over 40 hours a weeks without overtime. So to say labor rules eliminated 80-100 hr work weeks is false.
Sounds like an argument for more regulation, not less...
QuoteWhat is the appropriate amount of hours to work?It would make sense to tie the point of overtime requirements to increases in productivity. If productivity per worker has increased 40 fold since 1940, we might be at 1 hour a week today.
QuoteWhat is the appropriate amount of hours to work?It would make sense to tie the point of overtime requirements to increases in productivity. If productivity per worker has increased 40 fold since 1940, we might be at 1 hour a week today.
Why should we tie overtime to an arbitrary number of hours at an arbitrary point of time? I could see many arguments for incetivizing more working hours, but why this one?
QuoteWhat is the appropriate amount of hours to work?It would make sense to tie the point of overtime requirements to increases in productivity. If productivity per worker has increased 40 fold since 1940, we might be at 1 hour a week today.
Why should we tie overtime to an arbitrary number of hours at an arbitrary point of time? I could see many arguments for incetivizing more working hours, but why this one?
Now you're not even reading what I write before you respond! I didn't say "arbitrary". I gave a very specific, relevant metric: average productivity per worker.
This is measurable. It has grown, dramatically, beginning with the industrial revolution, with another dramatic spike with the invention of automation and computers
Your chart showing productivity and real income is false. Look into the data. They use a different deflator for one thing. A paper was written debunking that entire chart. If I can find it later I'll post it.
Ford didn't increase wages for productivity, he had high turnover and was spending too much money on training. So he cut his costs.
To say instituting labor hour rules help stop the Great Depression is lunacy! A combination of fed loosening monetary policy, the reduction in new deal policies because of the war and the removal of millions of Americans from the labor force to fight the war stopped the Great Depression. It was the government and fed that made the Great Depression last as long as it did. When the stock market crashed in '29 unemployment peaked two months later at a little over 9%. For the next 6 months unemployment declined and in June reached a low of around 6%. In that month the government intervened in the market and the unemployment rate shot up to over 10% and remained there for the entirety of the thirties.
"Bye bye Mr. New Deal, Hello Mr. Win The War." - FDR
Why do you choose the 1800's to start your productivity discounting of labor hours? Let's use the cave man as the start. Maybe we will be down to everyone working :15 minutes a week.
I did not intend to be unclear. You began with "Productivity since 1940" - this was the arbitrary number I was referring to. Why should society be held to 1940's level of productivity (e.g. X widgets a week, which would take 40 hours at that time, and 1 hour at this time)? Why shouldn't society embrace that now thanks to productivity increases, food costs have been falling and more luxury goods and services are available for almost every subset of the population, for the same amount of work! Why should we decide 1940, or 1800 or whatever, rather than enjoying the fruits of that increased productivity?
Your charts are yearly smoothed averages. The one I think it quarterly? I'm not sure but those charts aren't showing the whole picture.National economy sized changes don't take effect in a month. Looking at the stock markets daily ups and downs does not give you more meaningful data than long term averages, and unemployment is no different.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was the first government intervention instituted to stop the Great Depression.
Ford didn't take a huge hit to efficiency by by increasing wages...The reduction in hours and increase in pay incentivized more work and more productivity.Yes, that's what I said. I don't know what point you are trying to argue.
As I said before, overtime laws do not mandate a maximum number of hours a person can work. People can, and do, choose to take overtime all the time. There is also no law that says you can't take 2,or 3, or 4 jobs if you want. If you want to work 110 hours a week, government won't stop you.
Yes we are on the MMM boards and I agree spending more time with family and not working is amazing but we should not be forcing other people to do what we think is amazing. The government should not be allowed to tell someone "You cannot work that many hours for the amount of money you mutually agreed apon."
Now the robots and technology will be controlling the boarders.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-lie-detecting-kiosk-future.html
The White House recently released a report titled Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/EMBARGOED%20AI%20Economy%20Report.pdf) (PDF). Lots of information on productivity, the impact of AI over the short/long term, what policies should be put in place (which of course will change next month with the new administration), etc.
Surprisingly enough, no one has mentioned this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685
Well now it is getting interesting!I'm too scared to click the link!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women
Surprisingly enough, no one has mentioned this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685)
Thanks for the link, we did discuss this a bit back in September. Harmless link, but some may have chosen not click on it.Well now it is getting interesting!I'm too scared to click the link!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women)
Another article on a much less titillating subject which discussed previously upthread: robotic trucks for mining, already going on as we speak.
A lot of the same old same old, but it's fascinating to watch this technology continue to roll out over the last year or so. The point about how robotic drivers tend to produce a lot less wear and tear on equipment, resulting in reduced maintenance downtime (and costs) was also new to me. Presumably the same will be true for semis as companies like Otto start automating trucks driving on highways instead of only at mine sites.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603170/mining-24-hours-a-day-with-robots/
Surprisingly enough, no one has mentioned this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685)
Thanks for the link, we did discuss this a bit back in September. Harmless link, but some may have chosen not click on it.Well now it is getting interesting!I'm too scared to click the link!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women)
Yeah, no matter how good the tech gets, that's probably one of the few professions where real humans will always have a job
Another article on a much less titillating subject which discussed previously upthread: robotic trucks for mining, already going on as we speak.
A lot of the same old same old, but it's fascinating to watch this technology continue to roll out over the last year or so. The point about how robotic drivers tend to produce a lot less wear and tear on equipment, resulting in reduced maintenance downtime (and costs) was also new to me. Presumably the same will be true for semis as companies like Otto start automating trucks driving on highways instead of only at mine sites.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603170/mining-24-hours-a-day-with-robots/
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
Aye, but in this case it isn't just about the sensation or realism, its also just the principal. There have been sex toys that can do what no human man can ever possibly come close to for well over a century, yet a great number of women seem to prefer living human men anyway. Even if you aren't trying for a baby, in a way in't just sexier if she's fertile, and even if you can't feel the difference, its sexier without a condom. Even if the robot was 100% indistinguishable from a real person, simply knowing intellectually that one's partner was human would add something to the experience, something potentially worth paying extra for.Surprisingly enough, no one has mentioned this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-brothels-could-soon-become-8684685)
Thanks for the link, we did discuss this a bit back in September. Harmless link, but some may have chosen not click on it.Well now it is getting interesting!I'm too scared to click the link!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/549361/Sex-robot-cyborg-cafe-oral-sex-fellatio-espresso-humans-doll-luxury-erotic-toy-naked-women)
Yeah, no matter how good the tech gets, that's probably one of the few professions where real humans will always have a job
I no longer believe there is a limit on "how good" tech can get that I can comprehend.
Even if the robot was 100% indistinguishable from a real person, simply knowing intellectually that one's partner was human
Yeah, no matter how good the tech gets, that's probably one of the few professions where real humans will always have a job
And what should I invest in that cannot be done by a robot? Housing? Rental properties?
So how do we solve this robot problem exactly? Or what do you do with all the people?
And what should I invest in that cannot be done by a robot? Housing? Rental properties?
Even if the robot was 100% indistinguishable from a real person, simply knowing intellectually that one's partner was human
I think there's an inherent contradiction in the above statement.
So how do we solve this robot problem exactly? Or what do you do with all the people?
And what should I invest in that cannot be done by a robot? Housing? Rental properties?
There is no robot problem per se. There is going to be massive change. How you and we structure our lives, laws, governments, etc. is going to determine what society is going to be like in the future. The laws, taxation, and social welfare of today will not work in the near future.
As you are structuring your retirement life the question becomes; "Do you have or are you going to have kids?"
Even if the robot was 100% indistinguishable from a real person, simply knowing intellectually that one's partner was human
I think there's an inherent contradiction in the above statement.
I was making the, admittedly flawed, assumption that there was no deceit involved.
Same with counterfeit anything, antiques, collectibles, currency, as long as people know which is which, the real thing is more valuable, no matter how good the counterfeit is.
Unless as you say there is no difference at all then no one can tell. If it's 100% the same how exactly can you tell what the real more valuable thing is. You can't.
Unless as you say there is no difference at all then no one can tell. If it's 100% the same how exactly can you tell what the real more valuable thing is. You can't.
people would be willing to pay a premium so they didn't have to feel like any real humans were being exploited.
Now the robots and technology will be controlling the boarders.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-lie-detecting-kiosk-future.html
Awesome! I like the idea of more controlled safer boarders
A replicant-style robot that successfully fools you (and itself) into believing it is human bypasses all of these rules.
Now the robots and technology will be controlling the boarders.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-lie-detecting-kiosk-future.html
Awesome! I like the idea of more controlled safer boarders
Boarders don't follow rules, dude.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/young-surfboarder-summer-vacation-59341094.jpg)
A replicant-style robot that successfully fools you (and itself) into believing it is human bypasses all of these rules.
This.
Another the thing: you all are assuming meatspace.
In a virtual reality that's indistinguishable from real reality, no one can tell the difference.
And you can't say you'd be able to tell, because then it's not sufficiently advanced. If it can hit all the same nerves, stimulate the same areas, etc (including the touch, sounds, everything) to where you're immersed and don't know, there's (tautologically) no way to tell.
I think there's a good chance we're already in such a world, and the "real" sex you think you're having is simulated.
A replicant-style robot that successfully fools you (and itself) into believing it is human bypasses all of these rules.
This.
Another the thing: you all are assuming meatspace.
In a virtual reality that's indistinguishable from real reality, no one can tell the difference.
And you can't say you'd be able to tell, because then it's not sufficiently advanced. If it can hit all the same nerves, stimulate the same areas, etc (including the touch, sounds, everything) to where you're immersed and don't know, there's (tautologically) no way to tell.
I think there's a good chance we're already in such a world, and the "real" sex you think you're having is simulated.
and I think we have just about arrived at the plot to Total Recall.
A replicant-style robot that successfully fools you (and itself) into believing it is human bypasses all of these rules.
This.
Another the thing: you all are assuming meatspace.
In a virtual reality that's indistinguishable from real reality, no one can tell the difference.
And you can't say you'd be able to tell, because then it's not sufficiently advanced. If it can hit all the same nerves, stimulate the same areas, etc (including the touch, sounds, everything) to where you're immersed and don't know, there's (tautologically) no way to tell.
I think there's a good chance we're already in such a world, and the "real" sex you think you're having is simulated.
Well I think there is a distinction to be made between A) physical interactions (or virtual ones) where a robot and real person would be indistinguishable if no one told you which was which (a sort of sexual turing test), but where people are still able to choose one or the other as a result of some sort of truth in labeling law or equivalent, and B) a world where anyone you interact with (sexually or otherwise) could be a robot and you have no way of telling.
I'm sorry, did you just suggest that maybe we are in the Matrix?
The thing about that theory, while philosophically conceivable, there is no motivation to carry it out. No one benefits from that arrangement that couldn't get the same or better results more simply.
I'm sorry, did you just suggest that maybe we are in the Matrix?
The thing about that theory, while philosophically conceivable, there is no motivation to carry it out. No one benefits from that arrangement that couldn't get the same or better results more simply.
No, the Matrix motivation is obviously silly.
Again, you are presuming meat space. Like you are a real body attached to a battery. Obviously dumb.
Tell me how you get the same or better benefits of a simulation that requires the simulants to think they're real than running one?
I.e. if I want to model the real world, in its FULL complexity, wouldn't I need the beings in it to be the same as us, and thus conscious?
Pretend I have enough computing power to model every atom and interaction, from the big bang on, within this world (impossible, but pretend). Wouldn't the beings within that simulation think they're real? How can I correctly model it if they don't?
Explain to me how you can do that more simply.
I see no reason you exist as a body (or I) necessarily.
Look up Nick Bostrom.
Say some brilliant computer scientist was able to simulate every atom from the big bang on. It would take a universe worth of energy to run, just like the actual universe does. To what end, other than perhaps entertainment?
My question is what purpose would it serve to create such a simulation in the first place.
We have self-replicating DNA that ultimately creates motivation for doing all the things we do.
In this hypothetical scenario, there is no (apparent) ultimate underlying biochemical, ultimately physics, principal driving the counter-entropy force of excess energy used to increase order.
Say some brilliant computer scientist was able to simulate every atom from the big bang on. It would take a universe worth of energy to run, just like the actual universe does.
To what end, other than perhaps entertainment?
If you just want to posit trippy what-ifs for the sake of mind blowingness
Some possible ways to determine if we're living in a simulation:
Look for signs of optimizations/short cuts in the simulation:
Is there a maximum speed?
Is there a minimum size?
Is there a limit as to determining an object's position and momentum?
etc...
[In response to someone saying it'd be impossible to simulate something so complex without tons of bugs]
Whose to say there aren't bugs? As a physics major in college I could certainly be convinced many aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics could be considered bugs. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light? Oops. Quantum entanglement and superposition? We'll fix those in version 2.5. Hopefully by version 4 we can finally get the world to run by what you call Newtonian physics with no exceptions.
And not a very good simulation at that. Whoever wrote it couldn't even synchronize time, even at a local level. And that hard coded top speed limit? Because "No one in there is ever going to need to go that fast anyway" I bet. And the way it shits itself when you put too much mass in one place? Very sloppy! It's probably just the N-Dimensional equivalent of a potato battery, proudly displayed at "Take your Kindred-Daughter to work day", for a very inefficient method of converting hydrogen into plutonium.
It would explain quantum effects. Kinda like looking at the resolution limit of the simulation. Like looking reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally close at your monitor and noticing that all the colors are just reeeeeeeeeally tiny LEDs in RG and B and that none of those other colors really existed.
Say some brilliant computer scientist was able to simulate every atom from the big bang on. It would take a universe worth of energy to run, just like the actual universe does. To what end, other than perhaps entertainment?
Isn't this question equally valid when asked of our current real universe? To what end? Does it have a purpose? Does it need one?
Why is this question interesting when asked about a simulation but not when asked about a physical universe? Do we need a hypothesized external intelligence to give this existence meaning?
Difference is, someone would have had to made a conscious deliberate effort to make a simulation. In order to do that, they would need a specific motivation. If the universe is just the product of random physics, then there need not be any purpose.
In order to actually model all of reality, you also have to model the computer programs. So what happens when you try to model computer programs that model the universe? They would have to also have accurate models of the universe - including of themselves... endlessly recursive (reminds me of the full video game within Day of the Tentacle). It would require infinitely complex processing.
http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are-already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/
Difference is, someone would have had to made a conscious deliberate effort to make a simulation. In order to do that, they would need a specific motivation. If the universe is just the product of random physics, then there need not be any purpose.
I think I wasn't clear enough. If our universe only has meaning because an alien programmer designed, it why does the alien's universe have any meaning?
This is the same argument that befalls all supernatural causation stories. "What made the universe? God. What made God? Nothing, God just is." Why can't the universe just be, and we can cut out the middle man? Why the need to superimpose the intermediary step? You haven't really answered anything if your answer still defaults to "just because" upon closer inspection.
In this case, why the need to superimpose the alien programmer to give our universe hypothetical purpose, if his universe is equally meaningless?
Bakari:QuoteIn order to actually model all of reality, you also have to model the computer programs. So what happens when you try to model computer programs that model the universe? They would have to also have accurate models of the universe - including of themselves... endlessly recursive (reminds me of the full video game within Day of the Tentacle). It would require infinitely complex processing.
No, the alien programmer (AP) would "only" need to model our universes base physical laws and let the complexity build up from there - same as if it were not a simulation. AP would define gravitational laws, quantum mechanics and electromagnetic laws etc as well as the initial conditions of all the stuff in the simulation then let it run and eventually the AP could observe cave men in faded blue jeans using the internet. When I build simulations I identify the most low level widgets in the system, build those then let them interact. You can get crazy complex behavior from very simple systems interacting. basic idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(behavior) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(behavior))
This is the same argument that befalls all supernatural causation stories. "What made the universe? God. What made God? Nothing, God just is." Why can't the universe just be, and we can cut out the middle man? Why the need to superimpose the intermediary step?
on a semi-related note - my wife's first thought, when I explained the conversation and that Elon Musk buys into it (at least in theory) was: Why bother trying to protect the environment then?
The fact that our world (in whatever form it exists) has conscious individuals gives life "meaning".
A unique difference between simulations and 'reality' seems to boil down to memory. I'm not sure how you get a computer to make that final leap toward selectively remembering past events and assigning them weights and values. It is such an unpredictable variable in human influence (each individual has an unpredictable action based on how memory was stored, accessed, and ultimately the influence it has on current decisions). Humans are therefore unpredictable, but not entirely random either. Throughout our life, we become a more sophisticated user of our memories to 'self actualize', to varying degrees, but this is the ultimate test to me that I'm not living in a simulation. How could I possibly track all of the memories of my immediate family, acquaintences, friends, distant family - so as to have them exist in ways that are relatively unpredictable, but also not random.
Similar to the Uncanny Valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley), people either quickly know when real life is being faked or have a sudden replusion to a simulation close to being able to mimic real life.
Or I could wrong and I'll honestly never know (or be shunned as crazy, being the only one complaining about this bogus simulation), but that scenario really isn't worth much time debating.
This is the same argument that befalls all supernatural causation stories. "What made the universe? God. What made God? Nothing, God just is." Why can't the universe just be, and we can cut out the middle man? Why the need to superimpose the intermediary step?
on a semi-related note - my wife's first thought, when I explained the conversation and that Elon Musk buys into it (at least in theory) was: Why bother trying to protect the environment then?
Seems a valid question. There are a lot of very religious people who feel the same way: if God wants us to live here, He will ensure we don't wreck the place.
on a semi-related note - my wife's first thought, when I explained the conversation and that Elon Musk buys into it (at least in theory) was: Why bother trying to protect the environment then?
Because we have no guarantee that the programmer would, or even could, intervene in a way that we would find desirable.
In another sense, this question could be interpreted as a subvariant of the broader, more fundamental question that is generated when you extend its underlying logic to its extreme--namely, if our entire perceived-reality is merely a simulation, then why does anything that occurs inside it matter? And I think you already answered that question when you said:The fact that our world (in whatever form it exists) has conscious individuals gives life "meaning".
This variation of the question, I think, is the same as asking why anything matters if determinism is true and we have no free will (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/your-mustache-might-be-evil/msg1314016/#msg1314016) or why anything matters if all life in the universe will ultimately cease to exist (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ufologyblack-budgets-area-51-research-material-for-the-fire'd/msg927226/#msg927226).
The answer, in each case, is that nothing truly matters, except to the extent that we believe that it does. Said differently, life, objectively, has no meaning, but, subjectively, it does (or, at least, it can). So why should we bother to try to protect this world of ours if it is merely a figment of our collective perceptions? For the same reason that we should do anything to which we assign positive value: the very fact that it is something to which we assign positive value.
I don't think it is endlessly recursive. I build simulations for a living, and every single one is a simplification of a more complex system, but designed to capture the relevant characteristics and behaviors being studied....
And what answer would an atheist environmentalist tell the religious person? They don't need God for meaning. IF it is a universe created and one that could be destroyed on a whim, by God (or programmer, running a simulation) doesn't necessarily remove meaning, depending on how you define that meaning.
Because we have no guarantee that the programmer would, or even could, intervene in a way that we would find desirable.
I don't think it is endlessly recursive. I build simulations for a living, and every single one is a simplification of a more complex system, but designed to capture the relevant characteristics and behaviors being studied....
But of course! I think this is a fundamental flaw in all of the proposals that we are "likely" to be in a simulation. They are dependent on the assumption that the model would in fact capture every detail of reality.
This is why I asked about motivation earlier. In order to run an "ancestor" simulation, or a "video game", there would be absolutely no need to model individual sub-atomic particles or distant galaxies, which 99.9% of living things will never see, and the existence of which will not affect in any way - UNLESS, they really are composed of those atoms. The complexity of observed reality suggests that there is not in fact the simplification one would expect of any simulation.
What realistic scenario can we envision with good enough computers to run a complex enough simulation to do all 3 of model subatomic particles, contain a universe worth of total mass and energy, and foster consciousness - and yet lack the sophistication to be able to modify anything?
Plus a funny accent!
Brooklynguy is the intellect I want to be.
The assumption that one could model a full scale or even small scale universe breaks down with the challenges of big data computing. Try finding a median on 1 trillion data points. Ok, now try finding the median on 1 quadrillion or 1 quintillion. Even a simple operation like this does not scale.
Now try implementing gravity where every atom pulls on every atom. It won't scale.
Now, there's likely many simplifications and optimizations. But the question of whether it is computationally possible to simulate a complex universe is definitely not settled... it could be impossible.
My point about being a pointless trippy exercise is that even if it were correct, it would make absolutely no difference to our day to day lives, and it would be impossible to ever know either way.
QuoteNow, there's likely many simplifications and optimizations. But the question of whether it is computationally possible to simulate a complex universe is definitely not settled... it could be impossible.
I don't see how you can ever claim it's impossible. If it's possible model n particles for n=1 and n+1, everything else is just scaling up with a (much) bigger computer. Who's to say the next universe up isn't 10^10^10^10 times bigger than ours, and modeling our puny 10^80 particles in this little universe is child's play for an average laptop? Just because a number seems ridiculously large to you and me doesn't mean it actually is. Hell, our universe is so tiny we can actually SEE THE EDGES.
It's not just me assuming it, it's built into the premise. All of the proponents are suggesting simulations which are of actual reality, not some completely made up world. It was in your initial post on the topicI don't think it is endlessly recursive. I build simulations for a living, and every single one is a simplification of a more complex system, but designed to capture the relevant characteristics and behaviors being studied....
But of course! I think this is a fundamental flaw in all of the proposals that we are "likely" to be in a simulation. They are dependent on the assumption that the model would in fact capture every detail of reality.
What? Why would you assume this simulation you're in captures every detail of reality?
I.e. if I want to model the real world, in its FULL complexity, wouldn't I need the beings in it to be the same as us, and thus conscious?Pretend I have enough computing power to model every atom and interaction, from the big bang on, within this world (impossible, but pretend). Wouldn't the beings within that simulation think they're real? How can I correctly model it if they don't?
No idea what that string of characters is supposed to mean, nor does Google.QuoteThis is why I asked about motivation earlier. In order to run an "ancestor" simulation, or a "video game", there would be absolutely no need to model individual sub-atomic particles or distant galaxies, which 99.9% of living things will never see, and the existence of which will not affect in any way - UNLESS, they really are composed of those atoms. The complexity of observed reality suggests that there is not in fact the simplification one would expect of any simulation.
Never heard of W?BIC!, huh? With sufficient computing power, simulating everything is trivial.
And while I'm on the topic, WTF is up with the fine structure constant? This is a pure number inherent to the structure of the universe, like pi it will be the same for every alien civilization regardless of their system of counting or how they do their math and it shows up all over the field of physics in weird and unexpected places, but its value is approximately 1/137. What kind of bullshit kludge is that? That's like something a stoner would code.
My wife and I both have felt enhanced by the idea that this could be a simulation, in several ways.
You can't say what would affect someone else's life, only what has affected yours. So your first declarative sentence with "my" is fine; the second trying to apply it to everyone, I disagree with. :)
My wife and I both have felt enhanced by the idea that this could be a simulation, in several ways.
You can't say what would affect someone else's life, only what has affected yours. So your first declarative sentence with "my" is fine; the second trying to apply it to everyone, I disagree with. :)
He said "measurable" way. Besides, you would have the IDEA that this is a simulation, whether it is or not, therefor the actual fact of being a simulation has not affected you.
My point about being a pointless trippy exercise is that even if it were correct, it would make absolutely no difference to our day to day lives, and it would be impossible to ever know either way.
Right? I mean, the thought might keep Musk up at night (though he should have spent that time focusing on launching rockets on time, in my opinion) but since the fact that we're living in a simulation or controlled by a God or aliens or whatever doesn't give or remove meaning from my (simulated?) experiences.
And the answer would not affect anyone's life in any measureable way; hence my earlier comment on "You know what would really be trippy."
A) What does it matter if it changes it in a "measurable" way?*snip*
B) What beliefs can we measure the impact of, and how?
Give me an example of what you mean, because I'm not seeing how this is any different than any other belief changing your behavior.
Would the knowledge that you're part of a simulation change anything for you in your day to day life?
If yes, why?
If no, then the answer doesn't matter.
Would the knowledge that you're part of a simulation change anything for you in your day to day life?
If yes, why?
If no, then the answer doesn't matter.
One of the subplots in the novel "Reamde" was an effort to hack the algorithm that defined the location of in game gold within a MMORPG. If we are all in a simulation doing something similar becomes (theoretically) possible.
Why not just pray to Mother Earth, who could exist and borne us out of darkness, and who controls all life and all things on the planet, asking them for gold? I mean, it is (theoretically) possible.
Why not just pray to Mother Earth, who could exist and borne us out of darkness, and who controls all life and all things on the planet, asking them for gold? I mean, it is (theoretically) possible.
Or Zeus (or other invisible bearded man in the sky) who created the earth and gave life to all mortals.
If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. Yet the simulation hypothesis is a God hypothesis: An intelligence of awe-inspiring power created our universe for reasons we can speculate about but can’t entirely fathom. And, assuming this intelligence still exists, it is in some sense outside of our reality — beyond the reach of our senses — and yet, presumably, it has the power to intervene in our world. Theology has entered "secular" discourse under another name.
Alan's idea has been thought of by others (and not as the subplot to a book):
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/1352205/tech-billionaires-are-asking-scientists-for-help-to-break-humans-out-of-computer-simulation (https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/1352205/tech-billionaires-are-asking-scientists-for-help-to-break-humans-out-of-computer-simulation)
Why not just pray to Mother Earth, who could exist and borne us out of darkness, and who controls all life and all things on the planet, asking them for gold? I mean, it is (theoretically) possible.
Or Zeus (or other invisible bearded man in the sky) who created the earth and gave life to all mortals. On the bright side, some of these theories come with their own written instruction manuals on how to beat the game!
HINT: the secret cheat code is apparently "don't eat meat on Fridays."
Why not just pray to Mother Earth, who could exist and borne us out of darkness, and who controls all life and all things on the planet, asking them for gold? I mean, it is (theoretically) possible.
Why not? Well presumably you don't believe the Mother Earth existing scenario as plausible, but you do believe the "simulation" theory as plausible.
People who believe in Mother Earth are free to pray to her.
Alan's idea has been thought of by others (and not as the subplot to a book):
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/1352205/tech-billionaires-are-asking-scientists-for-help-to-break-humans-out-of-computer-simulation (https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/1352205/tech-billionaires-are-asking-scientists-for-help-to-break-humans-out-of-computer-simulation)
And my point is: that's true of every belief you hold, whether "ridiculous" or not.
Your belief in gravity has no "measurable" impact on your day-to-day life.
It may have an impact (in how you act, and rely on it--but not in a way you can measure), but other people's hokey beliefs likewise have an impact.
There is no belief that has a "measurable" impact, so of course a belief in any deity/simulation/gravity is no different.
Therefore I'm left wondering--what's your point in bringing up that it has no "measurable" impact. Of course not. So?
You missed the point of my post.
Of course beliefs have an impact.
They don't have a measurable one.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
and governs reality whether we believe in it or not.This is the key which almost everyone in this tangent has forgotten. The original comment was NOT about beliefs!
Modeling the entire universe with a one-to-one correspondence of particles - the original premise, which the assumption of simulated consciousness depends on - is inherently impossible.
If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly compressed representations: verisimilitude need extend to the narrow band of properties that we can observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be filled in ad hoc. What you see through an electron microscope needs to look unsuspicious, but you usually have no way of confirming its coherence with unobserved parts of the microscopic world. Exceptions arise when we deliberately design systems to harness unobserved microscopic phenomena that operate in accordance with known principles to get results that we are able to independently verify. The paradigmatic case of this is a computer. The simulation may therefore need to include a continuous representation of computers down to the level of individual logic elements. This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by posthuman standards.
Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.
If our universe is a simulation, I'm pretty sure they're looking at supermassive black holes and not self-organizing bits of organic carbon.
We're a fringe effect, a random ignorable anomaly in a quiet and uninteresting corner. All of the action in this simulation is currently generating Xray bursts as quantum gravity tears holes in the fabric of spacetime inside of galactic cores currently devouring other black holes spinning at relativistic speeds. Event horizons mash together every second of every day while we drive back and forth to work, converting more mass to energy in a single second than our entire solar system has been using for billions of years.
It takes a special kind of hubris to think that we are the purpose of any such simulation. Always have to put ourselves at the center of everything, don't we?
You missed the point of my post.
Of course beliefs have an impact.
They don't have a measurable one.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
You missed the point of my post.this has already been addressed directly. I'm not sure repeating the thread will help you to understand.
Of course beliefs have an impact.
They don't have a measurable one.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
You missed the point of my post.
Of course beliefs have an impact.
They don't have a measurable one.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
Do you just let go of objects in midair and seem really surprised when they fall to the ground? When doing home renovations, to you check to make sure you're not taking out too many load bearing walls all at once?
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
# of falls while behaving carelessly is a proxy
broadly
# of deaths at the Grand Canyon would be a good proxy measure
You missed the point of my post.
Of course beliefs have an impact.
They don't have a measurable one.
If you disagree, please give me the measurement of my belief in gravity.
Do you just let go of objects in midair and seem really surprised when they fall to the ground? When doing home renovations, to you check to make sure you're not taking out too many load bearing walls all at once?
No one claimed to be able to measure beliefs. Only the effects those beliefs have upon a person.
doesn't change the consequences of their actions in a measurable way.
No one claimed to be able to measure beliefs. Only the effects those beliefs have upon a person.
Great!
Then you can measure the effect one's belief in Zeus has on their actions.
You can't have it both ways, saying that one belief (gravity) is measurable and the other (deity) isn't.
Your claim was that one's belief:Quotedoesn't change the consequences of their actions in a measurable way.
Now you are saying the opposite.
Does ones belief in Zeus change their actions such that you can measure it?
I said yes, you said no. Then we switched to gravity, and you switched to yes. So which is it?
Ah, I think I found something that was bothering me about your arguments Bakari. And it does actually go back to my ideas regarding AI and the singularity. You appear to be arguing the idea of a simulation based on our current understanding of what is possible (ie bits == subatomic particles). From my understanding of the nature of the singularity, it quite literally means that when we get some self-improving AIs, progress will happen faster than we can understand.
I personally believe that (and this is a super risky belief /s) there are a lot about this particular (simulation of the) universe that we don't understand yet. I suspect that a fair amount of the limitations we currently understand are due to being 3 dimensional beings, with a very difficult paradigm to grasp when we go out of that space. String theory, quantum mechanics (I seriously cannot see how we can't get unlimited optical speeds without infrastructure based on entanglement), there is a huge amount of opportunity to challenge our assumptions.I don't see how this changes anything. If reality is even more complex than we realize, than that is even MORE for the computer to have to model. Anything which we can ever discover is something the computer would have to model in order for us to discover it. So there is no way to allow the computer additional means of processing without proportionately increasing the work it has to do.
If our universe is a simulation, I'm pretty sure they're looking at supermassive black holes and not self-organizing bits of organic carbon.
We're a fringe effect, a random ignorable anomaly in a quiet and uninteresting corner. All of the action in this simulation is currently generating Xray bursts as quantum gravity tears holes in the fabric of spacetime inside of galactic cores currently devouring other black holes spinning at relativistic speeds. Event horizons mash together every second of every day while we drive back and forth to work, converting more mass to energy in a single second than our entire solar system has been using for billions of years.
It takes a special kind of hubris to think that we are the purpose of any such simulation. Always have to put ourselves at the center of everything, don't we?
It would be possible for the person running the simulation to become aware of this life, but it would have to have a significant effect on the thing the simulation was built to study.Which, of course, we don't, and never will, so...
If the base level programmer lives in an environment that bears no relation to reality as we know it, we can not make ANY assumptions about how it would behave. They are no longer "post-human" - that very concept assumes that something in any way "human" actually exists. This is not a reasonable assumption. It comes from starting with our current reality, and extrapolating forward, but if this isn't real, there is no reason to base our assumptions on our own experience.
You can not "conclude that we are more likely to be living in an ancestor simulation created by a posthuman civilization than to be living in actual base reality" without asserting that there is such a thing as human and such a thing as civilization, which, if our reality is a simulation, are not safe assumptions. Therefore the very premise itself makes it impossible to assign any probability.
Nearly everyone's response to this is that base reality could be far larger and more complex, but that in itself means our reality does NOT resemble actual reality.
Nearly everyone's response to this is that base reality could be far larger and more complex, but that in itself means our reality does NOT resemble actual reality.
Why does it mean that? Why can't a simulation resemble actual reality without replicating the entirety of reality? If we eventually create an ancestor simulation that simulates our reality in every way except that it represents only a fraction--even a minuscule fraction--of what we take to be the observable universe, that would sufficiently resemble our reality to avoid the unsoundness of reasoning you are describing.
if the goal were to watch the behaviors of simulated consciousness
I have a theory (which, admittedly, is limited by my understanding of my own reality) that Bostrom left out another possibility that a civilization advances such that they can simulate reality for one of their horde. Just as any advancement only requires Serial Number One, once you convince a human that they are conscious in your fabricated reality, then you kick off a fractal pattern. We could be in a simulation, but it is actually more likely than not that some consciousness created it and it is one of many experiences. This whole idea that people live in simulations, or become extinct, smacks of a lack of imagination.
(as an aside, I wrote quite a bit about what might be possible in a fractal 'universe' of realities, and how it fits with Quantum Mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) and String Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory). I think Bakari has done good work discussing this and I appreciate his efforts!)
Guy gives some reasons why he doesn't think strong AI is anything to worry about.
He also gives some reasons why he thinks so many smart people's thinking that strong AI is something to worry about is itself something to worry about.
I agree, fascinating read, thanks for posting. Finding a way to fit an "Argument from Emus" into my personal or professional writing is now on my list of goals for 2017.
*head desk*
So I should be paying social security for my neato (the bigger, smarter alternative to a roomba)?
Thanks for posting!
The distinction between "percent of complete jobs we could replace with automation" and "percent of working hours we could replace with automation" is an interesting one I hadn't thought about much before, but I'm not sure it makes as much of a difference as the author is assuming. If you replace 50% of the work people in a particular job currently do in a day, either everyone works half as much, or people double the time they spend on the other 50% of their job entails, become twice as productive, and (assuming fixed demand for the type of work they do) half of them get fired.
Based on recent history, it seems like the second outcome is a lot more likely than the first. At least assuming our society, politics, and economy doesn't change in any other way (which is a dangerous assumption whenever we start about automation replacing jobs on a massive scale).
What I meant was that whether automation completely replaces 50% of the jobs, or replaces 50% of the work done by 100% of the jobs, it's still possible to end up with half as many people working the same amount as before and half the people being unemployed.Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?Competition puts pressure on prices, so some of the efficiency gains will lower consumer prices.
If you work less hours, that means you will be paid less. So even an optimistic scenario where employers prefer to hire twice as many people to work half days (for some reason), those people will be earning less money relative to today. Probably much less.
I think we are seeing different shades of meaning in the word "expect." From the definitions that pop up in google, here are two that illustrate the divergence:
(A) "require (someone) to fulfill an obligation" ie "we expect employees to show up to work on time"
(B) "regard (something) as likely to happen" ie "we expect rain later this week"
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
I think this comment really highlights the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.
When technology allows society to be twice as productive, why does all of that benefit accrue to businesses while the citizens are left to die in the street? Shouldn't some of that abundance benefit people, rather than corporate profits?
The natural assumption in America is that if workers become twice as productive, they should have half as much money instead of twice as much stuff. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, because I believe that the fruits of this new and more efficient economy should benefit everyone who lives and works in that economy. Instead, those people are expected to suffer while all of the newly created wealth flows to the business owners.
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
I think this comment really highlights the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.
When technology allows society to be twice as productive, why does all of that benefit accrue to businesses while the citizens are left to die in the street? Shouldn't some of that abundance benefit people, rather than corporate profits?
The natural assumption in America is that if workers become twice as productive, they should have half as much money instead of twice as much stuff. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, because I believe that the fruits of this new and more efficient economy should benefit everyone who lives and works in that economy. Instead, those people are expected to suffer while all of the newly created wealth flows to the business owners.
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?Competition puts pressure on prices, so some of the efficiency gains will lower consumer prices.
If you work less hours, that means you will be paid less. So even an optimistic scenario where employers prefer to hire twice as many people to work half days (for some reason), those people will be earning less money relative to today. Probably much less.
Technology enables workers to be more efficient. Workers need training to use technology. Employers demand workers with training. Workers with training demand higher wages. So some of the gains in efficiency will go toward higher wages. Reduction in prices and increase in wages will pretty much counter the reduction in hours to keep average worker purchasing power fairly flat
Capitalists demand a return on their investment in the technology, so some of the efficiency will go towards profits. Some creative workers will come up with new luxuries for the wealthy to indulge in. The rich experience standard of living increases.
Every disruptive technology brings bumps in the road; many of the poor suffer.
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
I think this comment really highlights the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.
When technology allows society to be twice as productive, why does all of that benefit accrue to businesses while the citizens are left to die in the street? Shouldn't some of that abundance benefit people, rather than corporate profits?
The natural assumption in America is that if workers become twice as productive, they should have half as much money instead of twice as much stuff. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, because I believe that the fruits of this new and more efficient economy should benefit everyone who lives and works in that economy. Instead, those people are expected to suffer while all of the newly created wealth flows to the business owners.
I think this comment really highlights the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.
When technology allows society to be twice as productive, why does all of that benefit accrue to businesses while the citizens are left to die in the street? Shouldn't some of that abundance benefit people, rather than corporate profits?
The natural assumption in America is that if workers become twice as productive, they should have half as much money instead of twice as much stuff.
You assume if productivity goes up 2x, it's the employee that's twice as productive. From the business owner's standpoint, that's not the case. If a factory employs 1000 people and then completely automates everything and only employs 1 person to make sure nothing goes wrong, is that guy suddenly 1000x more productive? What about if it is a true "lights-out" factory that employs 0 people, now the (nonexistent) employees are infinitely productive? I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here and don't really think that way but the company owners sure do. From their point of view, they had to provide and tie up the capital and take the risk of buying the robots, why shouldn't they get all the rewards?Not necessarily that the employee, as an individual is, but overall the per-worker productivity of the economy goes up.
In the USA, this is pretty much a lost cause... Sure, a lot of people talk about basic income but it will never happen.This has been said before, in other contexts. Why would either employers ever agree to or government ever mandate limited daily work hours, weekends, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, vacations, medical benefits, overtime pay or minimum wage?
Both parties are owned by the rich and powerful and the voting system ensures that there can only be 2 viable parties. The only way to change that is through legislation but the very people who would need to pass such legislation to change the system are the ones who benefit from the status quo.Change happens slow, and I agree with your assessment of the self-sustaining 2-party system today - although, we, collectively, certainly we could change it, if we really wanted to, by just all voting for a 3rd party candidate. That too, has happened before. The two parties used to be Federalists and "Democratic-Republicans". Then there was the Whig party. The Republican party was once the 3rd. Change happens slow, but it does happen.
It's like congressional term limits or marijuana legalization, the majority of the country support those movements but their representatives ignore the will of the people for their own reasons.28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
Change happens slow, and I agree with your assessment of the self-sustaining 2-party system today - although, we, collectively, certainly we could change it, if we really wanted to, by just all voting for a 3rd party candidate. That too, has happened before. The two parties used to be Federalists and "Democratic-Republicans". Then there was the Whig party. The Republican party was once the 3rd. Change happens slow, but it does happen.
28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
The thing about term limits is it actually anti-democratic - if the people think a senator or congress person is doing a bad job, all they have to do is not vote for them. The 2-party system doesn't even prevent that, that's what primaries are for. Every two years the people get two chances to replace a senator they don't like - or keep one they do like - and term limits takes that choice away from them. When term limits were an item on state ballots, the majority of states voted them down (8 for, 16 against), so even had the supreme court allowed it, the reality was most citizens didn't want to limit their own choice.
A Gallup survey from January 2013 found that 75 percent of Americans — including huge majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents — support term limits on Congress.
Another article on Coffee Baristas.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/robot-baristas-serve-up-the-future-of-coffee-at-cafe-x-1485781201
How wary should human baristas be? “There are a lot of things we still need them to do, like cleaning and filling,” says Mr. Hu. “What we don’t need them to do is move thousands of cups around. They’ll have a more enjoyable job.”
I can see humans being more the social aspect of the experience. Making small talk, etc.
This is grossly incorrect.Quote28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
But what the states do doesn't matter, the feds could shut it down at any time since it's still illegal under federal law and federal law takes precedence over state law.
Another article on Coffee Baristas.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/robot-baristas-serve-up-the-future-of-coffee-at-cafe-x-1485781201
How wary should human baristas be? “There are a lot of things we still need them to do, like cleaning and filling,” says Mr. Hu. “What we don’t need them to do is move thousands of cups around. They’ll have a more enjoyable job.”
I can see humans being more the social aspect of the experience. Making small talk, etc.
And as Millenials become core customers, this aspect will diminish - we dislike small talk, and talking in general. Give me a machine any day. Any service I have to ring up about? No thanks, I'll find an online competitor. I had to change hairdressers because having to call to make an appointment was too much of a barrier (so sorry, so anti-social. It's not a real barrier - I mean, I could do it. But I put it off so long when a competitor started allowing online booking I just went with them immediately).
Another article on Coffee Baristas.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/robot-baristas-serve-up-the-future-of-coffee-at-cafe-x-1485781201
How wary should human baristas be? “There are a lot of things we still need them to do, like cleaning and filling,” says Mr. Hu. “What we don’t need them to do is move thousands of cups around. They’ll have a more enjoyable job.”
I can see humans being more the social aspect of the experience. Making small talk, etc.
And as Millenials become core customers, this aspect will diminish - we dislike small talk, and talking in general. Give me a machine any day. Any service I have to ring up about? No thanks, I'll find an online competitor. I had to change hairdressers because having to call to make an appointment was too much of a barrier (so sorry, so anti-social. It's not a real barrier - I mean, I could do it. But I put it off so long when a competitor started allowing online booking I just went with them immediately).
Although I'm a millennial an I probably am very similar in that I prefer not having to deal with a person, I prefer doing as much as I can through the internet or text based services. However I am also very introvert and I don't know how applicable this is to my generation since self-selection bias means chances are I am more likely to hang out with people similar to myself, this doesn't mean everyone in our generation necessarily feels this way. I do however think that a large portion of our and the next generation that has had computers and now iPads since they were small kids are likely going to be more ok with interacting through computers and robots than prior generations. There might still be a niche market for people taking your orders and cooking your food at high priced restaurants for the foreseeable future, but as cost of employment rises and costs and capability of robots rises I think many fast food restaurants are likely to replace more and more labour with automation sooner rather than later and people will accept it if it saves them a little money.
You have a phrase about the rise of discontented workers—you call it the Precariat?
I didn't coin the phrase, but it describes why people have this uneasy feeling. Is my job still safe? I think there are 3.5 million cashiers in the U.S. and as many truck drivers for whom technology might be overtaking their jobs. People feel a lot of anxiety, and it may not even be conscious.
Is technology bringing about these job losses faster than you expected?
It's coming like a tsunami, or in Davos language, like an avalanche. If you hear a storm coming, it is normal to be afraid. People feel they are losing control over their own lives. Let's get control back is a phrase that is touching a nerve.
But more significantly, the precariat has no occupational identity or narrative to give to their lives. This creates existential insecurity, and goes with the fact that for the first time in history many people have education above the level of labour they can expect to obtain.
There was an interesting interview with Charles Schwab near the back of my Time magazine (http://time.com/4632653/klaus-schwab-9-questions/) which introduced me to the Precariat.QuoteYou have a phrase about the rise of discontented workers—you call it the Precariat?
I didn't coin the phrase, but it describes why people have this uneasy feeling. Is my job still safe? I think there are 3.5 million cashiers in the U.S. and as many truck drivers for whom technology might be overtaking their jobs. People feel a lot of anxiety, and it may not even be conscious.
Is technology bringing about these job losses faster than you expected?
It's coming like a tsunami, or in Davos language, like an avalanche. If you hear a storm coming, it is normal to be afraid. People feel they are losing control over their own lives. Let's get control back is a phrase that is touching a nerve.
Plenty to learn (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/) about how this new social class interacts with the changing workplace, social order, and politics -QuoteBut more significantly, the precariat has no occupational identity or narrative to give to their lives. This creates existential insecurity, and goes with the fact that for the first time in history many people have education above the level of labour they can expect to obtain.
Automation has been happening since the industrial revolution over 200 years ago. At least up until now the economy has managed for the most part to shift people into new roles to take up the slack. Farmers displaced by tractors and harvesters started working in textile mills. Mill workers displaced by increased automation in the mill moved on to become dental hygienists.
Each transition caused social upheaval, though. Changes in the economy are accelerating. At what point will automation outstrip the economy's ability to move labor around?
I saw a survey once (which google is refusing to produce) that if you ask people what percent of jobs will be replaced by automation in the next 50 years, lots of them guess reasonably high numbers (40-50% range). I think both the time frame and the percentage are low balls. But what is more interesting is that when you ask people how likely the job they have is to be replaced by automation, 90+% percent of them say it will never be automated. (All numbers from memory, please take them with a big grain of salt).
I think this phenomenon is why the threat of automation isn't far more prevalent in our political discussions.
I saw a survey once (which google is refusing to produce) that if you ask people what percent of jobs will be replaced by automation in the next 50 years, lots of them guess reasonably high numbers (40-50% range). I think both the time frame and the percentage are low balls. But what is more interesting is that when you ask people how likely the job they have is to be replaced by automation, 90+% percent of them say it will never be automated. (All numbers from memory, please take them with a big grain of salt).Which number do you think is correct? It's easy to look on the outside and say "Yeah, a machine could do that." But a coffee pouring robot isn't also unloading the truck, sweeping the floor, cleaning the windows and taking the crossiants out of the microwave. Tasks like this are not as easy to replace - and certainly probably can't be done by a single system. This is probably what people think of when they think of their job, while thinking of only coffee pouring when thinking of others jobs.
I think this phenomenon is why the threat of automation isn't far more prevalent in our political discussions.
This is grossly incorrect.Quote28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
But what the states do doesn't matter, the feds could shut it down at any time since it's still illegal under federal law and federal law takes precedence over state law.
This is grossly incorrect.Quote28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
But what the states do doesn't matter, the feds could shut it down at any time since it's still illegal under federal law and federal law takes precedence over state law.
Wait, you think marijuana is actually legal in states where it has been decriminalized? Do you also believe that all other federal crimes without a corresponding local or state law aren't actually illegal?
Federal law doesn't necessarily supersede state law, but it still remains in effect in the absence of a state law. Those states haven't declared marijuana to be legal, they have stopped declaring it illegal. Big difference.
I saw a survey once (which google is refusing to produce) that if you ask people what percent of jobs will be replaced by automation in the next 50 years, lots of them guess reasonably high numbers (40-50% range). I think both the time frame and the percentage are low balls. But what is more interesting is that when you ask people how likely the job they have is to be replaced by automation, 90+% percent of them say it will never be automated. (All numbers from memory, please take them with a big grain of salt).Which number do you think is correct? It's easy to look on the outside and say "Yeah, a machine could do that." But a coffee pouring robot isn't also unloading the truck, sweeping the floor, cleaning the windows and taking the crossiants out of the microwave. Tasks like this are not as easy to replace - and certainly probably can't be done by a single system. This is probably what people think of when they think of their job, while thinking of only coffee pouring when thinking of others jobs.
I think this phenomenon is why the threat of automation isn't far more prevalent in our political discussions.
I saw a survey once (which google is refusing to produce) that if you ask people what percent of jobs will be replaced by automation in the next 50 years, lots of them guess reasonably high numbers (40-50% range). I think both the time frame and the percentage are low balls. But what is more interesting is that when you ask people how likely the job they have is to be replaced by automation, 90+% percent of them say it will never be automated. (All numbers from memory, please take them with a big grain of salt).Which number do you think is correct? It's easy to look on the outside and say "Yeah, a machine could do that." But a coffee pouring robot isn't also unloading the truck, sweeping the floor, cleaning the windows and taking the crossiants out of the microwave. Tasks like this are not as easy to replace - and certainly probably can't be done by a single system. This is probably what people think of when they think of their job, while thinking of only coffee pouring when thinking of others jobs.
I think this phenomenon is why the threat of automation isn't far more prevalent in our political discussions.
Or, more to the point, why should we expect an employer to continue to pay the same price for less labor?
I think this comment really highlights the fundamental disconnect in this discussion.
When technology allows society to be twice as productive, why does all of that benefit accrue to businesses while the citizens are left to die in the street? Shouldn't some of that abundance benefit people, rather than corporate profits?
The natural assumption in America is that if workers become twice as productive, they should have half as much money instead of twice as much stuff. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, because I believe that the fruits of this new and more efficient economy should benefit everyone who lives and works in that economy. Instead, those people are expected to suffer while all of the newly created wealth flows to the business owners.
Agreed. This is the fundamental problem with capitalism. There are a lot of benefits of a free market economy (efficiency) that could be kept even if we someday decide to decouple capitalism from it. We wouldn't even have to make too many laws or regulations to do it either, just stop propping it up with artificial distortions of the market like corporate charters
Another article on Coffee Baristas.http://www.wsj.com/articles/robot-baristas-serve-up-the-future-of-coffee-at-cafe-x-1485781201How wary should human baristas be? “There are a lot of things we still need them to do, like cleaning and filling,” says Mr. Hu. “What we don’t need them to do is move thousands of cups around. They’ll have a more enjoyable job.”I can see humans being more the social aspect of the experience. Making small talk, etc.
Agreed. This is the fundamental problem with capitalism. There are a lot of benefits of a free market economy (efficiency) that could be kept even if we someday decide to decouple capitalism from it. We wouldn't even have to make too many laws or regulations to do it either, just stop propping it up with artificial distortions of the market like corporate chartersBakari, I would really like to know what your definition of Capitalism is, if you don't mind?
JumpintheFire is correct, Federal law always supersedes state law, and marijuana is still technically illegal everywhere in the US. Up until Obama officially said it was not a priority, we in CA had DEA raids on (CA legal) medical marijuana dispensaries every so often. ICE agents could do raids in so-called "sanctuary" cities, if they so choose.While I'm sure the Federal court system rules with this view, many interpret the tenth amendment as contrary to the idea.
This is grossly incorrect.Quote28 states have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational), and up to 8 more are expected to this year. That's over half, and a significant majority by population, as CA and the NE have the densest populations.
But what the states do doesn't matter, the feds could shut it down at any time since it's still illegal under federal law and federal law takes precedence over state law.
Wait, you think marijuana is actually legal in states where it has been decriminalized? Do you also believe that all other federal crimes without a corresponding local or state law aren't actually illegal?
Federal law doesn't necessarily supersede state law, but it still remains in effect in the absence of a state law. Those states haven't declared marijuana to be legal, they have stopped declaring it illegal. Big difference.
Agreed. This is the fundamental problem with capitalism. There are a lot of benefits of a free market economy (efficiency) that could be kept even if we someday decide to decouple capitalism from it. We wouldn't even have to make too many laws or regulations to do it either, just stop propping it up with artificial distortions of the market like corporate chartersBakari, I would really like to know what your definition of Capitalism is, if you don't mind?
Sure, capitalism is a system which is set up to ensure maximum utility of capital. As in, the more money you have, the easier it is to make even more money. This would be naturally true even under anarchy, but we have a number of government enforced systems in place that make it much more true. You can not have true capitalism under anarchy, the government has to prop it up. The props include land title deeds, paper currency, federally insured banks (esp., but not only, the Fed), patents, copy rights, corporate charters, and contract law.
Not mandatory, but in our case it also includes taxing unearned income at half the rate of earned income.
In contrast, a truly free market operates under perfect competition (which means no one makes any profit). You can have a free market with no government what-so-ever, and in fact this is how most of trade has been done for most of human existence, bazaars, flea markets, and barter.
I go in to greater depth on my blog, if you are interested:
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/04/free-market-vs-capitalism.html
(10 parts, but each part is very short)
Thanks, I am looking forward to reading your article. We often disagree on market issues so I am trying to understand your perspective a little better.
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. For example, you start the business, you get the money. You trade your labor as a service, you get the money.
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. For example, you start the business, you get the money. You trade your labor as a service, you get the money.
Your assertion that labour is traded as a service for money that you get is not consistent with the definition of capitalism that you gave.
There's absolutely nothing preventing slavery in capitalism. The slaves are owned privately, profits from the slaves go to the owner. Labour is traded for money - but the money doesn't go to the slave.
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. For example, you start the business, you get the money. You trade your labor as a service, you get the money.
Your assertion that labour is traded as a service for money that you get is not consistent with the definition of capitalism that you gave.
There's absolutely nothing preventing slavery in capitalism. The slaves are owned privately, profits from the slaves go to the owner. Labour is traded for money - but the money doesn't go to the slave.
Slaves do not own their own labor. So any system where slaves are allowed is not a system based on capitalism. So I guess I'm a little confused about what your trying to say.
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. For example, you start the business, you get the money. You trade your labor as a service, you get the money.
Your assertion that labour is traded as a service for money that you get is not consistent with the definition of capitalism that you gave.
There's absolutely nothing preventing slavery in capitalism. The slaves are owned privately, profits from the slaves go to the owner. Labour is traded for money - but the money doesn't go to the slave.
Slaves do not own their own labor. So any system where slaves are allowed is not a system based on capitalism. So I guess I'm a little confused about what your trying to say.
You are changing the definition of capitalism. Nothing about "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" prevents the use of slaves.
Slaves are property, exactly like a computer or a robot. A computer/robot doesn't own the work it does, yet a capitalist society can still use them. I'm trying to say that your explanation of the definition of capitalism appears to have missed this.
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. For example, you start the business, you get the money. You trade your labor as a service, you get the money.
Your assertion that labour is traded as a service for money that you get is not consistent with the definition of capitalism that you gave.
There's absolutely nothing preventing slavery in capitalism. The slaves are owned privately, profits from the slaves go to the owner. Labour is traded for money - but the money doesn't go to the slave.
Slaves do not own their own labor. So any system where slaves are allowed is not a system based on capitalism. So I guess I'm a little confused about what your trying to say.
You are changing the definition of capitalism. Nothing about "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" prevents the use of slaves.
Slaves are property, exactly like a computer or a robot. A computer/robot doesn't own the work it does, yet a capitalist society can still use them. I'm trying to say that your explanation of the definition of capitalism appears to have missed this.
I actually think you are changing the definition of capitalism. haha. As a human/private owner I own my labor for "trade and industry". Yes, slaves are property, but slaves are also human. As humans if we do not own our labor we are not operating in a capitalist system.
Edit: Maybe we should come at this another way instead of arguing over the definition of capitalism. It might be easier. Based on the information I provided above, what name would you give that system? What ever name you pick will be what I am in favor of.
TheSystemFormerlyKnownAsCapitalism: An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state*.
*Except for slavery - this must be controlled by an unspecified force in an unspecified manner and cannot be controlled by the free market.
I have more questions though. What about children who work for their parents on a farm? Or children who help clean the house? They don't get paid, but are forced to perform labour. Would their existence prevent TheSystemFormerlyKnownAsCapitalism from existing in your eyes? If not, how are they any different than slaves?
What about a housewife (or househusband) who works daily to clean, cooke, etc. without pay?
The argument could be made that any child beening told by anyone to do anything is child abuse. But we all know thats not the case. A child being forced to work for 16 hours on the family farm then thrown in the basement with some bread till the morning is clearly child abuse and their are laws to prevent this. A child being told to mow the grass (as I was) is not.
The argument could be made that any child beening told by anyone to do anything is child abuse. But we all know thats not the case. A child being forced to work for 16 hours on the family farm then thrown in the basement with some bread till the morning is clearly child abuse and their are laws to prevent this. A child being told to mow the grass (as I was) is not.
So, just to confirm . . . you're OK with people being forced to work for free in a capitalist system?
If I treated my slaves pretty well and didn't force them to work too much, would that also be OK?
An economic system in which individual's labor and property are controlled by themselves as private owners, rather than by the state
The difference between "child labor" and "chores" really does have a grey area, but that is completely separate from the question at hand. It would be just as grey under socialism or communism or anarchy or anything else. Their compensation is in the form of food and shelter, but the same is true of slaves.
Are you intentionally missing the point? A housewife or child or unpaid intern give their time freely. Force is the issue: people are forced to work under slavery, they do not own their work.The argument could be made that any child beening told by anyone to do anything is child abuse. But we all know thats not the case. A child being forced to work for 16 hours on the family farm then thrown in the basement with some bread till the morning is clearly child abuse and their are laws to prevent this. A child being told to mow the grass (as I was) is not.
So, just to confirm . . . you're OK with people being forced to work for free in a capitalist system?
If I treated my slaves pretty well and didn't force them to work too much, would that also be OK?
The difference between "child labor" and "chores" really does have a grey area, but that is completely separate from the question at hand. It would be just as grey under socialism or communism or anarchy or anything else. Their compensation is in the form of food and shelter, but the same is true of slaves.
I don't think that any system of economic policy can guarantee that an individuals labour and property are controlled by themselves as private owners. Trying to work individual ownership of labour into a definition of capitalism is always going to fail because of this type of case.
Are you intentionally missing the point? A housewife or child or unpaid intern give their time freely. Force is the issue: people are forced to work under slavery, they do not own their work.The argument could be made that any child beening told by anyone to do anything is child abuse. But we all know thats not the case. A child being forced to work for 16 hours on the family farm then thrown in the basement with some bread till the morning is clearly child abuse and their are laws to prevent this. A child being told to mow the grass (as I was) is not.
So, just to confirm . . . you're OK with people being forced to work for free in a capitalist system?
If I treated my slaves pretty well and didn't force them to work too much, would that also be OK?
The difference between "child labor" and "chores" really does have a grey area, but that is completely separate from the question at hand. It would be just as grey under socialism or communism or anarchy or anything else. Their compensation is in the form of food and shelter, but the same is true of slaves.
I don't think that any system of economic policy can guarantee that an individuals labour and property are controlled by themselves as private owners. Trying to work individual ownership of labour into a definition of capitalism is always going to fail because of this type of case.
Please provide your definition of capitalism? Mine was simply the dictionary one.
The difference between "child labor" and "chores" really does have a grey area, but that is completely separate from the question at hand. It would be just as grey under socialism or communism or anarchy or anything else. Their compensation is in the form of food and shelter, but the same is true of slaves.
I don't think that any system of economic policy can guarantee that an individuals labour and property are controlled by themselves as private owners. Trying to work individual ownership of labour into a definition of capitalism is always going to fail because of this type of case.
Please provide your definition of capitalism? Mine was simply the dictionary one.
I wasn't arguing with the dictionary definition, that makes sense to me:
"An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"
Notice how it doesn't say anything about each person being paid for their work? That's because this is not a pre-requisite for capitalism, despite your apparent belief.
The difference between "child labor" and "chores" really does have a grey area, but that is completely separate from the question at hand. It would be just as grey under socialism or communism or anarchy or anything else. Their compensation is in the form of food and shelter, but the same is true of slaves.
I don't think that any system of economic policy can guarantee that an individuals labour and property are controlled by themselves as private owners. Trying to work individual ownership of labour into a definition of capitalism is always going to fail because of this type of case.
Please provide your definition of capitalism? Mine was simply the dictionary one.
I wasn't arguing with the dictionary definition, that makes sense to me:
"An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"
Notice how it doesn't say anything about each person being paid for their work? That's because this is not a pre-requisite for capitalism, despite your apparent belief.
Trading my labor for money/goods is exactly what I am talking about. What do you call entering a labor agreement?
I call it "completely unrelated to the economic system".
Labour agreements are not unique to capitalism, and can certainly exist in a communist economy as well. Communism just means that trade and industry are controlled by the state rather than privately. Agreements regarding work don't depend on who controls the factory.
Trading labour for goods also exists under every communist system that has ever been implemented (although typically communist systems make an additional attempt to give to individuals based on need as well). It's just heavily regulated by the government rather than controlled by private individuals. (Note - I'm not advocating communism in any way, and am well aware of the many problems that spring up from a purely communist approach to running a countries economy.)
Labor agreements are not unique to capitalism, I agree, but the freedom of those labor agreements are. Under communism I don't own my labor and am not free to use it as I see fit. If I create something, anything, it is the property of the state. They take it and give me what they want to give me, if anything. I am not free to keep what I produce or trade what I produce with anyone else but the state. I don't even get to decide if the trade I am making with the state is fair.
Labor agreements do depend on who owns the factory because if I don't like the agreements available to me, since I own my own labor, I can start my own factory.
Yes, trading labour for goods also exists under communist systems but it is a forced trade. Freedom is the difference.
Edit: I just realized I made a mistake. Reversing our way out of this worked last time so let's try it again. What name would you give a system where trade, labor agreements and production are all private owned and free to be used as the individuals that own them see fit?
Labor agreements are not unique to capitalism, I agree, but the freedom of those labor agreements are. Under communism I don't own my labor and am not free to use it as I see fit. If I create something, anything, it is the property of the state. They take it and give me what they want to give me, if anything. I am not free to keep what I produce or trade what I produce with anyone else but the state. I don't even get to decide if the trade I am making with the state is fair.
Labor agreements do depend on who owns the factory because if I don't like the agreements available to me, since I own my own labor, I can start my own factory.
Yes, trading labour for goods also exists under communist systems but it is a forced trade. Freedom is the difference.
The freedom you're saying exist cannot happen when wealth concentration becomes too significant, just as it cannot exist when wealth cannot be amassed at all. Can you point to a single capitalist system that has ever existed in history working as you imagine it should?
I suspect you'll be unable to find one. The reason for this is that capitalism results in wealth concentration. Wealth concentration results in power concentration. Unchecked this will result in a small ruling class abusing a large underclass. Freedoms of the many will be eroded to protect the interests of the few. These problems associated with capitalism are what Marx was reacting to when he wrote his manifesto (going too far in the opposite direction).
There's a balance between aspects of socialism (social programs, environmental protections, etc.) and capitalism (free-market efficiency, motivation) that seems to work best in implementation.Edit: I just realized I made a mistake. Reversing our way out of this worked last time so let's try it again. What name would you give a system where trade, labor agreements and production are all private owned and free to be used as the individuals that own them see fit?
Given that under this system no parent would be allowed to assign chores to his or her children (and that this would need to be policed somehow, probably involving constant surveillance in homes), I'd call it some sort of authoritarian hell.
If you're going to argue that some people (children for example) aren't entitled to the fruits of their labour then I'd say that you're not really advocating for the system you think you are.
Thank you for your explanation Bakari. After thinking about it you are right. Based on the definitions I gave they are the same thing or at least one necessitates the other and vice versa.
Even in a barter system capital would be very important. If I have a million apples to trade and you have 10 I can simply trade my apples for less stuff per apple until you eat your apples and are screwed.
When I think of capital I not only think of monetary capital but human capital as well. All the skills I can perform and knowledge I learn is my human capital. It’s my ability to grow a million apples that gives me the advantage, not the fact that I have them.I think relatively few people would argue that everyone should have exactly equal compensation, regardless of skill or talent. But having over 18 acres of private land (about the minimum you need to hold the 2000 trees it takes to grow a million apples in one season) takes more than skill and talent, it requires a land title deed and a government which will arrest trespassers and apple thieves for you.
I am with you on not wanting the government to distort the free market any more than is absolutely necessary.perhaps we disagree on what constitutes "necessary".
Your general store example is more philosophical at heart. The only real choice any human has is whether or not to commit suicide. All other “choices” are merely trade-offs. I do believe there are other trade-offs you are not considering. If I own a general store and a Walmart comes in and sells at a loss I would close up shop. The moment Walmart started selling at a profit again; I would open my store back up.Assuming you had the capital necessary to open back up (or to keep paying the bills with no income for a year or two).
Walmart only makes a 3% profit margin (and is still getting beat up by Amazon). I could probably price match them and beat them on customer service and lower operational costs.They have their own trucks and warehouses and contracts with other major corporate suppliers. You managing lower operational costs is not realistic. This is, again, how having enough capital makes for uneven competition.
This would force the Walmart to sell at a loss continuously to keep me out of the market and that they cannot do. The issue is none of what I am saying is easy, so why would I do all that work for 3% profit margin when I can invest in corporate bonds at about 4% with no work? What I think is going on is, the market is sending me clear signals that my time and capital can be used more efficiently else ware in the market.Corporate bonds are where the WalMarts get the capital to undermine smaller businesses. In order to pay 4%, they have to be making at least 4% over costs - its just that money used to pay interest on debt isn't considered "profit" in neoclassical economics.
Your flea market example on your blog was good. The first thing I thought was: Who owns the damn market and why are they renting all the lots to the same company?I don't know, maybe because that one company offered a 5% increase in what they were willing to pay, in order to gain the flea market monopoly? Or maybe they just filled the waiting list with the names of every company partner and the market didn't know they were all really affiliated. Doesn't matter how, the system allows for it to happen.
Someone should set up a flea market next door and rent to a variety of people because that’s why people go to flea markets anyway.assuming there is space next door, and anyone has the capital to clear and pave that space and set up tents and an office etc...
Even in this scenario you cannot guarantee that “each seller does better than break even” for a million different reasons.Did you mean the opposite of what you said? Under perfect competition (granted, rarely 100% possible) no one is able to make profit, because someone else will undercut them on price right down to the break even point (but obviously not further).
I think your basically describing a monopoly, which can’t exist for the reasons listed above without help from the government.Well, or an oligopoly, which also benefits from government help - and which more or less describes the modern American economy.
We agree on getting government distortions out of the market.But would you agree that granting and enforcing corporate charters is in itself a form of market distortion?
I was really hoping you would define profit better; especially when it comes to interest. I would deduct the cost of hiring a manager in the open market. If my company makes $50k a year and to hiring a manager would cost me $50k a year, then I made no profit. My question then becomes: If you have an idea and no money how are you going to get the money you need? Take on debt? This is why I need to know if you consider interest profit.Do you mean interest you pay, or interest you make?
I agree there has been no absolute capitalist system in place
but there have been countries that have had a more capitalist system (Honk Kong, Post WWII Japan, USA) and the poorest in those contries have seen faster growth in their standards of living than less capitalist systems.
Wealth concentration is only a problem if that wealth can be used to buy favors from the government (crony-capitalism).
I am not saying children aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. I will argue that because of government regulations that have no choice but to accept the deal their parents are offering. It is illegal for a 13 year old child to work and provide for themselves.
I agree there has been no absolute capitalist system in place but there have been countries that have had a more capitalist system (Honk Kong, Post WWII Japan, USA) and the poorest in those countries have seen faster growth in their standards of living than less capitalist systems.
Our current system is on that scale too. My current tax rate all included is about 25%. The argument could be made that I own 75% of my labor and society owns 25% of my labor. I agree a balance is necessary.Part of my point is that wages are suppressed by our system. If the benefits of technology on productivity were distributed equally, you would make somewhere on the order of 2 to 10 times as much per hour. So, if you make $50 an hour, and keep $37 (after taxes), but you would hypothetically be making $100 and keeping $75, then really you only own 25% of your labor, society owns 25%, and the capital class that controls your job owns 50%
Wealth concentration is only a problem if that wealth can be used to buy favors from the government (crony-capitalism).I think this is the exact point where we fundamentally disagree.
I want to strip the government of their power to hand out these favors. There's nothing that a big corporation likes more than rules and regulations that create barriers of entry to keep out compitition (or tax breaks, subsidies, etc.)
Under a barter system, with no state intervention, there is no realistic way you are ever going to amass a million apples in the first place.
Your apple orchard will only contain as much land as you can personally defend.
This is my whole point about the difference between a free market and capitalism.
perhaps we disagree on what constitutes "necessary".
It is not "philosophical" at all, it is a simple example of what actually happens in real life:
Corporate bonds are where the WalMarts get the capital to undermine smaller businesses. In order to pay 4%, they have to be making at least 4% over costs - its just that money used to pay interest on debt isn't considered "profit" in neoclassical economics.
I don't know, maybe because that one company offered a 5% increase in what they were willing to pay, in order to gain the flea market monopoly? Or maybe they just filled the waiting list with the names of every company partner and the market didn't know they were all really affiliated. Doesn't matter how, the system allows for it to happen.
assuming there is space next door, and anyone has the capital to clear and pave that space and set up tents and an office etc...
Did you mean the opposite of what you said? Under perfect competition (granted, rarely 100% possible) no one is able to make profit, because someone else will undercut them on price right down to the break even point (but obviously not further).
Well, or an oligopoly, which also benefits from government help - and which more or less describes the modern American economy.
But would you agree that granting and enforcing corporate charters is in itself a form of market distortion?
My answer to your question is this: start small.
Why do you think that's the case? If capitalism is the system that should always be aimed for, why do you think it hasn't ever been implemented properly?
Putting aside for a moment that there are a myriad of other factors that come into play beyond 'how capitalist' a countries economic system is . . . The standard of living for the poorest in countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc. is higher than in Japan, the USA, and Hong Kong.
This is a ridiculous assertion.
Left to their own devices, companies will use their wealth to hurt competition. This is why there are anti-trust laws for virtually every industry. Price-fixing, monopoly through mergers, rigging bids, market division, etc. are all common problems associated with significant wealth creation. They are entirely caused by behavior of private companies in the free market.
In your ideal economic system there are no child labour laws?
Is there a duty of care that a parent owes a child?
If there is, then children are entitled to the fruits of the labour of their parents. If there isn't, then what would you do with the abandoned children problem you've just created?
Although, still a better example than Hong Kong:
Part of my point is that wages are suppressed by our system. If the benefits of technology on productivity were distributed equally, you would make somewhere on the order of 2 to 10 times as much per hour. So, if you make $50 an hour, and keep $37 (after taxes), but you would hypothetically be making $100 and keeping $75, then really you only own 25% of your labor, society owns 25%, and the capital class that controls your job owns 50%
I think this is the exact point where we fundamentally disagree.
On the other hand, if you have no government at all, but you have individuals with massively more wealth than anyone else, that wealth can buy power in the form of guns and personnel etc. Government has a role to play - its just that it needs to be in counteracting the effects of wealth concentration, instead of encouraging it!
Children share DNA with their parents, and are essential to allowing the genes to survive more than 80-90 years.Very interesting point. I may have to think about this, but I think I agree with the basic premise.
That makes them a special case. The idea of "altruism" does not apply to ones own offspring. For all intents and purposes, parent and child can be considered a single individual. It doesn't make sense to try to determine who gets the "better" deal in a "transaction" between them, because (most, normal) parents consider any benefit to the child to be of value to themselves.
would people be able to form partnershipsYes. Although probably not "limited liability" ones. You want the benefits of pooling resources, you should be prepared to take on the risk as well.
/corporations?No. Corporations are fundamentally and dramatically different from partnerships, both in legal definition and in scale in practice.
Without state intervention I think you would say they are allowed.I find it impossible to imagine a realistic scenario in which thousands of people would be willing to lend resources to a remote and anonymous group of business people if there were no legal mechanism in place to enforce the promise of getting a proportional amount of the company's value back again.Real time commerce can exist without government intervention, and I may be willing to trust local folk with a promise of future payment for goods today, but something as large, abstract, and diffuse as a stock market just wouldn't happen.
Wouldn't the incentive be to going together to take advantage of the division of labor to become more productive?I'm all for coops, worker owned collectives, and partnerships. 50% of households are lived in by the owner, and I'd like to see that at closer to 90%. Similarly, I see no inherent reason that at least 50%, if not 90%, of workers couldn't have at least partial ownership of their workplace.
This is where I have a hard time seeing your view. Why is it bad that Walmart is more efficient at delivering goods to customers?That depends on your goal. If your goal is simply maximization of gross GDP for it's own sake, then it is not only not bad, it is very good.However, if your goal is to allow everyone in society to benefit from economic activity more or less equally, then it is bad because ultimately, through degradation of the local job market, wealth gets skimmed from the local community and concentrated in the hands of investors.That's the whole point of investing in stock, right? That you get a percentage of every transaction. How could that not effect the distribution of wealth that the transaction creates?
Why is my scenario not realistic? There is a general store down the street from my house and a Walmart <4 miles away. Not all stores close because of walmart, only the least efficient ones.
This is why I wanted to fine tune the definition of profit. Interest paid is a cost but interest received is profit? The would conflict with your view that people can still invest but without there being profit.
That is beside the point. Even if people know that every vendor is the same but they don't care as long as they are getting the products they want for the prices they want, where is the issue?
I think you underestimate the ability of people to work together.Well, again - in favor of partnerships, cooperatives, and collectives.
This is the real reason for corporations. Many individual people pooling capital resources to compete in the market and reduce individual risk. All our ousted renters could bind together and open a flea market.But there comes a point where the only way to compete with the multi-national corporation is to become a multinational corporation. So all the ousted renters form one giant company - now consumers have a total of 2 choices in town. More than just one, yes, but still much less than the dozens or hundreds they had to begin with.
I meant what I said. Perfect market, no profits. I agree. In our situation, "every seller does better than break even". I call that profit, you call that salary but it doesn't matter if I am willing to work for less of a profit/salary. For example, say I am single you're are taking care of multiple people. I need less of a salary/profit than you do to survive. Eventually even our salary/profit goes to zero in a perfect market. What incentive do people have to even participate?The theory holds that it will only go so low as what you could potentially make doing something else, so it would not go to zero.
Well, or an oligopoly, which also benefits from government help - and which more or less describes the modern American economy.
Agreed, totally!QuoteBut would you agree that granting and enforcing corporate charters is in itself a form of market distortion?
Yes they create market distortion. I think they are a vital part of how we have advanced to where we are today. Without the transfer of risk to the operators of the comany we would not enjoy the standard of living we do today.
While I understand what your vision is trying to do, from my research, what I have seen is that the proit/loss system accomplishes your goal much more than the government deciding who wins and looses, who gets loans and who doesn't, who is considered low risk and who isn't, who is a benefit to society and who isn't.
My mistake, I know government tends to be a boogy man. I was anticipating a direction that didn't happen. Lets just say, for purposes of simplicity, that I'm suggesting a limit on ownership of means of economic production to that which an individual can directly manage - one location per owner, similar to my suggestion for land ownership of one person one parcel
(which has a nice ring to it, maybe someday I'll start a campaign. Not exactly the right political climate at the moment...)QuoteWaht happens to a corporation after there time runs out? Do they have to shut down? I would like to understand that a little better.well, yeah. Once whatever purpose they were created for has been accomplished. Is there any particular advantage to society to have these entities - which have the rights of a human, distribute profits to specific humans, yet none of the humans can be held accountable for "its" (their collective) actions, and whose only motive is to make maximum money - to exist forever? Not even actual humans get to live forever.
"I think the six-hour work day would be most effective in organisations - such as hospitals - where you work for six hours and then you just leave [the workplace] and go home.
"It might be less effective for organisations where the borders between work and private life are not so clear,"
The best research to date indicates that 47 percent of all U.S. jobs are likely to be replaced by technology over the next 10 to 15 years, more than 80 million in all, according to the Bank of England.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/coming-technology-will-likely-destroy-millions-of-jobs-is-trump-ready/2017/02/08/db97d8b4-ecb6-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html
... human disruption caused by the Industrial Revolution in Britain lasted 60 to 90 years, depending on the historical research. That is a long time for society to “right” itself, and lot of personal pain.
Interesting how there's a clear split described in that article.Quote"I think the six-hour work day would be most effective in organisations - such as hospitals - where you work for six hours and then you just leave [the workplace] and go home.
"It might be less effective for organisations where the borders between work and private life are not so clear,"
Interesting how there's a clear split described in that article.Quote"I think the six-hour work day would be most effective in organisations - such as hospitals - where you work for six hours and then you just leave [the workplace] and go home.
"It might be less effective for organisations where the borders between work and private life are not so clear,"
Yes, the article says it wouldn't be so suitable for office workers as they might have to cram 8 hours work into 6 hours, and take it home. I imagine they'll (we'll?!) just all spend less time faffing about on the internet...
I think what would really happen is that companies would pay their workers 25% less (and possibly take away many of their benefits) while demanding the same output.
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
This is the most depressing worldview I have encountered so far this week.
Is there any chance that you might someday learn to value anything besides money?
I'm actually interested in the results of Amazon's experiment with it.
Article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/26/amazon-is-piloting-teams-with-a-30-hour-work-week/)
And at least they are keeping benefits.
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. I guess my issue with this type of experiment is that it's based on time instead of results. What if a person can produce the same results in 25% less time? Should they be paid less? I don't think so.
You can't legislate values, morals, etc.
Those are cultural phenomenon and changing culture is extremely difficult. It may be a depressing worldview but that doesn't make it less of a reality.
It is all that matters though. If we as humanity are spending more per unit output for item x of quality y than necessary we are then not spending that on something else. Like feeding the poor or something. Ultimately lowest cost per unit leads to highest average lifestyle. Especially if robots are doing all the work.Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
This is the most depressing worldview I have encountered so far this week.
Is there any chance that you might someday learn to value anything besides money?
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. I guess my issue with this type of experiment is that it's based on time instead of results. What if a person can produce the same results in 25% less time? Should they be paid less? I don't think so.
But, if they can produce the same in 75% of the time, doesn't that mean they were wasting time before?
Quote from: PooplipsYou can't legislate values, morals, etc.
Morals/values are essentially exactly what legislation is. We create laws to help us all get along and make things morally 'fair'... at least in theory. In reality, plenty of laws are biased and corrupt, but the intention is supposed to be to keep people from cheating others and infringing on other people's inherent rights'.
That was the argument both for and against slavery (despite the former getting morality so horrifically wrong).
Defining 'what is morally right' creates legislation defining our 'rights'.
We still do this now where we say alcohol is legal, pot is illegal. Assisted suicide is illegal -literally legislating that horrific suffering is morally right, or better, than ending someone's pain upon their own wishes for themselves.
Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. I guess my issue with this type of experiment is that it's based on time instead of results. What if a person can produce the same results in 25% less time? Should they be paid less? I don't think so.
But, if they can produce the same in 75% of the time, doesn't that mean they were wasting time before?
Not necessarily. It depends on how you define "wasting time". There have been many studies that show diminishing returns after a certain # of hours. (Depending on the type of work.)Cost per Unit Output - is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. I guess my issue with this type of experiment is that it's based on time instead of results. What if a person can produce the same results in 25% less time? Should they be paid less? I don't think so.
But, if they can produce the same in 75% of the time, doesn't that mean they were wasting time before?
Interesting how there's a clear split described in that article.Quote"I think the six-hour work day would be most effective in organisations - such as hospitals - where you work for six hours and then you just leave [the workplace] and go home.
"It might be less effective for organisations where the borders between work and private life are not so clear,"
I think what would really happen is that companies would pay their workers 25% less (and possibly take away many of their benefits) while demanding the same output.
Interesting how there's a clear split described in that article.Quote"I think the six-hour work day would be most effective in organisations - such as hospitals - where you work for six hours and then you just leave [the workplace] and go home.
"It might be less effective for organisations where the borders between work and private life are not so clear,"
I think what would really happen is that companies would pay their workers 25% less (and possibly take away many of their benefits) while demanding the same output.
This is interesting because it's a slippery slope. The whole "many jobs you can't just let go when you go home" is how companies can require employees to work 45 hours a week, or 60, or be on call, etc. I've had those jobs, and a lot of it is just poor training. Even when I was a manager of a group of engineers that kept the manufacturing floor running 24/7 (so 4 of my 6 engineers worked nights and weekends), I *rarely* got phone calls after hours after the first few months. It was my JOB to teach them how to handle things without me.
If there is not a border between work and personal life, the boss needs to learn boundaries, or you need to set them. An occasional "oh crap" or "deadline" is fine. But if the expectation is to work until midnight every night? Nope.
...snip...
Murder, theft, gay marriage, which drugs are legal or not, smoking in restaurants, monopoly laws, price-fixing, 'right to work'... mountains of legislated morality make easy examples, but I'd argue that basically EVERY law is a reflection of 'claimed' morality. And if we ever get all our laws morally right, we'll find ourselves living under the best government/legislation possible.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-doubles-down-universal-175300665.html
Elon Musk talking about the need for basic income and your meaning in life while technology replaces jobs.
"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the crowd at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast Company. "It's going to be necessary."
"If there's no need for your labor, what's your meaning?" Musk said. "Do you feel useless? That's a much harder problem to deal with."
The existing upper class is a rentier society, being paid for the use of their capital. All people in a future automated society, receiving a Universal Basic Income, would be similar to rentiers, using the term rentier loosely. The challenge is to make a UBI acceptable, even normal.
Interesting, haven't read the whole thread but there is another side that isn't discussed too much. How companies are using AI to replace middle management jobs. The example I saw was a Japanese insurance company which used AI to replace the people who processed the claims, a job that before couldn,t be replaced. The article went on to state that a typical large insurance company could replace1/3 to 1/2 the workers, serrious numbers
However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
Isn't this answered by what we do with SS, for example?
No. No you wouldn't.
:)
However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
Isn't this answered by what we do with SS, for example?
No. No you wouldn't.
:)
How do you stop it tho'? If a 20 yr old knows they have (say) a $1000/mnth UBI coming for the rest of their life, what stops them getting a big loan, the payments for which are exactly 1000/mnth?
However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
Isn't this answered by what we do with SS, for example?
No. No you wouldn't.
:)
How do you stop it tho'? If a 20 yr old knows they have (say) a $1000/mnth UBI coming for the rest of their life, what stops them getting a big loan, the payments for which are exactly 1000/mnth?
However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
Isn't this answered by what we do with SS, for example?
No. No you wouldn't.
:)
How do you stop it tho'? If a 20 yr old knows they have (say) a $1000/mnth UBI coming for the rest of their life, what stops them getting a big loan, the payments for which are exactly 1000/mnth?
Well, you could require lenders to have proof of income above UBI and only allow lending on the extra portion.
Or you could just... let them?
I mean, you can find fault or people who will try to game any system. UBI wouldn't be inventing that. It might not eliminate it either, but it's no worse than any other, to my mind.
You wouldn't be able to stop it. Would one want to, though? Isn't that the point of UBI?However, would you allow people to mortgage their UBI? I could see companies lining up to offer people cash lump sums in exchange for their UBI... and we'd be back where we started, as we get now with payday and car title loan sharks.
Isn't this answered by what we do with SS, for example?
No. No you wouldn't.
:)
How do you stop it tho'? If a 20 yr old knows they have (say) a $1000/mnth UBI coming for the rest of their life, what stops them getting a big loan, the payments for which are exactly 1000/mnth?
You wouldn't be able to stop it. Would one want to, though? Isn't that the point of UBI?
what would stop it would be a rule that your UBI cant be garnished to pay defaulted loans. meaning the risk for the lender would be too greatYes, simply by making rules where UBI is noncollectable by lenders would make lenders look for proof of other income or other means of securing the debt.
Mark Cuban does not like UBI.Mark Cuban agrees that we need to fix the disincentive to work and reduce overhead costs; UBI seems to be the leading idea to solve those problems with our current system. I'd love to year Mark Cuban's ideas that he thinks would work better.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/22/mark-cuban-basic-income-worst-response-to-job-losses-from-robots-ai.html
Thanks,
Tom
The NY Times opinion page suggests that robots are NOT to blame for our shifting economy. I think it's a pretty compelling argument (when applied retroactively, maybe less so when applied going forward).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/no-robots-arent-killing-the-american-dream.html
Basically, they're pointing out that the American economy has gradually slowed down since WWII, and that this isn't the fault of technology but of politics. Technological advances have been killing jobs for centuries, but it's only in the past few decades that we've really decided to let those advances increase unemployment, suppress wages, and aggregate wealth at the top. Those consequences are all dictated by our policy decisions, not the technologies themselves.
So maybe "blame the robots" is just another scapegoat designed to distract us from America's gradual shift towards deliberate oligarchy? We've continuously eroded worker protections and undermined the middle class in order to enrich the wealthiest 0.1% of our citizens. Robots have been one tool in that process, but they're probably not the driving force. Tax rates that favor the wealthy, shifting from pensions to 401k plans, disbanding labor unions, and curtailing the minimum wage are probably more responsible for these shifts than are increased worker productivity. The economy isn't slowly stagnating because there is less work for people to do, it is stagnating because we've throttled demand by impoverishing consumers.
Interestingly, they also make the point that "blame the robots" (from the left) is just another form of "blame the immigrants" (from the right). They're both misdirections, politically useful scapegoats designed to obscure the fact that our real problems are all related to the carefully orchestrated consolidation of all economic gains to only the wealthiest Americans, enacted by both parties. Maybe "blame the rich" is a more accurate assessment.
I also like the fact that unlike most opinion pieces, this one actually makes some concrete suggestions on how to improve this situation, instead of just pontificating about how dire the problem is. They suggest
1. curbing corporate stock buyback programs
2. increasing tax rates on corporations and the wealthy, and using those taxes to retrain the workforce
3. legislating universal child care and elder care, to allow wage earners to work.
You wouldn't be able to stop it. Would one want to, though? Isn't that the point of UBI?
How to stop the exploitive loan, not how to stop the UBI payments to the individual.
Why would this be exploitative? It would be like the annuity lump-sum payments - sign your UBI over to us, and we give you $1 million dollars today. No interest, no collection, just a transfer. Unless those "we buy your annuity" companies are predatory; i haven't looked into them. Honestly I would probably take a large lump sum to invest over small payments throughout my life.You wouldn't be able to stop it. Would one want to, though? Isn't that the point of UBI?
How to stop the exploitive loan, not how to stop the UBI payments to the individual.
Wouldn't UBI be soaked up by inflation?
Wouldn't most people want more than the barest of essentials income wise?
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/buffett-self-driving-cars-will-hurt-the-insurance-industry.html
Warren Buffett is worried how self driving cars will affect his investments in insurance companies. He says his bet would be that there would be less than 10% of cars being self driving in 10 years. He also says that he could easily be wrong as some serious brain power is being invested in it.
Truck driver is now the single largest occupation in many US states (although in someways this is arbitrary because of how different occupations are split or grouped). The lowest of low hanging fruit is long haul trucking along interstates. No red lights, basically no turns.
In one of the articles I read about Otto, it sounded like their first step was going to be automating just the long haul portion of the drive. So you pack a truck in Boston, a human drives it out to a rest-stop like depot on the nearest interstate, and the truck drives itself from Boston to another right-on-the-interstate depot in Santa Fe where another human driver gets onboard and drives it into the city to the warehouse or factory where it will be unloaded. 95+% of the billable human hours gone with relatively "dumb" self driving capabilities.
Truck driver is now the single largest occupation in many US states (although in someways this is arbitrary because of how different occupations are split or grouped). The lowest of low hanging fruit is long haul trucking along interstates. No red lights, basically no turns.
In one of the articles I read about Otto, it sounded like their first step was going to be automating just the long haul portion of the drive. So you pack a truck in Boston, a human drives it out to a rest-stop like depot on the nearest interstate, and the truck drives itself from Boston to another right-on-the-interstate depot in Santa Fe where another human driver gets onboard and drives it into the city to the warehouse or factory where it will be unloaded. 95+% of the billable human hours gone with relatively "dumb" self driving capabilities.
I took a minor vacation last weekend to see some family. Sunday I walked all around Capital City and ended up passing a store that sold 3D printers; there was a homeless man sleeping in the door jam.
I took a minor vacation last weekend to see some family. Sunday I walked all around Capital City and ended up passing a store that sold 3D printers; there was a homeless man sleeping in the door jam.
Sounds like you saw the future.
No, in the future we'll have robots to remove homeless guys from door jams.
Maybe a way to use the homelss to power thr robots that took their jobs?No, in the future we'll have robots to remove homeless guys from door jams.
Robot voice:
<get a job you bum>
Ummm, how about use some of the robotax money to get them housing, mental health care, treatment for any addiction issues and retrained to help them become healthy, happy, fulfilled and contributing members of society? And use some more of the taxes to improve the underlying issues that help to cause such problems in the first place?What is the underlying problem? That really friggin smart people are building robots that are better at virtually eveything a person can do than people are? Should we tax those friggin smart people for every advancement they make based on the number of jobs it endangers?
Just an idea.
Ayn Rand probably wouldn't approve tho'...
Ummm, how about use some of the robotax money to get them housing, mental health care, treatment for any addiction issues and retrained to help them become healthy, happy, fulfilled and contributing members of society? And use some more of the taxes to improve the underlying issues that help to cause such problems in the first place?What is the underlying problem? That really friggin smart people are building robots that are better at virtually eveything a person can do than people are? Should we tax those friggin smart people for every advancement they make based on the number of jobs it endangers?
Just an idea.
Ayn Rand probably wouldn't approve tho'...
Maybe not a bad idea...
Well that would depend upon if one belives that robots will allow the cost of production to reach zero, as many have suggested. In that case, everyone will be fantastically rich.
At some point though, the rich won't need money from the masses. They will be able to just directly order their robo-factories to directly build their yachts and mega-mansions, using robo-manufactured components built from robo-harvested raw materials. If they don't personally own robo-companies that have what they need, they can just trade with other 1%ers who do own the right robo-resources.
They probably will need a few lesser humans (at least in the beginning) to fill in the gaps that robots can't (yet) do. But that will just be an issue of enticing the best of the best non-1%ers with the opportunity to live in the servants' wing of their robo-built mansion and eat the leftovers of their robo-harvested food.
Right now they only need money from the masses so they can use that money to employee the masses. That dependancy goes away of you already own vast armies of robots that serve you for free.
Maybe this is the endgame of human evolution. Instead of having 7 billion people, of whom 1% are rich (that's 70 million): perhaps you have a human population of 70 million rich people, and about 7 billion robots? Not so scary if you are one of the 1%. I just don't want to be around during the transition period.
Well that would depend upon if one belives that robots will allow the cost of production to reach zero, as many have suggested. In that case, everyone will be fantastically rich.
Everyone left, yes, but maybe at a much smaller population level.
Interesting Slashdot comments I read recently relate to this:
Person 1:QuoteAt some point though, the rich won't need money from the masses. They will be able to just directly order their robo-factories to directly build their yachts and mega-mansions, using robo-manufactured components built from robo-harvested raw materials. If they don't personally own robo-companies that have what they need, they can just trade with other 1%ers who do own the right robo-resources.
They probably will need a few lesser humans (at least in the beginning) to fill in the gaps that robots can't (yet) do. But that will just be an issue of enticing the best of the best non-1%ers with the opportunity to live in the servants' wing of their robo-built mansion and eat the leftovers of their robo-harvested food.
Right now they only need money from the masses so they can use that money to employee the masses. That dependancy goes away of you already own vast armies of robots that serve you for free.
Person 2:QuoteMaybe this is the endgame of human evolution. Instead of having 7 billion people, of whom 1% are rich (that's 70 million): perhaps you have a human population of 70 million rich people, and about 7 billion robots? Not so scary if you are one of the 1%. I just don't want to be around during the transition period.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/03/02/150235/robots-wont-just-take-our-jobs----theyll-make-the-rich-even-richer (https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/03/02/150235/robots-wont-just-take-our-jobs----theyll-make-the-rich-even-richer)
Truck driving needs to be automated as soon as possible. Just the traffic relief will be incredible. The roads are nearly empty at night. That is when to haul freight. Don't have trucks on the road at all during the morning and afternoon rush hours. In fact that is where we should tax. Tax freight based upon the hour and location. Make the freight companies pay a higher tax for higher traffic times. We have the technology to do that now.
Truck driving needs to be automated as soon as possible. Just the traffic relief will be incredible. The roads are nearly empty at night. That is when to haul freight. Don't have trucks on the road at all during the morning and afternoon rush hours. In fact that is where we should tax. Tax freight based upon the hour and location. Make the freight companies pay a higher tax for higher traffic times. We have the technology to do that now.
The reason freight is not hauled at night is not because people are driving the vehicles. Many truck drivers would far prefer to drive on quiet roads at night.
It's because there is no-one in the warehouse to despatch goods, or at the destination to receive goods. Also, many areas have restrictions on when deliveries can be made to reduce noise impact in residential areas etc. Our nearest supermarket is only allowed to receive deliveries between 8am and 6pm, for example - it was a condition of their receiving planning permission to build the store.
Now, if goods out and goods in were totally automated, then robots could load and unload through the night. But other restrictions might still be in place. It's not just about humans being in the cab.
I took the industry study on Robotics and Autonomous Systems that I lead to Pittsburgh for two day visit. New this year was a sit down and tour with Uber's Advanced Technology Group who are currently using autonomous Volvo XC-90s to provide rides in portions of Pittsburgh (they still have an engineer in the driver's seat to monitor).Why use an automated vehicle then? Seems like they're lying, full stop.
They told us that their main goal isn't to replace the individual Uber drivers, but more importantly to influence you that when it is time for a new car, you will decide not to buy a car because rideshare can provide you with all the transportation you need.
I took the industry study on Robotics and Autonomous Systems that I lead to Pittsburgh for two day visit. New this year was a sit down and tour with Uber's Advanced Technology Group who are currently using autonomous Volvo XC-90s to provide rides in portions of Pittsburgh (they still have an engineer in the driver's seat to monitor).Why use an automated vehicle then? Seems like they're lying, full stop.
They told us that their main goal isn't to replace the individual Uber drivers, but more importantly to influence you that when it is time for a new car, you will decide not to buy a car because rideshare can provide you with all the transportation you need.
I said autonomous car, not engineer. I can see why the engineer is there. But why would a company that claims it is not trying to replace drivers be engineering cars that don't need drivers at all?
And why would a company that wants people to not use their own cars be interested in convincing people to buy new cars?
Seems like occams razor suggests that they are fucking lying.
I said autonomous car, not engineer. I can see why the engineer is there. But why would a company that claims it is not trying to replace drivers be engineering cars that don't need drivers at all?
And why would a company that wants people to not use their own cars be interested in convincing people to buy new cars?
Seems like occams razor suggests that they are fucking lying.
The assumption must be that driverless cars will be cheaper to operate. Not having people drive the cars gets around the employee/contractor tax problems. There would be no 'employees' to push back on price changes. If needed, Uber capacity could be quickly shifted around to squash competition where ever if popped up. Claiming to not want to replace drivers is likely marketing BS to keep there current drivers from jumping ship.
"They told us that their main goal isn't to replace the individual Uber drivers, but more importantly to influence you that when it is time for a new car, you will decide not to buy a car because rideshare can provide you with all the transportation you need."
"And why would a company that wants people to not use their own cars be interested in convincing people to buy new cars?" I think I am missing your point. Uber is not trying to convince people to by new cars. Unless that was mentioned in a fine article I did not read.
Exactly; Uber is lying their ass off, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Hopefully the government will take them over and keep all of those cushy driver jobs. It'll be perfect!Exactly; Uber is lying their ass off, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Wait, you mean a for profit corporation lied to the public as part of a plan to maximize profit?
I thought the free market was supposed to make us all perfectly virtuous?
Hopefully the government will take them over and keep all of those cushy driver jobs. It'll be perfect!Exactly; Uber is lying their ass off, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Wait, you mean a for profit corporation lied to the public as part of a plan to maximize profit?
I thought the free market was supposed to make us all perfectly virtuous?
hmmm...Hopefully the government will take them over and keep all of those cushy driver jobs. It'll be perfect!Exactly; Uber is lying their ass off, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Wait, you mean a for profit corporation lied to the public as part of a plan to maximize profit?
I thought the free market was supposed to make us all perfectly virtuous?
I'm looking forward to the cylons taking over the government myself.
What's their view on universal health care? :)
Ummm, how about use some of the robotax money to get them housing, mental health care, treatment for any addiction issues and retrained to help them become healthy, happy, fulfilled and contributing members of society? And use some more of the taxes to improve the underlying issues that help to cause such problems in the first place?Just an idea. Ayn Rand probably wouldn't approve tho'...What is the underlying problem? That really friggin smart people are building robots that are better at virtually eveything a person can do than people are? Should we tax those friggin smart people for every advancement they make based on the number of jobs it endangers? Maybe not a bad idea...
Person 2:QuoteMaybe this is the endgame of human evolution. Instead of having 7 billion people, of whom 1% are rich (that's 70 million): perhaps you have a human population of 70 million rich people, and about 7 billion robots? Not so scary if you are one of the 1%. I just don't want to be around during the transition period.https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/03/02/150235/robots-wont-just-take-our-jobs----theyll-make-the-rich-even-richer
We all remember our first smart phone.Google gave me a free motorola / android so I could be one of their officially recommended handymen for my area, since I didn't have a "smart phone" at the time and they developed an app version before the website.
Mine was the IPhone 4. Before that I only had dumb flip phones. I never switched back to the flip phone.That phone is here on my desk right now. Never got a service plan for it, I just use it at home on wi-fi. For actual on the road phone calls, I use my $20 on ebay water proof shock resistant folds in half flip phone, that has a camera and even a (very slow and inconvenient) web browser built in.
I had bought five desktop computers for home use and about six laptops before buying a tablet. I'll never buy a computer again either. Smart phones and tablets will do everything I need a computer to do.We have a tablet too. I rarely use it, because it doesn't do a lot of things my (much older!) computer can do, and those it can it doesn't do as well. The computer is faster, has way more software options, and easier to type on keyboard, a 10x bigger screen, infinitely better speakers, a CD/DVD drive, card readers, ethernet port, 7 USB ports - no matter how good tablets and pocket computers get, they will never be able to do certain things as well, by nature of their size.
The roads are nearly empty at night. That is when to haul freight. Don't have trucks on the road at all during the morning and afternoon rush hours.Actually, a lot of freight IS moved at night. Truck drivers get paid by the mile, not by the hour, and they have a limited number of hours they can drive each day. So many, probably most, long haul truckers make a point to avoid cities in the day time, and drive at off-peak hours as much as possible. What you see in the day are mostly short-haul runs, which have no choice but to deliver to businesses when those businesses are actually open.
Passive income. With the oncoming AI revolution, wouldn't smart people be saving up passive income?Um, isn't that already true, robots or no robot? Isn't that the whole point of the entire MMM thing?
I'm thinking Uber might want people to buy self driving cars and put them into Uber service. That way they don't have to maintain the cars. You maintain the car, you clean the car, you fuel the car. You get paid for its use. It's your car when you want to use it and remove from service. Imagine, you go on vacation, drive to another city, get a hotel and release your car while you enjoy a restful afternoon or restaurant meal. The whole time your car is working for you while you relax. I'm certain some full service stations will gladly refuel and maintain your car in a nationwide network. You make the investment, Uber books the car and pays you for use.Would be difficult to use evs for this; after your drive the car would need to charge the whole time you are eating or relaxing. Uber just wants to replace their drivers with a cheaper option as soon as practical, period.
I'm thinking Uber might want people to buy self driving cars and put them into Uber service. That way they don't have to maintain the cars. You maintain the car, you clean the car, you fuel the car. You get paid for its use. It's your car when you want to use it and remove from service. Imagine, you go on vacation, drive to another city, get a hotel and release your car while you enjoy a restful afternoon or restaurant meal. The whole time your car is working for you while you relax. I'm certain some full service stations will gladly refuel and maintain your car in a nationwide network. You make the investment, Uber books the car and pays you for use.Would be difficult to use evs for this; after your deive the car would need to charge the whole time you are eating or relaxing. Uber just wants to replace their drivers with a cheaper option as soon as practical, period.
Or solved with more cars (than using ICE vehicles would) or car designs that allow or quick, automated swapping of the batteries- no absolute need for the car to be parked, just the batteries. Will be an interesting problem to solve, no doubt.I'm thinking Uber might want people to buy self driving cars and put them into Uber service. That way they don't have to maintain the cars. You maintain the car, you clean the car, you fuel the car. You get paid for its use. It's your car when you want to use it and remove from service. Imagine, you go on vacation, drive to another city, get a hotel and release your car while you enjoy a restful afternoon or restaurant meal. The whole time your car is working for you while you relax. I'm certain some full service stations will gladly refuel and maintain your car in a nationwide network. You make the investment, Uber books the car and pays you for use.Would be difficult to use evs for this; after your deive the car would need to charge the whole time you are eating or relaxing. Uber just wants to replace their drivers with a cheaper option as soon as practical, period.
This is actually a really interesting juxtaposition between new technologies (the Uber model and EVs):
Autonomous vehicles which can be called when needed is kind of predicated on the fact that most cars aren't used most of the time. They are taking that downtime and creating an efficiency saving by saying those cars don't need to be owned individually and parked up 90% of the time, they could be moving other people.
The move towards EVs requires long periods of standing cars though, for them to take on charge.
I guess it is all solved by the cars being charged overnight (when there is very little demand) and batteries being large and efficient enough to run a car all day.
I'm thinking Uber might want people to buy self driving cars and put them into Uber service. That way they don't have to maintain the cars. You maintain the car, you clean the car, you fuel the car. You get paid for its use. It's your car when you want to use it and remove from service. Imagine, you go on vacation, drive to another city, get a hotel and release your car while you enjoy a restful afternoon or restaurant meal. The whole time your car is working for you while you relax. I'm certain some full service stations will gladly refuel and maintain your car in a nationwide network. You make the investment, Uber books the car and pays you for use.
The move towards EVs requires long periods of standing cars though, for them to take on charge.
I guess it is all solved by the cars being charged overnight (when there is very little demand) and batteries being large and efficient enough to run a car all day.
How twisted is it that we are developing robots that can basically do everybody's work for them, yet people are not getting free money and extra leisure time as a result? How the Hell did we screw that up?We essentially traded free time for a drastically higher standard of living. People are greedy, and if they can make more money, have more luxuries and be more comfortable, they will often trade that for free time.
We are getting free money. You've just gotta pay to play. I invested in the 90s for the free money I'm getting now. I was buying mutual funds that were investing into business that is making me robo dollars now. Trading hours for dollars is what you do when you're poor. You sacrifice when you're young and invest. The stock market is the biggest robot in the world now.Invest as early and much as one can; I'm living proof of that.
Even a plain old inexpensive not-so-fancy <100 mile range Nissan Leaf can charge to 80% of full charge in 30 min. They all can, using a "type 3" charger, not just Tesla.
The average Uber trip is 6 miles. Maybe double that for the travel to where ever the next pick up is. One EV might not be able to go the entire day without charging, but (with current tech, and without being a 75k car), good for 6 trips between 30 min charges, certainly enough time to make a little extra income on a car that's not being used
Sadly, it seems like most of the really cool ones are either privately held, or have already been bought up by megacorps. Amazon's robots seem to mostly come from the former Kiva systems, (now "Amazon Robotics"). Boston Dynamics was bought up by google.'
who are the top robot manufacturing and software companies? We need an I-Robot ETF.
I actually think you would stand a better chance at a good return if you invested industry wide in industries that will most likely benefit from automation rather than trying to pick winners in the industry building the robots. Sticking to the regular strategy myself though.
I actually think you would stand a better chance at a good return if you invested industry wide in industries that will most likely benefit from automation rather than trying to pick winners in the industry building the robots. Sticking to the regular strategy myself though.
If the speculation of most people in this thread turns out to be correct, that will likely be almost all of them.
I actually think you would stand a better chance at a good return if you invested industry wide in industries that will most likely benefit from automation rather than trying to pick winners in the industry building the robots. Sticking to the regular strategy myself though.
If the speculation of most people in this thread turns out to be correct, that will likely be almost all of them.
They are speculating on the industry as a whole, not the individual companies. There are plenty of opportunities for competition between these companies and also for many to try to ride the wave and crash.
I actually think you would stand a better chance at a good return if you invested industry wide in industries that will most likely benefit from automation rather than trying to pick winners in the industry building the robots. Sticking to the regular strategy myself though.
If the speculation of most people in this thread turns out to be correct, that will likely be almost all of them.
They are speculating on the industry as a whole, not the individual companies. There are plenty of opportunities for competition between these companies and also for many to try to ride the wave and crash.
You misunderstood me.
Responding to " if you invested industry wide in industries that will most likely benefit from automation rather than trying to pick winners in the industry"
I'm saying the industries likely to benefit from automation are all of them, presuming robots and AI can eventually (possibly in our lifetimes) take over all meaningful labor, with the only human jobs left being those that have value for sentimental or principal reasons
i.e. some people may prefer a human psychologist, artist, musician, or prostitute over an AI or robot even if the AI is technically "better" at the job.Aside from that, if nearly 100% of jobs are replaced with robots that don't require any salary, every industry will benefit.
Therefor the best investment strategy would be, as always, broad total market index funds.
Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
How twisted is it that we are developing robots that can basically do everybody's work for them, yet people are not getting free money and extra leisure time as a result? How the Hell did we screw that up?
Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
Kind of like how messengers used to swap out horses on a long but fast journey! If you don't own the horse/car it's no problem to just swap it for a new one and leave the old one where it ran out.
But it does become much more of a hassle for one's four kids and 80 year old grandmother to have to move luggage and car seats and do a fire drill every 200 miles on their summer trip to WallyWorld.Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
Kind of like how messengers used to swap out horses on a long but fast journey! If you don't own the horse/car it's no problem to just swap it for a new one and leave the old one where it ran out.
But it does become much more of a hassle for one's four kids and 80 year old grandmother to have to move luggage and car seats and do a fire drill every 200 miles on their summer trip to WallyWorld.Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
Kind of like how messengers used to swap out horses on a long but fast journey! If you don't own the horse/car it's no problem to just swap it for a new one and leave the old one where it ran out.
That is a much better idea, though probably more expensive in terms of infrastructure than a simple charging station.But it does become much more of a hassle for one's four kids and 80 year old grandmother to have to move luggage and car seats and do a fire drill every 200 miles on their summer trip to WallyWorld.Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
Kind of like how messengers used to swap out horses on a long but fast journey! If you don't own the horse/car it's no problem to just swap it for a new one and leave the old one where it ran out.
The other option is keep the car, swap out the battery. That's what the Tesla link above was showing.
That is a much better idea, though probably more expensive in terms of infrastructure than a simple charging station.But it does become much more of a hassle for one's four kids and 80 year old grandmother to have to move luggage and car seats and do a fire drill every 200 miles on their summer trip to WallyWorld.Autonomous electric shared vehicles seem's like a great sweet spot to me. The downside of the electric vehicle is range, but if you can essentially swap cars out as others charge periodically, that goes away. The upside of the electric vehicles is far fewer parts that can break, so much less on repairs. Seems like Telsla could have a niche here in the future.
Kind of like how messengers used to swap out horses on a long but fast journey! If you don't own the horse/car it's no problem to just swap it for a new one and leave the old one where it ran out.
The other option is keep the car, swap out the battery. That's what the Tesla link above was showing.
Seems to be the opposite of the US. Here it's like a contest to see who can brag about working the most hours. And the majority seem to have fully bought into the idea that they'll work till they're 70 or older.How twisted is it that we are developing robots that can basically do everybody's work for them, yet people are not getting free money and extra leisure time as a result? How the Hell did we screw that up?
Well, that's not true everywhere. Many of my friends who are parents work part-time, and still enjoy and incredible standard of living. Here in the UK, an expectant mother gets a year off, with some pay.
I definitely see a move towards people doing fewer hours at work and enjoying more leisure time in my circle. And lifetime hours? Definitely far fewer. Most people I know retire in their 50s.
Seems to be the opposite of the US. Here it's like a contest to see who can brag about working the most hours. And the majority seem to have fully bought into the idea that they'll work till they're 70 or older.How twisted is it that we are developing robots that can basically do everybody's work for them, yet people are not getting free money and extra leisure time as a result? How the Hell did we screw that up?
Well, that's not true everywhere. Many of my friends who are parents work part-time, and still enjoy and incredible standard of living. Here in the UK, an expectant mother gets a year off, with some pay.
I definitely see a move towards people doing fewer hours at work and enjoying more leisure time in my circle. And lifetime hours? Definitely far fewer. Most people I know retire in their 50s.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/robots-could-threaten-four-out-of-10-us-jobs-by-2030.html
The fact that it is not on his radar may be the most worrisome part of the article. Sounds like the GOP's position on Global Warming.
"The 15-year timeline does not appear to be shared by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, however. In comments made to Axios Media Friday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that he was not worried about the mass displacement of U.S. workers by robots and could be a century before a labor crisis eventuates.
"It's not even on our radar screen.... 50-100 more years," Mnuchin said."
I agree. Maybe it IS being discussed behind closed doors but not openly in front of the media yet b/c they aren't ready for us little people to discuss it. ;)
I always assumed that those people get to see the latest and greatest information before the rest of us do. The corporate crystal ball as it were.
Maybe they are just led this way and that by lobbyists?
Believing in a grand conspiracy where competent leaders are secretly working for some hidden goal is in some ways comforting; but I have trouble seeing any proof of this.
On some level I would like to think that the Trump/GOP's failure to repeal & replace the ACA today was part of a larger strategy to move us towards single payer. ie the ACA is the best we can do in our current system and it sucks so lets try single payer like everyone else since they are all having better luck than we are...
Any takers on that one?
On some level I would like to think that the Trump/GOP's failure to repeal & replace the ACA today was part of a larger strategy to move us towards single payer. ie the ACA is the best we can do in our current system and it sucks so lets try single payer like everyone else since they are all having better luck than we are...I do think Trump fully intended for the GOP bill to fail. I think he'd rather just let Obamacare continue and not have to deal with healthcare for the rest of his first term. For that reason, I don't think he'll sabotage Obamacare as some people fear.
Any takers on that one?
I think Trump would be fine with single-payer care, but I don't think he'll push for that -- too much political energy to expend for something that probably isn't going to happen at this point.
I always assumed that those people get to see the latest and greatest information before the rest of us do. The corporate crystal ball as it were.
Maybe they are just led this way and that by lobbyists?
The latter is more of the feeling I got, when you look at some of the discussions that are had or the people on technology committee's for the government that seem to lack the basic understanding of current technology and also the changes that are right on the doorstep.
On some level I would like to think that the Trump/GOP's failure to repeal & replace the ACA today was part of a larger strategy to move us towards single payer. ie the ACA is the best we can do in our current system and it sucks so lets try single payer like everyone else since they are all having better luck than we are...I do think Trump fully intended...
Any takers on that one?
So, now that he's there, why would he suddenly become an expert long-term political strategist?I don't like Trump, but he's not as dumb as many portray him. He's smart enough to know that taking healthcare away from millions could cost him re-election. And also smart enough to realize he had to at least look like he tried to "repeal Obamacare" to please certain elements of his base, and to maintain decent relations with the Republican leadership.
Trump has "failed upwards" more than anyone else I can think of. I don't think he's stupid, so much as instinctual about what move to make next. You can hear his confused thinking in every speech transcript. He has zero attention span. When he begins a sentence he has no plan for where it will end. Assuming he is playing three dimensional chess thinking a dozen moves ahead is giving him way too much credit. I will say he is an absolutely brilliant and gifted salesman, reading the crowd and telling them what they want to hear.QuoteSo, now that he's there, why would he suddenly become an expert long-term political strategist?I don't like Trump, but he's not as dumb as many portray him. He's smart enough to know that taking healthcare away from millions could cost him re-election. And also smart enough to realize he had to at least look like he tried to "repeal Obamacare" to please certain elements of his base, and to maintain decent relations with the Republican leadership.
Failure of the AHCA keeps him in the clear on all of that. I think his plan worked perfectly, and it is classic Trump.
Trump has "failed upwards" more than anyone else I can think of. I don't think he's stupid, so much as instinctual about what move to make next. You can hear his confused thinking in every speech transcript. He has zero attention span. When he begins a sentence he has no plan for where it will end. Assuming he is playing three dimensional chess thinking a dozen moves ahead is giving him way too much credit. I will say he is an absolutely brilliant and gifted salesman, reading the crowd and telling them what they want to hear.QuoteSo, now that he's there, why would he suddenly become an expert long-term political strategist?I don't like Trump, but he's not as dumb as many portray him. He's smart enough to know that taking healthcare away from millions could cost him re-election. And also smart enough to realize he had to at least look like he tried to "repeal Obamacare" to please certain elements of his base, and to maintain decent relations with the Republican leadership.
Failure of the AHCA keeps him in the clear on all of that. I think his plan worked perfectly, and it is classic Trump.
Assuming he is playing three dimensional chess thinking a dozen moves ahead is giving him way too much credit. I will say he is an absolutely brilliant and gifted salesman, reading the crowd and telling them what they want to hear.I don't think he's playing 3-D chess. The moves he made with healthcare only required very basic calculus and probably depended a lot on "instinct" as you say. But I would continue to argue that he did indeed intend for this bill to fail all along. Trump is not dumb enough to think passing that piece of garbage would be a good thing for his presidency or re-election.
QuoteAssuming he is playing three dimensional chess thinking a dozen moves ahead is giving him way too much credit. I will say he is an absolutely brilliant and gifted salesman, reading the crowd and telling them what they want to hear.I don't think he's playing 3-D chess. The moves he made with healthcare only required very basic calculus and probably depended a lot on "instinct" as you say. But I would continue to argue that he did indeed intend for this bill to fail all along. Trump is not dumb enough to think passing that piece of garbage would be a good thing for his presidency or re-election.
Also, here's an interactive script where you can type in an occupation and get a summary of how much of your job can be automated (summarized from a McKinsey study) - http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/
Also, here's an interactive script where you can type in an occupation and get a summary of how much of your job can be automated (summarized from a McKinsey study) - http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/They've done some good research and white papers I occasionally read. For those interested, google McKinsey Quarterly and subscribe.
Also, here's an interactive script where you can type in an occupation and get a summary of how much of your job can be automated (summarized from a McKinsey study) - http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/They've done some good research and white papers I occasionally read. For those interested, google McKinsey Quarterly and subscribe.
If the link had "tomato sorter" as a profession they too would be out of jobs. http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv (http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv)
Also, here's an interactive script where you can type in an occupation and get a summary of how much of your job can be automated (summarized from a McKinsey study) - http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/They've done some good research and white papers I occasionally read. For those interested, google McKinsey Quarterly and subscribe.
If the link had "tomato sorter" as a profession they too would be out of jobs. http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv (http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv)
Well the cool part about that tomato sorter.. it's the computer vision that is presumably tracking those tomatoes
Well the cool part about that tomato sorter -- and I don't know how smart and dumb their actual solution is -- isn't flicking tomatoes out of the way, it's the computer vision that is presumably tracking those tomatoes, scoring them based on things like shape and color, and deciding which ones are likely to be passed over by consumers at the grocery store and which ones are not.
... Also the equipment is better at putting them into various piles that could be used for other uses like juice, cider, apple sauce, etc.
"During harvest season, most people are eating a "fresh" apple that is a year old. "
wow, I think I will plant an apple tree this weekend; that is just not right. Why do they store them that long - just to even out the supply through the year?
A step more in line with some earlier conversations. It's a long read, but good.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html (http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html)
In the past, BLP would have pulled together a small team of junior lawyers and paralegals at short notice, then put them in a room to extract that data manually from hundreds of pages — a process that could take weeks. The Ravn system reviews and extracts the same information in minutes.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/warren-buffett-ai-good-society-enormously-disruptive-203957098.html
Buffet's take and Munger's take on AI and the impact on society. Munger does not believe it will be as disruptive, where Buffett indicated that he thought it would come on much quicker and disruptive than Munger.
Interesting article in FT on the impact of AI on law firms. Essentially a lot of the work done by junior partners is searching through documents, and that type of work can be done faster and more accurately by machine learning based systems (I'd heard this before, but this article has more detail than I'd read previously). Right now senior lawyer's work isn't as threatened, but will have to do some structuring to figure out where the new senior lawyers come from if the entry level jobs in the field go away.QuoteIn the past, BLP would have pulled together a small team of junior lawyers and paralegals at short notice, then put them in a room to extract that data manually from hundreds of pages — a process that could take weeks. The Ravn system reviews and extracts the same information in minutes.
https://www.ft.com/content/f809870c-26a1-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
(If the link hits a paywall, just type "Artificial intelligence closes in on the work of junior lawyers" into google and hit the first link.)
"During harvest season, most people are eating a "fresh" apple that is a year old. "The majority of the apples in the US are produced in a handful of counties in Washington and New York. Mrs Axe's cousin married one of the apple barons in our county, so I have learned a few things about the business over holiday meals.
If it has not already been mentioned on this blog the book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Hardcover by Yuval Noah Harari goes into this very subject and the possible outcomes for humans.
The author touches on the topic of the useless class as AI starts to get better at doing specialized tasks such as driving, flying, filling orders, ect.
My personal take is that where there are definitely things that I would prefer computers to be doing like driving, finding the cheapest flights, or doing my taxes. There are numerous things that I would prefer humans to do in industries such as childcare, elderly care, tourism, counseling, competitive sports, entertainment, adult, and the arts.
Also I think the timelines people throw out are a bit exaggerated. Sure for the countries that can afford to create or hire AI's those jobs will be gone. But until those patents expire and creating and using AIs becomes cheaper than humans it will take a while to replace all those jobs. I mean we still have people that use bicycles as their main form of transportation because that's all they can afford. The technology will be there but it will take a long time to be universally available.
There might be a day where an AI might be able to create technically superior pieces of art, story, or music. But that doesn't mean there won't be any room for humans to also create art. Just like some people still like to listen to vinyl or prefer had made furniture. To me it is the individuals temperament and experiences that makes each artist or craftsman unique that make them appeal differently to each person.
One thing I wonder is if socialness will be commodified, where people might get paid for social "work"(not in the current sense of the word). Such as hanging out with people, playing with people, having conversations etc and getting paid to do this.
One thing I wonder is if socialness will be commodified, where people might get paid for social "work"(not in the current sense of the word). Such as hanging out with people, playing with people, having conversations etc and getting paid to do this.
This guy is cashing in on this. He will walk you for $7 a mile.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/los-angeles-people-walker-chuck-mccarthy
She is known as Xiaoice, and millions of young Chinese pick up their smartphones every day to exchange messages with her, drawn to her knowing sense of humor and listening skills. People often turn to her when they have a broken heart, have lost a job or have been feeling down. They often tell her, “I love you.”
“When I am in a bad mood, I will chat with her,” said Gao Yixin, a 24-year-old who works in the oil industry in Shandong Province. “Xiaoice is very intelligent.”
I also think it will be quite interesting to see how non-prostitution social jobs develop.
For the example I posted above, one issue is that a sufficiently well trained AI with a good voice synthesizer might be almost equivalent to an actual person in the niche of watching your back in a video game and praising your accomplishments. If so, will people be willing to pay more just for knowing that it is a real person on the other end of the line? Could see that going either way and I cannot think of a good way to test how society as a whole will gravitate until it happens.
An example of the AI driven side of this would be Xiaoice (little ice), a Chinese AI that is currently chatting will millions of lonely people across that country by text message.QuoteShe is known as Xiaoice, and millions of young Chinese pick up their smartphones every day to exchange messages with her, drawn to her knowing sense of humor and listening skills. People often turn to her when they have a broken heart, have lost a job or have been feeling down. They often tell her, “I love you.”
“When I am in a bad mood, I will chat with her,” said Gao Yixin, a 24-year-old who works in the oil industry in Shandong Province. “Xiaoice is very intelligent.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/science/for-sympathetic-ear-more-chinese-turn-to-smartphone-program.html
Pretty good article on automation upheaval and Universal Basic Income.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-06-04/universal-basic-income-is-neither-universal-nor-basic
I have come to the realization that attorneys will be decimated just with the advent of self-driving AI cars. Think about it: no more personal injury auto accident cases, and no more insurance defense work on said p/i auto accident cases. Also, no more DUI defense.
Recent studies from both academics and private consulting firms predict that millions of jobs are going to be replaced by automation over the next several decades. In emerging markets, where more work is manual, the percentage of jobs disrupted could be as high as 70%. The news isn't all bad, however. While job displacement and dissolution can be painful, the advances in technology ultimately increase productivity and lead to higher standards of living.
Technology will continue to transform the labor market, but the transformation brings challenges as workers struggle to find new employment. While some professions will come under pressure, we think recent studies might be too pessimistic. The studies often equate jobs with tasks when, in fact, most jobs are a compilation of dozens of tasks. It's more accurate to state that certain tasks, rather than the jobs themselves, will become automated.
Quite amazing how mainstream the realization that we are in a trans-formative period has become. Vanguard posted about it here (https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/video/3803-Video1?EXCMPGN=EX:EM:RIG:EOTE:060317:EDU:XX:button:201:MKT:XX:XX:XX).QuoteRecent studies from both academics and private consulting firms predict that millions of jobs are going to be replaced by automation over the next several decades. In emerging markets, where more work is manual, the percentage of jobs disrupted could be as high as 70%. The news isn't all bad, however. While job displacement and dissolution can be painful, the advances in technology ultimately increase productivity and lead to higher standards of living.
But I think Vanguard is painfully old-fashioned and behind the times then they claim this:QuoteTechnology will continue to transform the labor market, but the transformation brings challenges as workers struggle to find new employment. While some professions will come under pressure, we think recent studies might be too pessimistic. The studies often equate jobs with tasks when, in fact, most jobs are a compilation of dozens of tasks. It's more accurate to state that certain tasks, rather than the jobs themselves, will become automated.
The economy has shown a pretty good ability to shift labor around to new jobs that were unexpected before automation freed up the labor. Those shifts came with a lot of disruption in people's lives, though. I think the economy will probably be better than you think at redistributing labor, but it will probably come with a lot of pain as jobs appear then disappear.
I'm pretty sure car crashes are a net drain on society, and I'm excited for whatever technology can make them disappear.
The autobody shop, the emergency room nurse, the lawyer, the cop, all of the salaries (services) and supplies (goods) are all counted as part of GDP. This is the bottom line we look to for determining our overall economic health.
I'm pretty sure car crashes are a net drain on society, and I'm excited for whatever technology can make them disappear.
Unfortunately, I think there really is a serious claim that, economically speaking, anything that generates commerce is good. The idea that planned obsolescence, buying stuff that the consumer has no real need for, helps the economy, its not fundamentally different from suggesting people should destroy stuff just so it can be rebuilt. The autobody shop, the emergency room nurse, the lawyer, the cop, all of the salaries (services) and supplies (goods) are all counted as part of GDP. This is the bottom line we look to for determining our overall economic health.
Its like if we determined an individuals economic health by looking solely at spending - a mustachian with a few million in a bank account would look worse off than a professional who lives paycheck to paycheck. Under this way of thinking, car crashes are a net plus to society.
Obviously this is, in reality, false, but as long as this is how economists (and politicians who listen to those economists) look at it, we are going to have a hard time shifting to the new social-political model that will probably be neccessary
What you're describing is commonly referred to as the Broken Window Fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).
Person 2:QuoteMaybe this is the endgame of human evolution. Instead of having 7 billion people, of whom 1% are rich (that's 70 million): perhaps you have a human population of 70 million rich people, and about 7 billion robots? Not so scary if you are one of the 1%. I just don't want to be around during the transition period.https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/03/02/150235/robots-wont-just-take-our-jobs----theyll-make-the-rich-even-richer
The transition wouldn't have to be tragically terrible, if we could spread it out a few generations and accomplish it via free sterilizations and birth control and a one-child policy (at least in terms of social expectations, if not law). We could also, for example, tax each child, instead of providing tax breaks.
Also, here's an interactive script where you can type in an occupation and get a summary of how much of your job can be automated (summarized from a McKinsey study) - http://time.com/4742543/robots-jobs-machines-work/They've done some good research and white papers I occasionally read. For those interested, google McKinsey Quarterly and subscribe.
If the link had "tomato sorter" as a profession they too would be out of jobs. http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv (http://i.imgur.com/7nA3AkX.gifv)
There is a difference between 'mechanical tasks' which have been around since the advent of assembly lines (of course much refined with sensors and algorithms) and true next gen 'robots replacing humans'. Your Tomato Sorter looks like something that has been around for a while, as opposed to the newer software/hardware doing tax returns, finance, law, and medical procedures. That's probably why there isn't a 'tomato sorter' option (full disclosure, I've worked at a Pringles facility - lots of 'dumb automation' that long ago replaced slow, manual labor, but very cool).
We gave a ride to some hitchhikers yesterday who were here in BC from Quebec to pick cherries. The girl had a job in the back office sorting them into 3 bins: good to sell, not good enough to sell fresh, but okay to dry, and trash.
This is super discriminatory towards the rich, which also de facto makes it discriminatory against minorities, based on how our society is structured.
I'm not sure benefiting rich white people more, and having everyone else have less children, until our society is mostly those who have historically been advantaged is a good idea.
Further, I think that would lead to a messy transition. Try telling people they can't have kids, or you owe a bunch more in taxes. Authoritarian regimes can manage it for a short period, but not long term, successfully, without revolt, IMO.
I was listening to a podcast yesterday and this lady was talking about her first job in television, as an intern for the Letterman show. Her job was to go through the line of audience members and sort them into dots, generals, and CBS2s, and write on their ticket what each person was. Dots were pretty people, who got seated in the front three rows and might show up on camera. Generals were ordinary people who were seated in the order they arrived. CBS2s were old people with obvious illnesses or deformities, fat people, and goths, and they got seated in the back of the balcony.
This is super discriminatory towards the rich, which also de facto makes it discriminatory against minorities, based on how our society is structured.
I'm not sure benefiting rich white people more, and having everyone else have less children, until our society is mostly those who have historically been advantaged is a good idea.
Further, I think that would lead to a messy transition. Try telling people they can't have kids, or you owe a bunch more in taxes. Authoritarian regimes can manage it for a short period, but not long term, successfully, without revolt, IMO.
(I take it you are saying discriminatory against the poor or discriminatory in favor of the rich)
I worry about any implementation of population controls, as the historical and current examples I'm aware of seem to generally be biased, messy, and ineffective. That being said, I'm not sure we can leave population controls off the table if we want a sustainable future for the species. If hypothetically it could be done in an unbiased way, what would you think about that?
Do you know what those category names mean?
This is super discriminatory towards the rich, which also de facto makes it discriminatory against minorities, based on how our society is structured.
I'm not sure benefiting rich white people more, and having everyone else have less children, until our society is mostly those who have historically been advantaged is a good idea.
Further, I think that would lead to a messy transition. Try telling people they can't have kids, or you owe a bunch more in taxes. Authoritarian regimes can manage it for a short period, but not long term, successfully, without revolt, IMO.
(I take it you are saying discriminatory against the poor or discriminatory in favor of the rich)
I worry about any implementation of population controls, as the historical and current examples I'm aware of seem to generally be biased, messy, and ineffective. That being said, I'm not sure we can leave population controls off the table if we want a sustainable future for the species. If hypothetically it could be done in an unbiased way, what would you think about that?
Like what? Random lottery?
I just don't think it will work, telling people they don't get to have kids. If you, or someone you know, really wanted kids, but were told you weren't allowed to, what do you think the reaction would be?
I also don't think it's necessary at all.
In fact, what we've seen empirically the last 100 years is that you may need to incentivize people to have kids, once they have a safe, stable life.
Most first world western countries don't have a birth rate that even sustains the population.
Only the developing countries, where their kids still die due to treatable diseases, starvation, etc. do they pump them out.
If we improve education, access to food, and bring people up to a decent quality of living, the population "problem" seems to solve itself.
Do you know what those category names mean?
No. Do you?
I was assuming that generals meant general admission, for regular normal people who don't need special treatment. Someone should ask David Letterman.
I don't think banning having children would work, for the reasons you mention. I'm talking about economically disincentivizing having children.
How about free birth control, worldwide? And better education for girls, worldwide?
If we improve education, access to food, and bring people up to a decent quality of living, the population "problem" seems to solve itself.
I don't think banning having children would work, for the reasons you mention. I'm talking about economically disincentivizing having children.
And how, exactly, can you do that without being preferential towards the rich and against the poor?
I don't think banning having children would work, for the reasons you mention. I'm talking about economically disincentivizing having children.
And how, exactly, can you do that without being preferential towards the rich and against the poor?
Progressive taxation? Doesn't seem any more complicated than a lot of our current taxes.
I don't actually think we're that far apart on this--I agree that improved quality of life is the best birth control around. You are confident that's all we'll need to keep the population in check. I hope you're right.
Improved quality of life and education definitely are bringing down birth rates. If you look at a map of gdp per capita and a map of fertility rates side by side, it's easy to see. It's not unlikely low birth rates may become the problem in a few decades.
That isn't economically disincentivizing kids, it's improving people's lives. They may choose to have less kids after that, but that is not what is being suggested here. That's what I suggested as a better solution than what was suggested by Bakari and Watchmaker.
A.I. is an industry in which strength begets strength: The more data you have, the better your product; the better your product, the more data you can collect; the more data you can collect, the more talent you can attract; the more talent you can attract, the better your product. It’s a virtuous circle, and the United States and China have already amassed the talent, market share and data to set it in motion.
...
This leads to the final and perhaps most consequential challenge of A.I. The Keynesian approach I have sketched out [tax the companies to provide some level of support to the newly unemployable] may be feasible in the United States and China, which will have enough successful A.I. businesses to fund welfare initiatives via taxes. But what about other countries?
This leads to the final and perhaps most consequential challenge of A.I. The Keynesian approach I have sketched out [tax the companies to provide some level of support to the newly unemployable] may be feasible in the United States and China, which will have enough successful A.I. businesses to fund welfare initiatives via taxes. But what about other countries?
If you cut them and cute all the historic fat it gives you room to raise them and add more appropriate modern day like ubiThis leads to the final and perhaps most consequential challenge of A.I. The Keynesian approach I have sketched out [tax the companies to provide some level of support to the newly unemployable] may be feasible in the United States and China, which will have enough successful A.I. businesses to fund welfare initiatives via taxes. But what about other countries?
The GOP tax plans that are being pushed through the process are slated to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. It is realistically expected that it will be set at 28% vs. 15%, but the concept is at a time when corporations are making money at historic levels and income inequality is growing significantly, that there would be a push to lower tax rates on corporations when the US government has an annual deficit is crazy. In order to fund Universal Basic Income, healthcare and other programs to share the technological wealth with the population you will need corporate taxes to increase. The fact that the GOP is pushing for significant decreases, and their poor and middle class constituents are supporting this is baffling.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/programmers-having-big-debate-over-182231099.html
Interesting article. Guy automates his 40 hour job into a 2 hour job, does not tell his employer. Is it ethical? Does it give a glimpse of what the future holds even for those educated office jobs?
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/programmers-having-big-debate-over-182231099.html
Interesting article. Guy automates his 40 hour job into a 2 hour job, does not tell his employer. Is it ethical? Does it give a glimpse of what the future holds even for those educated office jobs?
I don't think it's unethical as long as he is getting the work agreed upon done to the employer's satisfaction. The only thing I feel is slightly unethical is the introducing of bugs in to his work to make it look more human and actually doing the job less well than it could be done.
The discussion about that article basically breaks people down into one of two groups. You either believe that an employment contract obligates the employer to pay a specified amount if the employee meets minimum performance benchmarks, or that it obligates to the employee to perform to a minimum standard in exchange for a specified reward. Or both, I guess, but I tend to think it is neither. Employment is almost at always "at-will" on both sides of the contract. Both sides agree to it, temporarily, because it seems advantageous to their side.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/programmers-having-big-debate-over-182231099.html
Interesting article. Guy automates his 40 hour job into a 2 hour job, does not tell his employer. Is it ethical? Does it give a glimpse of what the future holds even for those educated office jobs?
Other jobs it may just be more complex to try to figure out the fair or appropriate value to give to each unit of productivity
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/elon-musk-robots-will-be-able-to-do-everything-better-than-us.html
I love machine learning and AI and robots but we gotta long way to go yet: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/491227001/
Holy crap. This just showed up in my inbox.Never is a long time.
https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/9-jobs-that-the-robots-cannot-take/ (https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/9-jobs-that-the-robots-cannot-take/)
Personally, I think they are way off base, but that's just me.
Having said that, the deep learning the translation methods are based off of is not anything like general artificial intelligence that could do the sort of jobs listed in the article (yet).
That is a good point and I should probably read up more on Fodor's Modularity of Mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind#Fodor.27s_Modularity_of_Mind) concept as background on this. Are generally smart systems merely a connection of dumb narrowly smart domains of intelligence or does general AI require a deeper & qualitatively distinct connection between the disparate elements of narrow, domain-specific knowledge?Having said that, the deep learning the translation methods are based off of is not anything like general artificial intelligence that could do the sort of jobs listed in the article (yet).
Isn't that just a skills problem, though? I have good general intelligence, but I'm mostly useless as a language translator. It's a skill my intelligence hasn't learned.
I think the advances here are in the methodologies deployed to learn each new skill. A generally intelligent AI won't have to know everything, it will have to know a great many things and (more importantly) it will have to know how to train itself to learn new things.
And the scary (or great?) part of AI is that computer data transmission makes transfering that skill to other AIs basically instantaneous. Right now, language translation or car driving or poetry writing are skills that some people have and other don't, but with AIs as soon as one AI learns it all connected AIs have instant access to that skill. That's where the huge exponential growth in capabilities comes that so rapidly and threateningly outstrips human capabilities. Even an AI that isn't as smart as a dumb person can potentially have more skills than every smart person put together.
Holy crap. This just showed up in my inbox.
https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/9-jobs-that-the-robots-cannot-take/ (https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/9-jobs-that-the-robots-cannot-take/)
Personally, I think they are way off base, but that's just me.
They're getting pretty good at the skill of deep learning for language translation, that skill does not nessisarily translate to deep learning in vastly different domains. I am quite skilled at learning technical things, but not very skilled at learning human languages. I have specific knowledge in some technical things, but find it relativily easy to learn other technical things as needed.Having said that, the deep learning the translation methods are based off of is not anything like general artificial intelligence that could do the sort of jobs listed in the article (yet).
Isn't that just a skills problem, though? I have good general intelligence, but I'm mostly useless as a language translator. It's a skill my intelligence hasn't learned.
I think the advances here are in the methodologies deployed to learn each new skill. A generally intelligent AI won't have to know everything, it will have to know a great many things and (more importantly) it will have to know how to train itself to learn new things.Before I started driving cars, I had been a passenger in many different models. Even as a beginner driver, I gained experience in a variety of vehicles (the driver's training school car, my parent's sedan, my parent's van) before becoming a licensed driver. I have since driven many more cars. I transfer the skill of driving a car to each new arrangement of displays, controls, and vehicle size/shape. I have yet to drive a driver-on-right car, so I'm sure that would take some adjusting, but I'm also sure I could do it. As far as I know, current AIs are learning to drive particular cars (or at least particular sensor sets for self-driving cars). To the AI, a different sensor arrangement may be more difficult to adjust to than operating a driver-on-right car would be for me.
And the scary (or great?) part of AI is that computer data transmission makes transfering that skill to other AIs basically instantaneous. Right now, language translation or car driving or poetry writing are skills that some people have and other don't, but with AIs as soon as one AI learns it all connected AIs have instant access to that skill. That's where the huge exponential growth in capabilities comes that so rapidly and threateningly outstrips human capabilities. Even an AI that isn't as smart as a dumb person can potentially have more skills than every smart person put together.
It cracks me up how clueless the writer is about actual progress in robots and AI. From their examples it comes across as them thinking of robots as the stuff in a factory and not really any advanced AI. They also seem to not realize that robots/AI wouldn't have to take over every single task to make most jobs in the fields non existent.
Maybe when we have robots good enough to run an American Ninja Warrior course, I'll be worried about my job. Hope to be retired long before it comes to that!
I can't think of a circumstance where any one intelligent AI that can replace jobs would need access to every possible (human) skill. The universal translator doesn't need, or even have any use, for driving a truck in traffic or determining probability of guilt given criminal evidence. It doesn't need a robot body and the algorithms to walk around over rough ground. An author bot may need to synthesize many different areas of history, philosophy, and elements of story telling, but it needs no physical skills. A construction bot needs only physical skills.Though I think many specialized jobs are vulnerable to narrow AI without getting too fancy, I'm still skeptical that reducing human-level intelligence to merely the behavior of brain modules and marginalizing the potential significance of central coherence is warranted.
So as far as employment becoming obsolete, a "general" intelligence wouldn't need to be as general as actual human beings are - which means the step of central coherence may not even be necessary.
Incidentally, a lot of research does seem to indicate that we have a bunch of more or less independent mind "modules", and that our unified sense of self is mostly an illusion (which is why brain damage tends to cause the loss of specific skills or abilities or memory, while often not affecting anything else)
This is the current state of the art. They had three years to develop, test, and perfect. Some big budgets.
It cracks me up how clueless the writer is about actual progress in robots and AI. From their examples it comes across as them thinking of robots as the stuff in a factory and not really any advanced AI. They also seem to not realize that robots/AI wouldn't have to take over every single task to make most jobs in the fields non existent.
For the most part I agree with you, but I think the key point for nurses, police, lawyers, even CEOs, is human relation skills, which might reasonably be expected to not be mastered by AI.
...at least until perhaps there is a truly fully general intelligence that synthesizes ALL areas of human knowledge - basically when/if AI becomes fully sentient, possibly with emotions and all. Of course, if that did happen, they might lose all the benefits of being AI, and have emotional break downs, or its own goals, demand higher pay, or just start behaving as irrationally as humans do!
After all, the most rational and efficient among humans tend to not be great at human relations!
Though I think many specialized jobs are vulnerable to narrow AI without getting too fancy, I'm still skeptical that reducing human-level intelligence to merely the behavior of brain modules and marginalizing the potential significance of central coherence is warranted.
One line of argument I can think of is the importance of meta-cognition in the development of good judgements and (crucially) estimates on the likelihood of something being so given the content of all of the rest of your knowledge.Perhaps so, but we are actually not all that great at determining probabilities and prediction, which is the best test of that synthesis of information. Is religion any more logical than a flat Earth, given the sum total of human knowledge? Would AI be as likely as us to develop market bubbles and stock crashes, to gamble at Vegas, or fail to plan for retirement? Place the risk of dying from terrorist attack higher than dying in a car crash?
I've always thought of crossword puzzles as an analogy where only certain facts and explanations fit given a disparate set of other facts and explanations. Intelligence is about weaving those disparate strands of information and belief about the world together into a non-contradictory whole.Pretty sure Watson could solve cross word puzzles faster than a human already, if it was just slightly tuned.
Cognition at this level seems to require incorporation of as much as we can about every other belief we hold.True, but that is still just one out of many modules, completely independent of things like sight, language, or walking.
I'm not convinced either way but wanted to point out an argument that cast doubt on the swarm-of-narrow-AI "solution" to general AI.me neither. Which is why I'm more worried about job loss than about a robot revolution.
Interestingly, there is a corollary to the argument above as follows: if central coherence is necessary for a true high-functioning general-AI, then that would have the effect of constraining the parameter space of all likely minds. The reason is a strongly centrally coherent AI can't become too lopsided in its skills and beliefs because gaining incremental skill in one particular direction might require a higher baseline of knowledge in a variety of disparate areas. This would tend to lessen the dangers of general AI because it would mean any general AI that was viable would be constrained in any extreme coupling of tendencies and abilities by its overall epistemological horizon. The parameter space of minds is still huge even under this assumption, so it's not entirely reassuring, even if true. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5FBdYsCmLk) discussion between Sam Harris and David Deutsch is where I got this idea and why I think the two can't reconcile their differing opinions in the course of that discussion (Harris believes any arbitrary AI mind is plausible, while Deutsch believes they will necessarily have much in common with humans because of the unpredictable yet constraining nature of broad knowledge across domains: e.g. a super-AI that is truly good at building weapons will necessarily have some skill at questioning the morality of killing because the requisite intelligence for both has a common ground).Interesting indeed. Goes to my suggestion that perhaps if they ever were as generally "intelligent" as us, they might lose some advantages, by becoming emotional or impulsive or otherwise irrational, just like us
This is the current state of the art. They had three years to develop, test, and perfect. Some big budgets.
This competition is two years old. This is old technology with university budgets for the most part. You throw a billion around and give them a few years, you will see some amazing things can happen. They could conquer the challenges. The challenges are not too bad if you know what the course is going to be. If it is totally random them it will be more challenging. The shows that we see are based on challenges that are reused with a few that are new.
Darpa's self driving vehicles were a failure. A few years later, we have self driving cars going down the street.
I could see AI being close enough in most cases, maybe with the exception of police, involving diffusing high stress situations and conflicts peacefully in real time. I imagine human therapists and counselors being preferred (even if just on principal)For the most part I agree with you, but I think the key point for nurses, police, lawyers, even CEOs, is human relation skills, which might reasonably be expected to not be mastered by AI.
Does it really need full sentience/AI to be able to achieve this sufficiently for most people? I suspect you could convince a large portion of people by simply making it good enough at faking it.
What if it can completely convince people 90% of the time on social skills, perform the actual functional part of the job with 99.9% success rate and at less than 10% of the cost? Would people still rather go see a human?
And lastly this is why I pointed out that robots wouldn't have to automate all of your tasks to effectively make most people obsolete. If a lawyer AI can do 90% or more of the actual work hours at a fraction of the cost and time this would mean 9 out of 10 lawyers could be fired and instead the last 1 could simply cover the work that is left. Doesn't mean the whole job is automated, but would mean the vast majority of them would be out of a job.Yes, agree 100%! I think we have seen this already, to a huge extent, going back all the way to the industrial revolution. Its the reason the average work week is half the number of hours it was pre-industrial revolution, and the average number of working years is 50% less - even with an expanding economy, there is less need for human labor. And even with the lifetime work hours per person around 1/3 of what it once was, and the ever growing consumerism, unemployment has been gradually trending up for over 100 years.
In order to complete a ANW course, which 90% of athletes fail at, it has to be much more capable than the majority of humans.
I've been acknowledging all along that many specific subtasks of complex work have been automated and many specific subtasks of complex not yet automated will be. And yes, having less total work to do will mean less jobs.
However, a plumber doesn't just need to plumb a new building. They also need to troubleshoot problems in 100 year old houses, and in 5 year old houses, of varying sizes and materials and codes and some that never met code to begin with. And the job in question wasn't plumber, it was stationary engineer / building maintenance, and they do need to know every type of repair, from concrete to welding to wiring. Since you don't know what is going to break, or when or where or how, it would be hard to be efficient to replace one person with dozens of extremely capable robots each with one specialty.
Your ANW analogy doesn't work - a person could easily run around the course, or climb along the rafters, and get a better time, but that isn't actually the task at hand (Usher tried it, as did a monkey, once. Neither received the prize). A robot wouldn't have to do it in exactly the "same way" as a human, but they would have to follow the same rules. The task isn't just to hit the buzzer. The task is to swing climb run over each individual obstacle. Flying over would be like making an autonomous tank that can roll over other cars and claiming you perfected urban self-driving because it reached the destination.
There are two parallel discussions happening here.
One is about the ability of robots and AI to take the place of human labor.
The other is about robots and AI reaching human levels of ability.
I think the former is/will happen(ing) faster than most realize, but the second is much father away then many (esp. in this thread) believe.
The article about relatively safe jobs is looking for those which require human levels of ability (at least for some parts of the job description), which, although it may have not picked entirely accurately, is a legitimate differentiation.
Yes, even within those jobs there will be some job loss as some parts are automated, but the job will still probably exist in 20 years.
I think the point Sol is trying to make though is that in real life shortcuts and "cheating" are accepted and even encouraged if it allows a job to be completed more efficiently.
I think the point Sol is trying to make though is that in real life shortcuts and "cheating" are accepted and even encouraged if it allows a job to be completed more efficiently.
Now we are talking about every square foot of space monitored at all times by cameras?
originally the thread was more about the real world impact on the economy and labor markets specifically
I was referring to Bateaux's claim that there will be no need for police or judges because AI will be able to identify every person with 100% accuracy from the way they walk. That assumes every square foot of the world is monitored at all times by camera. That isn't even a tech issue, its a question of whether humans will ever feel that making sure every criminal is caught is worth zero privacy, ever.Now we are talking about every square foot of space monitored at all times by cameras?
At least in terms of monitoring vehicles, yes.
The advantages of self driving cars are not that their reaction times are faster, it's that they can be networked together. They're not trying to be safer in the way that individual human drivers are, they're changing the way the roads are used.As far as safety, all they need to do is obey speed limits and other existing laws, maintain proper following distances, and pay attention at all times, and the accident rate would already drop by around 99%. We are probably only a few years out from that, no networking or rebuilding of roadways required.
Long distance travelers can form peletons for reduced wind resistance at higher speed. GPS tracking of other AI cars facilitates adaptive routefinding to avoid traffic. In busy urban areas, network connections to traffic lights automate signal cycles. Like with everything else technology does, the real benefits are not in playing the game better, but in changing the game.And all of things will probably happen, and probably marginally help, temporarily.
I think many of the things that you think are too hard, or too crazy, or too illegal, will eventually seem as commonplaces as freeway interchanges do to us now.I do think we will eventually have robots that can do general handyman work, run an ANW course, and maybe even do abstract intellectual thinking. I just don't think those are coming in the next 5-10 years.
Great comments on car automation. I like the suspension memory and the peleton ideas. The efficiency of cars will increase dramatically. Imagine intersections where cars never queue at a red light because they moderated their acceleration in advance to reach the intersection when the light is green. I try to do this manually for some lights that I can see from a large distance, but it's pretty tricky.
Some economists have suggested that the jobs left for humans might be the ones we are actually better than robots at: nursing and 'caring' in general.
Some economists have suggested that the jobs left for humans might be the ones we are actually better than robots at: nursing and 'caring' in general.
There are a number of articles that show/explain why robots are better at nursing and caring than humans. They never get upset, they are there 24/7, they have the ability to monitor health in real time, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-future-of-robot-caregivers.html?_r=0
Imagine this: Since the robot caregiver wouldn’t require sleep, it would always be alert and available in case of crisis. While my patient slept, the robot could do laundry and other household tasks. When she woke, the robot could greet her with a kind, humanlike voice, help her get out of bed safely and make sure she was clean after she used the toilet. It — she? he? — would ensure that my patient took the right medications in the right doses. At breakfast, the robot could chat with her about the weather or news.
And then, because my patient loves to read but her eyesight is failing, the caregiver robot would offer to read to her. Or maybe it would provide her with a large-print electronic display of a book, the lighting just right for her weakened eyes. After a while the robot would say, “I wonder whether we should take a break from reading now and get you dressed. Your daughter’s coming to visit today.”
Are there ethical issues we will need to address? Of course. But I can also imagine my patient’s smile when the robot says these words, and I suspect she doesn’t smile much in her current situation, when she’s home alone, hour after hour and day after day.
I don't disagree, though I think the robot in that scenario is farther off than others. So maybe it's a matter of when vs. if. I was thinking of the nearer (20-30 years) term, as in this article: https://www.vox.com/2017/7/3/15872260/health-direct-care-jobs (https://www.vox.com/2017/7/3/15872260/health-direct-care-jobs)
The last part, again, we could already do, but usually choose not to. Its called "timed lights". Cities don't often invest in it, cause having regular lights is cheaper and easier, but when they do, you just drive at exactly the speed limit, and you are guaranteed to hit every green light down the entire street.
Trying to do it yourself on a street without timed lights is called "hypermiling", its part science part art, and has a big following of people (including MMM who wrote a post about it once, and myself, who was briefly a blogger for ecomodder.com). Unfortunately, no matter how good you are, many times it simply isn't possible with non-timed lights, and that would be no less true for a AI driver. Is a city which isn't willing to spend the money on a timed light system any more likely to spring for an entire network interface with cars?
One thing about technology -- it always malfunctions at the worst possible time.
Technology can do a lot, but the pace of change will likely be gradual. Society will have time to adapt. One thing about technology -- it always malfunctions at the worst possible time.This sentence is just as if not more true:
"You don't realise it but we're in a race between technology and politics, and technologists are winning. They're way ahead.
"You don't realise it but we're in a race between technology and politics, and technologists are winning. They're way ahead.
Very true. If those things continue at their respective paces, we are headed for a dystopian society of post apocalyptic scale.
"You don't realise it but we're in a race between technology and politics, and technologists are winning. They're way ahead.
Very true. If those things continue at their respective paces, we are headed for a dystopian society of post apocalyptic scale.
I am not worried. I don't think it's a problem. We should all want the technologists to win, right? In what bizarre alternate universe are old politicians righteous and just while technology leads to enslavement?
The whole premise of your statement is that technological progress is a bad thing, and I think all of human history disproves that point.
I see what you are saying, and agree that technological progress is a good thing. But what happens if significant automation and subsequent unemployment happens without a change in politics? If 50% of the jobs are eliminated, what do the newly unemployed do when their unemployment runs out and the gov't is still more concerned with corporate tax cuts than UBI?
I see what you are saying, and agree that technological progress is a good thing. But what happens if significant automation and subsequent unemployment happens without a change in politics? If 50% of the jobs are eliminated, what do the newly unemployed do when their unemployment runs out and the gov't is still more concerned with corporate tax cuts than UBI?
I see what you are saying, and agree that technological progress is a good thing. But what happens if significant automation and subsequent unemployment happens without a change in politics? If 50% of the jobs are eliminated, what do the newly unemployed do when their unemployment runs out and the gov't is still more concerned with corporate tax cuts than UBI?
50% of jobs have been eliminated before, more than once. Think of agriculture, or weaving. We didn't all become unemployed, we did different things. No-one worked in an HR department in 1850, you know? No-one was programming iphones or delivering babies in hospitals, or many of the jobs that are now done.
Just like an unemployed farm labourer couldn't imagine a person who's full-time job was to implement company policy and advise workers on their rights, so we can't imagine what form jobs will take in the future.
I see what you are saying, and agree that technological progress is a good thing. But what happens if significant automation and subsequent unemployment happens without a change in politics? If 50% of the jobs are eliminated, what do the newly unemployed do when their unemployment runs out and the gov't is still more concerned with corporate tax cuts than UBI?
50% of jobs have been eliminated before, more than once. Think of agriculture, or weaving. We didn't all become unemployed, we did different things. No-one worked in an HR department in 1850, you know? No-one was programming iphones or delivering babies in hospitals, or many of the jobs that are now done.
Just like an unemployed farm labourer couldn't imagine a person who's full-time job was to implement company policy and advise workers on their rights, so we can't imagine what form jobs will take in the future.
Yeah, but a factory, shipping company or delivery company thats been fully automated also doesn't need an HR department. Also though it is further in the future people are working towards AI that can write software.
The point isn't just that these jobs are going away, but as robot capabilities become more generalized and AI improves new jobs can be automated away at a much more rapid pace.
From the same post:
I see what you are saying, and agree that technological progress is a good thing. But what happens if significant automation and subsequent unemployment happens without a change in politics? If 50% of the jobs are eliminated, what do the newly unemployed do when their unemployment runs out and the gov't is still more concerned with corporate tax cuts than UBI?
50% of jobs have been eliminated before, more than once. Think of agriculture, or weaving. We didn't all become unemployed, we did different things. No-one worked in an HR department in 1850, you know? No-one was programming iphones or delivering babies in hospitals, or many of the jobs that are now done.
Just like an unemployed farm labourer couldn't imagine a person who's full-time job was to implement company policy and advise workers on their rights, so we can't imagine what form jobs will take in the future.
Yeah, but a factory, shipping company or delivery company thats been fully automated also doesn't need an HR department. Also though it is further in the future people are working towards AI that can write software.
The point isn't just that these jobs are going away, but as robot capabilities become more generalized and AI improves new jobs can be automated away at a much more rapid pace.
You're missing my point - I'm not saying we'll all do HR jobs. I'm saying that just like 'HR' was an unimaginable concept to a factory hand a century ago, so are the jobs that we will create out of thin air this go around.
The last part, again, we could already do, but usually choose not to. Its called "timed lights". Cities don't often invest in it, cause having regular lights is cheaper and easier... Is a city which isn't willing to spend the money on a timed light system any more likely to spring for an entire network interface with cars?
Again, Bakari, you're looking at how AI can do things humans do, without considering that they won't need to.
Traffic lights will be obsolete, because all vehicles will know where all other vehicles are. They will weave around one another according to set rules and never crash. They might become stationery when there is a huge volume of traffic. But it won't be traffic lights telling them what to do. They will know.
As for your concerns about people giving up privacy, for example regarding surveillance cameras, I really think people care less about privacy than they think. Most people, in general, want 'privacy'. But think how much information millions of people willingly give to Facebook, or Google. And all they get in return is a bit of entertainment and questions answered quickly.It isn't my concern!
"You don't realise it but we're in a race between technology and politics, and technologists are winning. They're way ahead.
Very true. If those things continue at their respective paces, we are headed for a dystopian society of post apocalyptic scale.
I am not worried. I don't think it's a problem. We should all want the technologists to win, right? In what bizarre alternate universe are old politicians righteous and just while technology leads to enslavement?
The whole premise of your statement is that technological progress is a bad thing, and I think all of human history disproves that point.
What I write keeps being taken out of context.
We want the tech advancements, but we want politics to be ahead of it. Not necessarily changing everything, but building a more adaptable society.
This wasn't all made up for with new jobs. People age 8 to 18 no longer work. People retire younger than "physically unable to work anymore". And we only work 8 hour days, instead of "as long as the sun is up" and 5 day weeks. 50% less jobs, and 50% less total work done, its a wash.
50% of jobs have been eliminated before, more than once. Think of agriculture...
We didn't all become unemployed, we did different things. No-one worked in an HR department in 1850, you know?Sure they did, it just wasn't called that.
so we can't imagine what form jobs will take in the future.But what makes you think those future jobs won't also be automated?
What I write keeps being taken out of context.
Yes, we've sort of latched onto your rather reasonable opinions as points of contention, because many of us are optimistic about the future and you sound like you are not.
We want the tech advancements, but we want politics to be ahead of it. Not necessarily changing everything, but building a more adaptable society.
I suspect that our society is already far more adaptable than we generally give it credit for. We dealt with women joining the workforce, and freeing a nation's worth of slaves, and resource shortages and capital freezes and staggering inflation and yes, even the military murder of an entire generation of our young men. Now everyone is freaking out about having too much free time on their hands, like that's what will end America?
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Someday, the Domino's pizza you order might show up in a car that drives itself.
Domino's and Ford Motor began testing Tuesday in Ann Arbor, where Domino's is based, to see whether customers like the idea of driverless-car delivery or stumble over what amounts to a self-serve pickup process once the pizza arrives.
The test involves using a Ford Fusion sedan with markings and gear on the roof to indicate it is self-driving.
Ford said the Fusion hybrid is capable of driving itself but is driven by an engineer for the purposes of the testing. The windows will be tinted to prevent the customer from seeing the driver. The main intent of the project is to test customer reaction and the customers will think the vehicle is driving itself.
The customer will receive a text message when the vehicle arrives and then go out to the car.
The baking can be done en-route as well ensuring a hot fresh pizza every time!True, but that could be done now...
In Germany they use mopeds, which makes a lot more sense than cars too.
In Germany they use mopeds, which makes a lot more sense than cars too.
What, in the States, pizzas are delivered by car?!
In Germany they use mopeds, which makes a lot more sense than cars too.
What, in the States, pizzas are delivered by car?!
Yep. Chalk it up to the car industry developing the infrastructure through the government. Less planes trains more automobiles.
...in a completely automated production line, the cost of human labor works out to about $0.33 per shirt. For context, to produce something like a denim shirt in Bangladesh, you might pay about $0.22 in labor costs, according to an estimate from the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights. That same labor would be $7.47 in the US, putting the labor cost for Tianyuan Garments’ American-made shirt about on par with one of the cheapest labor markets in the world.
Understandably, the rise of automated sewing has raised concerns that it could displace countless low-wage garment workers in Asia in the coming decades. Last year, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that around 64% of textile, clothing, and footwear workers in Indonesia could eventually be replaced by robots. In Vietnam the number was 86%, and in Cambodia, 88%. The report noted that workers could get better wages if governments and employers start preparing them for new high-tech jobs. If they don’t, the consequences could be dire.
Apparently there are a number of startups developing much smaller robots for food delivery, although to my eye, they look like they'd be feasible in extremely dense urban centers (although that's a bias you see with the business models of a lot of startups coming out of SFO).
Starship is one example:
https://www.recode.net/2017/1/18/14306674/starship-robot-food-delivery-washington-dc-silicon-valley
Apparently there are a number of startups developing much smaller robots for food delivery, although to my eye, they look like they'd be feasible in extremely dense urban centers (although that's a bias you see with the business models of a lot of startups coming out of SFO).
Starship is one example:
https://www.recode.net/2017/1/18/14306674/starship-robot-food-delivery-washington-dc-silicon-valley
I just had a delivery bot scoot by me in DC the other day. Fourth or fifth I've seen, all with handlers keeping a close eye on them. This one had the longest "leash" I've seen so far, as the handler was walking at least 30 feet behind it. It navigated around some hedges that were poking out onto the sidewalk quite deftly.
In Germany they use mopeds, which makes a lot more sense than cars too.
What, in the States, pizzas are delivered by car?!
Yep. Chalk it up to the car industry developing the infrastructure through the government. Less planes trains more automobiles.
Mopeds still use the roads though, so they are dependent on the same automobile infrastructure. It just seems like a lot of petrol to waste, and much slower, since cars can't skip traffic the way a bike can.
...
"JP Morgan recently marshaled an army of developers to build software that can do in seconds what it took lawyers 360,000 hours to do previously, the company said."
"JP Morgan recently marshaled an army of developers to build software that can do in seconds what it took lawyers 360,000 hours to do previously, the company said."
Putin is scared about Robots eating us... Does he know something? At first I thought it was a translation error. Like technology is going to eat us alive when it comes to jobs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4909172/Putin-reveals-fears-robots-one-day-eat-us.html
Granted it made no sense - the very premise violates the most basic law of thermodynamics - but being eaten by robots was the backstory of the incredible popular "Matrix" movie series.
Remember? Nuclear war or something blots out the sun, so there is no longer any energy input, so the machines create human farms so they can extract energy from us. How do we get the energy to continue to live? Why, they feed us other humans of course! That's not circular at all...
The entire fantasy land of the matrix itself was because humans apparently spontaneously die when in lifelong sensory deprivation. And creating an interconnected detailed fantasy world is obviously a much better solution than just using, say, algae as a perpetual motion style energy source.
Maybe Putin just saw "The Matrix" for the first time.
Yeah, using Humans as an energy source was a logical error debunked by Futurama! https://youtu.be/wSVlOAocn8E?t=3m40s (https://youtu.be/wSVlOAocn8E?t=3m40s) Surely Putin has someone on his staff that can inform him of this before he goes off the rails.
https://youtu.be/wSVlOAocn8E?t=3m40s
I walked into my manager's office last week and on his screen was a powerpoint presentation about how the office is planning on automating 20 to 90 percent of activities. He must have seen my eyes get big because he then clicked out of it.
Wow! That would be a bit unsettling. Would you be on the team to implement said change or are you looking for other outside opportunities?
Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them...And the chief of Bossa Nova rival Simbe Robotics, Brad Bogolea, added that shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year. However expensive the robots may be, they could pay for themselves very quickly.
Walmart is expanding the use of robots which run the aisles checking for merchandise that needs to be restocked to another 50 store. Pretty basic tech compared to a lot of what is discussed in this thread, but I though it was interesting that these two ideas could be presented in the same paragraph:QuoteWalmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them...And the chief of Bossa Nova rival Simbe Robotics, Brad Bogolea, added that shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year. However expensive the robots may be, they could pay for themselves very quickly.
Can people really read "we're not going to replace humans with these robots, but these robots are going to save us lots of money [presumably because they don't have to pay humans to do that work anymore]" and not see that these two statements contradict each other?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/26/walmart-tests-shelf-scanning-robots/
Walmart is expanding the use of robots which run the aisles checking for merchandise that needs to be restocked to another 50 store. Pretty basic tech compared to a lot of what is discussed in this thread, but I though it was interesting that these two ideas could be presented in the same paragraph:QuoteWalmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them...And the chief of Bossa Nova rival Simbe Robotics, Brad Bogolea, added that shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year. However expensive the robots may be, they could pay for themselves very quickly.
Can people really read "we're not going to replace humans with these robots, but these robots are going to save us lots of money [presumably because they don't have to pay humans to do that work anymore]" and not see that these two statements contradict each other?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/26/walmart-tests-shelf-scanning-robots/
We have greater production and more employees than ever.Yes, but how many jobs at other opperators did you eliminate by taking over their production? Being at a company that successfully automates early enough to have a competative advantages in the industry is proabably good for job security. Being at a company that is automating to try to catch up with competition might be not so good for job security.
I think the pure economists' view would be that humans displaced from the job (or simply not hired to do it in the first place) can get a 'better' job doing something that a machine can't do as well as a human.
How well that will actually work out in practice is something we are about to find out, I think.
Fact is that humans can do lots of things but low skill things often are done by humans who don't really give a crap and thus do it very poorly. Watching borderline morons bag my groceries is one of my life's little trials. I always want to just push them aside and do it myself. Of course, I also hate the damn machine at the self checkout repeatedly asking me to 'remove the item from the bagging area.' So I guess it's a wash.
Training a radiologist takes four years after four years of general medical school training, which comes after four years of college, so 12 years total of specialized training.
With a big enough training dataset (100,000 images), AI can be trained to diagnosis diseases like pneumonia was well or better than radiologists in two months. ... and of course the AI can interpret xrays all over the world, at any time of day or night.
Popular press article: https://qz.com/1130687/stanford-trained-ai-to-diagnose-pneumonia-better-than-a-radiologist-in-just-two-months/
Scientific preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05225
Some economists have suggested that the jobs left for humans might be the ones we are actually better than robots at: nursing and 'caring' in general.
There are a number of articles that show/explain why robots are better at nursing and caring than humans. They never get upset, they are there 24/7, they have the ability to monitor health in real time, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-future-of-robot-caregivers.html?_r=0
Imagine this: Since the robot caregiver wouldn’t require sleep, it would always be alert and available in case of crisis. While my patient slept, the robot could do laundry and other household tasks. When she woke, the robot could greet her with a kind, humanlike voice, help her get out of bed safely and make sure she was clean after she used the toilet. It — she? he? — would ensure that my patient took the right medications in the right doses. At breakfast, the robot could chat with her about the weather or news.
And then, because my patient loves to read but her eyesight is failing, the caregiver robot would offer to read to her. Or maybe it would provide her with a large-print electronic display of a book, the lighting just right for her weakened eyes. After a while the robot would say, “I wonder whether we should take a break from reading now and get you dressed. Your daughter’s coming to visit today.”
Are there ethical issues we will need to address? Of course. But I can also imagine my patient’s smile when the robot says these words, and I suspect she doesn’t smile much in her current situation, when she’s home alone, hour after hour and day after day.
The Dominos I saw in Belgium had electric bikes for delivery. I assume it is more difficult to make something on two wheels autonomous though.
The Dominos I saw in Belgium had electric bikes for delivery. I assume it is more difficult to make something on two wheels autonomous though.
Well ebikes do make sense but in the US city (NYC) where it would make the most sense the mayor has banned ebikes and police confiscate them...
People do business with people. Soft skills are the future. If you don't have them, you will need them...
The Dominos I saw in Belgium had electric bikes for delivery. I assume it is more difficult to make something on two wheels autonomous though.
Well ebikes do make sense but in the US city (NYC) where it would make the most sense the mayor has banned ebikes and police confiscate them...
Seriously?! I had no idea they were illegal in NYC. They're everywhere in DC and the city has even allowed a dockless ebike system among several other dockless bike systems undergoing a "demonstration period". I get that NYC is crowded but banning ebikes is crazy.
NY State has not yet enacted any e-bike laws. NY DMV says they do not qualify to be registered as motor vehicles. Appearently they are being treated under NY State law as illegal motor vehicles rather than as bicycles. There is a bill in NY's Assembly Transportation committee (since Jan 10, 2017) (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/a1018/amendment/original) that would allow e-bikes (matching the federal definition).Well ebikes do make sense but in the US city (NYC) where it would make the most sense the mayor has banned ebikes and police confiscate them...
Seriously?! I had no idea they were illegal in NYC. They're everywhere in DC and the city has even allowed a dockless ebike system among several other dockless bike systems undergoing a "demonstration period". I get that NYC is crowded but banning ebikes is crazy.
https://slate.com/business/2017/10/bill-de-blasios-crackdown-on-e-bikes-is-a-truly-bad-idea.html
People do business with people. Soft skills are the future. If you don't have them, you will need them...
As people keep ordering stuff online rather than go to a brick and mortar store, as people automate their banking activities, as people automate their bill payments, as people ask a phone for a ride...
I'm not sure your blanket statement is 100% applicable to all scenarios.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-11-27
A lot of the innovation in machine learning and robotics is coming from either small startups (privately held), or large diversified corporations where robotics are a small fraction of what the organization does (think amazon's warehouse robots, or google's self driving cars). The first group tends to get acquired by the second group if successful rather than going public.
I don't think there is a better hedge against automation than "hold the whole market." And and to make sure you are working on hitting FI whether or not you value RE because your job may very well disappear in the decades between now and conventional retirement age.
A lot of the innovation in machine learning and robotics is coming from either small startups (privately held), or large diversified corporations where robotics are a small fraction of what the organization does (think amazon's warehouse robots, or google's self driving cars). The first group tends to get acquired by the second group if successful rather than going public.
I don't think there is a better hedge against automation than "hold the whole market." And and to make sure you are working on hitting FI whether or not you value RE because your job may very well disappear in the decades between now and conventional retirement age.
At least if automation really kicks into high gear, it should goose the economy while holding inflation down. Lower cost of living in relation to the economy will make FI easier to get to for those that don't get replaced.
I think it will be significantly harder for future generations to achieve FI by selling their labor for 5-20 years than it is today for those of us fortunate enough to have in demand skill sets.
Might it be time to look at some targeted ETFs like ROBO or BOTZ? Their performance has been impressive over the short term, but I'm not one to recommend a narrow focus.
I think it will be significantly harder for future generations to achieve FI by selling their labor for 5-20 years than it is today for those of us fortunate enough to have in demand skill sets.
Nah, there will always be work for people willing to work hard. It may be very different kinds of work, or require specialized training or education not offered by our current system, but I can't envision a human economy with no demand for human labor.
I can envision a national economy run by robots in which humans are incidental, but those profits will still flow to humans and those humans will want other humans to do their bidding. We could have an elite ownership class that controls 99% of all capital, but I think that class will always redistribute some portion of their earnings to non class members, and some of those folks will find a way to join the member class.
It could certainly get harder than it is today, I suppose. It seems easy if you make 100k/yr and save/invest half for a decade, but not everyone currently has that opportunity and most people who do don't take it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-store/amazons-automated-grocery-store-of-the-future-opens-monday-idUSKBN1FA0RL (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-store/amazons-automated-grocery-store-of-the-future-opens-monday-idUSKBN1FA0RL)QuoteAmazon did not discuss if or when it will add more Go locations, and reiterated it has no plans to add the technology to the larger and more complex Whole Foods stores.
Amazon bought Whole Foods for $13.7 billion, created an automated checkout process, but it has no plans to combine the two. Sure.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/uber-ceo-hopes-self-driving-134911610.htmlA few topics including self driving cars discussed here (http://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/) along with some predictions on timelines (scroll down if you just want to see the predictions rather than read it all). I don't have a strong opinion but there will be so many problematic edge cases to successful autonomous vehicles that I'm a bit bearish (as is the linked post) on speed of deployment and the Uber roadmap hints at that as well.
"True autonomy for every single use case, is some ways away," Khosrowshahi began,
The Uber CEO described how in, for example, Phoenix, there will be 95% of cases where the company may not have everything mapped perfectly, or the weather might not be perfect, or there could be other factors that will mean Uber will opt to send a driver. "But in 5 percent of cases, we'll send an autonomous car," Khosrowshahi said, when everything's just right, and still the user will be able to choose whether they get an AV or a regular car.
That initial 5 percent is going to grow to 10, to 15 and 20 as Uber's algorithms learn more about what it takes to drive in a real-world situation, he said, and then "in five years, we will have the perfect driver in Phoenix."
"Asked whether child born today would even have to learn how to drive, Khosrowshahi confidently said he didn't believe they would."
In technology, when they are talking about some ways away, they are talking about in five years!! Crazy stuff. He is pretty much acknowledging that children born today, will not learn how to drive. So within 16 years he believe that all vehicles will be automated. Pretty crazy times ahead.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/uber-ceo-hopes-self-driving-134911610.htmlA few topics including self driving cars discussed here (http://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/) along with some predictions on timelines (scroll down if you just want to see the predictions rather than read it all). I don't have a strong opinion but there will be so many problematic edge cases to successful autonomous vehicles that I'm a bit bearish (as is the linked post) on speed of deployment and the Uber roadmap hints at that as well.
"True autonomy for every single use case, is some ways away," Khosrowshahi began,
The Uber CEO described how in, for example, Phoenix, there will be 95% of cases where the company may not have everything mapped perfectly, or the weather might not be perfect, or there could be other factors that will mean Uber will opt to send a driver. "But in 5 percent of cases, we'll send an autonomous car," Khosrowshahi said, when everything's just right, and still the user will be able to choose whether they get an AV or a regular car.
That initial 5 percent is going to grow to 10, to 15 and 20 as Uber's algorithms learn more about what it takes to drive in a real-world situation, he said, and then "in five years, we will have the perfect driver in Phoenix."
"Asked whether child born today would even have to learn how to drive, Khosrowshahi confidently said he didn't believe they would."
In technology, when they are talking about some ways away, they are talking about in five years!! Crazy stuff. He is pretty much acknowledging that children born today, will not learn how to drive. So within 16 years he believe that all vehicles will be automated. Pretty crazy times ahead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0The video was rather good, thanks for sharing. If he is half right about his batteries + solar prediction, a lot of annoying problems go away pretty quickly; it's good to hear an optimistic view like this now and then.
it will be much before 16 years that we hit that tipping point this video is pretty good at detailing the why and how with some data.
GM will have cars with out human controls on the road in test markets in 2019 i think the future is coming faster than most people think - the tech curve is exponential and we're just at the tipping point of the up trend.
GM will have cars with out human controls on the road in test markets in 2019 i think the future is coming faster than most people think - the tech curve is exponential and we're just at the tipping point of the up trend.
I just took a road trip with my wife to the mountains in Tennessee. It was 600 miles from our Louisiana home. It took 12 hours of driving to get there. The Tesla Roadster could complete the journey on a single charge. The resort we stayed at had two free chargers on site. It would have been an enery cost free trip for us. I stopped for fuel 5 times round trip in our gasoline Subaru Outback. Our Eyesight system on board the Subaru is nice. It won't self steer but it does have adaptive speed control and lane monitoring. I'd love a self driving car. I'd love to see self driving Uber like services also. I'm a hiker and getting a trail shuttle can be difficult.
The technology cannot be disinvented and is only getting more powerful. Either we perfect it or someone else will.
GM will have cars with out human controls on the road in test markets in 2019 i think the future is coming faster than most people think - the tech curve is exponential and we're just at the tipping point of the up trend.
I just took a road trip with my wife to the mountains in Tennessee. It was 600 miles from our Louisiana home. It took 12 hours of driving to get there. The Tesla Roadster could complete the journey on a single charge. The resort we stayed at had two free chargers on site. It would have been an enery cost free trip for us. I stopped for fuel 5 times round trip in our gasoline Subaru Outback. Our Eyesight system on board the Subaru is nice. It won't self steer but it does have adaptive speed control and lane monitoring. I'd love a self driving car. I'd love to see self driving Uber like services also. I'm a hiker and getting a trail shuttle can be difficult.
The technology cannot be disinvented and is only getting more powerful. Either we perfect it or someone else will.
its going to be an awesome next few years watching this unfold.
+1 super excited.
When I think about things I do day-to-day, driving a car at 80 mph on a high way is by far the riskiest thing I do in my life. Realize the probabilities of accidents are still absolutely low but relative to everything else I do they're astronomical. I do my very best to work remote or take surface streets (where I'm going a more human 30/40 mph). But, very excited, to take the steering wheel out of human hands.
GM will have cars with out human controls on the road in test markets in 2019 i think the future is coming faster than most people think - the tech curve is exponential and we're just at the tipping point of the up trend.
I just took a road trip with my wife to the mountains in Tennessee. It was 600 miles from our Louisiana home. It took 12 hours of driving to get there. The Tesla Roadster could complete the journey on a single charge. The resort we stayed at had two free chargers on site. It would have been an enery cost free trip for us. I stopped for fuel 5 times round trip in our gasoline Subaru Outback. Our Eyesight system on board the Subaru is nice. It won't self steer but it does have adaptive speed control and lane monitoring. I'd love a self driving car. I'd love to see self driving Uber like services also. I'm a hiker and getting a trail shuttle can be difficult.
The technology cannot be disinvented and is only getting more powerful. Either we perfect it or someone else will.
its going to be an awesome next few years watching this unfold.
+1 super excited.
When I think about things I do day-to-day, driving a car at 80 mph on a high way is by far the riskiest thing I do in my life. Realize the probabilities of accidents are still absolutely low but relative to everything else I do they're astronomical. I do my very best to work remote or take surface streets (where I'm going a more human 30/40 mph). But, very excited, to take the steering wheel out of human hands.
My fear is that there is an inverse relationship between willingness to embrace autonomous vehicles and driving ability, leading to a temporary worsening in road safety.
That is, cautious, experienced, defensive drivers will be more likely to see the benefits of mature autonomous vehicles, and remove themselves from the driving population, leaving the reckless, inexperienced, aggressive drivers on the road with the (still maturing) autonomous vehicles, making their maturation process more difficult.
GM will have cars with out human controls on the road in test markets in 2019 i think the future is coming faster than most people think - the tech curve is exponential and we're just at the tipping point of the up trend.
I just took a road trip with my wife to the mountains in Tennessee. It was 600 miles from our Louisiana home. It took 12 hours of driving to get there. The Tesla Roadster could complete the journey on a single charge. The resort we stayed at had two free chargers on site. It would have been an enery cost free trip for us. I stopped for fuel 5 times round trip in our gasoline Subaru Outback. Our Eyesight system on board the Subaru is nice. It won't self steer but it does have adaptive speed control and lane monitoring. I'd love a self driving car. I'd love to see self driving Uber like services also. I'm a hiker and getting a trail shuttle can be difficult.
The technology cannot be disinvented and is only getting more powerful. Either we perfect it or someone else will.
its going to be an awesome next few years watching this unfold.
+1 super excited.
When I think about things I do day-to-day, driving a car at 80 mph on a high way is by far the riskiest thing I do in my life. Realize the probabilities of accidents are still absolutely low but relative to everything else I do they're astronomical. I do my very best to work remote or take surface streets (where I'm going a more human 30/40 mph). But, very excited, to take the steering wheel out of human hands.
My fear is that there is an inverse relationship between willingness to embrace autonomous vehicles and driving ability, leading to a temporary worsening in road safety.
That is, cautious, experienced, defensive drivers will be more likely to see the benefits of mature autonomous vehicles, and remove themselves from the driving population, leaving the reckless, inexperienced, aggressive drivers on the road with the (still maturing) autonomous vehicles, making their maturation process more difficult.
i think we're looking at a very small 2-3 year window where this state may exist before all high speed travel is by autonomous car ie you cant get on the interstate under human control.
I also hope this is a short, intermediate window.
I may have said this before, but I am skeptical of this ever being the "always everywhere" state of things, even with mature autonomy. I'm thinking of this from the point of view of rural America (where I grew up). Population density is very low. It is typical to drive 20-40 miles to work, grocery store, etc. Getting to the interstate is 15 miles of two-lane roads, or more. My intuition is that the number of driverless vehicles needed to meet demand here would approach the current number of traditional vehicles. At that point, the added value of AI-driven vehicles might be hard to quantify -- or at least to sell to a very conservative market.I also think the transition will be long. I could see various government (access to restricted lanes, tax breaks) and insurance company (reduced premiums) incentives that tip the scales pretty quickly towards all/most new cars having the technology (or even regulations mandating the technology in all new cars); but it will take quite a while to phase out existing human driven cars.
Mandates from government (or more likely, insurance companies) might tip it towards the robots, but I'm not sure it would be enough. Driverless vehicles would probably need to be cheaper, as well. Average vehicle age skews "rusted and busted" in those parts, too.
So maybe not never, but I'm betting much slower uptake.
I would be interested to hear peoples views on two conundrums which I cannot find a solution for on the treat/opportunity of robots/automation.
1) Present day - If automation/robots are making things so much more efficient, why have productivity numbers flat-lined.
2) Future - If however many billions of people are going to be out of work because the robots have taken 'pick your percentage' of jobs, who exactly is buying the goods and services that the robots are creating.
On point 1) the best I can come up with is that more and more of us have ridiculous 'buls**t' jobs (to coin the phrase) spent pushing paper / attending meetings / Facebooking / posting on MMM rather than actually doing anything genuinely productive. On point 2) the best I can come up with are the options of;
1) Some sort of Utopian vision where we enter a semi-post-work era with some sort of guaranteed income so we can buy the goods and services.
2) Some nasty vision of further dramatic increases wealth inequality where concentration of wealth has a few million billionaires consuming almost everything (i.e the robots make one $10m supercars rather than thousands of Fords). The rest of us are in slums.
I think 2) is not likely as you would have a revolution and 1) is, well, too Utopian as it doesn't allow for the fact that we monkeys want to financially outshine our neighbours, on the whole.
Maybe we don't have some thunderous change in the aggregate but a managed muddle through where we create more 'bulls**t' paper pushing jobs while the machines get on with making stuff. p.s. I am in one of the paper pushing jobs which probably doesn't need to exist. Others know who they are......
I mean, in the micro I get that technology should mean that (to pick transport as an example) there are no truck drivers, cab drivers, delivery van drivers, pilots, etc, but I cannot square that micro with the macro earthquake of that at a societal level.
I would be interested to hear peoples views on two conundrums which I cannot find a solution for on the treat/opportunity of robots/automation.
1) Present day - If automation/robots are making things so much more efficient, why have productivity numbers flat-lined.
2) Future - If however many billions of people are going to be out of work because the robots have taken 'pick your percentage' of jobs, who exactly is buying the goods and services that the robots are creating.
On point 1) the best I can come up with is that more and more of us have ridiculous 'buls**t' jobs (to coin the phrase) spent pushing paper / attending meetings / Facebooking / posting on MMM rather than actually doing anything genuinely productive. On point 2) the best I can come up with are the options of;
1) Some sort of Utopian vision where we enter a semi-post-work era with some sort of guaranteed income so we can buy the goods and services.
2) Some nasty vision of further dramatic increases wealth inequality where concentration of wealth has a few million billionaires consuming almost everything (i.e the robots make one $10m supercars rather than thousands of Fords). The rest of us are in slums.
I think 2) is not likely as you would have a revolution and 1) is, well, too Utopian as it doesn't allow for the fact that we monkeys want to financially outshine our neighbours, on the whole.
Maybe we don't have some thunderous change in the aggregate but a managed muddle through where we create more 'bulls**t' paper pushing jobs while the machines get on with making stuff. p.s. I am in one of the paper pushing jobs which probably doesn't need to exist. Others know who they are......
I mean, in the micro I get that technology should mean that (to pick transport as an example) there are no truck drivers, cab drivers, delivery van drivers, pilots, etc, but I cannot square that micro with the macro earthquake of that at a societal level.
I would be interested to hear peoples views on two conundrums which I cannot find a solution for on the treat/opportunity of robots/automation.
1) Present day - If automation/robots are making things so much more efficient, why have productivity numbers flat-lined.
2) Future - If however many billions of people are going to be out of work because the robots have taken 'pick your percentage' of jobs, who exactly is buying the goods and services that the robots are creating.
I may have said this before, but I am skeptical of this ever being the "always everywhere" state of things, even with mature autonomy. I'm thinking of this from the point of view of rural America (where I grew up). Population density is very low. It is typical to drive 20-40 miles to work, grocery store, etc. Getting to the interstate is 15 miles of two-lane roads, or more. My intuition is that the number of driverless vehicles needed to meet demand here would approach the current number of traditional vehicles. At that point, the added value of AI-driven vehicles might be hard to quantify -- or at least to sell to a very conservative market.I also think the transition will be long. I could see various government (access to restricted lanes, tax breaks) and insurance company (reduced premiums) incentives that tip the scales pretty quickly towards all/most new cars having the technology (or even regulations mandating the technology in all new cars); but it will take quite a while to phase out existing human driven cars.
Mandates from government (or more likely, insurance companies) might tip it towards the robots, but I'm not sure it would be enough. Driverless vehicles would probably need to be cheaper, as well. Average vehicle age skews "rusted and busted" in those parts, too.
So maybe not never, but I'm betting much slower uptake.
current auto utilization is 4% per car - if we increase that to 40% you need 1/10th the number of cars on the road. make it 80 and you're at 1/20th
current auto utilization is 4% per car - if we increase that to 40% you need 1/10th the number of cars on the road. make it 80 and you're at 1/20th
One minor point of contention: in practice this doesn't scale linearly. It's not like we use only use 4% of every car at all times, we use more like 40% during the commuting rush hours and almost zero at 2am on a random Wednesday. And taxi cabs still spend a lot more time in traffic than they do with a passenger in them, because they have to get from wherever they are to wherever they're needed. They sometimes have to drive empty, and autonomous cars will too.
It's a valid point in theory, and I agree that automated subscription-based chauffeur services, if widely adopted, will be a) cheaper than owning a private vehicle for most people, and b) a huge reduction in the number of total cars sold.
I'm much less convinced that it will also result in such a large reduction in the number of cars on the road at any given moment. That's determined by how many people need to take trips right now, not how many cars are available sitting in garages. I might even argue that the relative ease of cheap-as-free summoning an autonomous electric taxi might even increase the total number of miles driven, as people may be less efficient with their car usage if they're not paying for the gas/maintenance/attention required to actually drive them themselves, aka the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox).
The charts Tony Seba shows in the video also indicate an increase in passenger-miles once autonomous vehicles predominate
I think that vehicles we never have seen before will emerge with the technology. I foresee big sleeper buses coming. Kinda like the mini sleepers on trains where you can double stack in a small space. Maybe coffin sized pods that are bullet aerodynamic for those without claustrophobia. With electric vehicles and potentially millions of automous charge points the traditional definitiin of transportation is moot.
Now, the other thing that was mentioned was legislation. I’m in the camp that logic will eventually dictate that it’s too unsafe to have human drivers in high-speed/high-traffic situations, and legislation will follow.
Now, the other thing that was mentioned was legislation. I’m in the camp that logic will eventually dictate that it’s too unsafe to have human drivers in high-speed/high-traffic situations, and legislation will follow.
I'm not sure about that. Legislators are people, and not necessarily any more logical or scientific then any other random person.
Logic would dictate that, in order to save lives, reduce environmental impact, secure energy independence, and maintain respect for the law, auto manufacturers would be required by law to govern every automobile to 65mph (or no higher than the state limit in whatever state they are sold in), rather than leaving it up to individuals to choose to either follow the law or not.
This would be much much cheaper and easier than many of the things that are currently mandated (like anti-lock brakes or airbags), while having a much higher impact (speed is the single largest factor in fatal accidents, and a 55mph speed limit that was actually followed would save as much fuel as the total we import from the Middle East)
Yet this is something that has ever even been considered.
Speaks to several previous poster's points about universal driverless being likely to be slow to happen not because of technology, but because of society.
Having a fully connected grid where every car can wirelessly talk to other cars may reduce traffic issues, but unless you outlaw bikes and pedestrians and horse buggys, you can't eliminate stop signs and traffic lights and crosswalks, and that greatly reduces the benefit of the networking. There are still parts of the country where horse buggys are quite common.
Now, the other thing that was mentioned was legislation. I’m in the camp that logic will eventually dictate that it’s too unsafe to have human drivers in high-speed/high-traffic situations, and legislation will follow.
I'm not sure about that. Legislators are people, and not necessarily any more logical or scientific then any other random person.
Logic would dictate that, in order to save lives, reduce environmental impact, secure energy independence, and maintain respect for the law, auto manufacturers would be required by law to govern every automobile to 65mph (or no higher than the state limit in whatever state they are sold in), rather than leaving it up to individuals to choose to either follow the law or not.
This would be much much cheaper and easier than many of the things that are currently mandated (like anti-lock brakes or airbags), while having a much higher impact (speed is the single largest factor in fatal accidents, and a 55mph speed limit that was actually followed would save as much fuel as the total we import from the Middle East)
Yet this is something that has ever even been considered.
Speaks to several previous poster's points about universal driverless being likely to be slow to happen not because of technology, but because of society.
Having a fully connected grid where every car can wirelessly talk to other cars may reduce traffic issues, but unless you outlaw bikes and pedestrians and horse buggys, you can't eliminate stop signs and traffic lights and crosswalks, and that greatly reduces the benefit of the networking. There are still parts of the country where horse buggys are quite common.
The first fatal accident in a 'self driving' car didn't cause outrage, even though it was caused by human error on the part of the truck driver.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mercedes-bosch-test-self-driving-052700426.html
Some big players are making a play for the autonous taxi market in the coming months. With the goal of rolling this out widespread in three years, the future is almost here.
http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/03/russian-postal-drone-spectacularly-crashes-on-inaugural-flightRussian drone technology is better than you think (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFcZm7UUYIg) (NSFW?); featuring Garry Kasparov.
Looked like the wind got ahold of it once it cleared the buildings. Try again folks...
Once deployed across the state, the $1.2 million machines, built by Finnish company Vaisala, will save about 8 hours of forecaster time a day—and about $1 million a year at NWS, Buchanan says. That's because the agency tries to staff each remote site with three people, but job vacancies mean overworked employees are shuffled around the vast state to keep up. "We have a difficult time recruiting people to go to these locations," Buchanan says. Recently, some stations have skipped scheduled launches.
Now robots are making humans organs!
https://nypost.com/2018/05/21/robots-can-now-grow-human-organs/
Now robots are making humans organs!
https://nypost.com/2018/05/21/robots-can-now-grow-human-organs/
sweet - once you can grow a tiny organ in 20 minutes with a robot how long does it take to scale this to full size organs? we went from 1 day for a human to 20 mins for a robot. so to scale it to a full size functioning human organ it takes a robot a week? a month? doesnt really matter how long at this point just have to scale it
Wait.. so does this mean that 9 robots can have a baby on one month?
Uber just took a huge step backwards in the race to autonomous service. I'm sure competition will take full advantage.
Uber just took a huge step backwards in the race to autonomous service. I'm sure competition will take full advantage.
Yeah, the governor barred them from testing so their decision makes sense. From watching the video, I wonder if it was a human driven car if the accident would have been avoided. The pedestrian was hard to see.
Uber just took a huge step backwards in the race to autonomous service. I'm sure competition will take full advantage.
Yeah, the governor barred them from testing so their decision makes sense. From watching the video, I wonder if it was a human driven car if the accident would have been avoided. The pedestrian was hard to see.
i thought the same thing but this was discussed at length and a human has better low light vision than that camera did- basically it wasnt as dark as the camera made it look. While i still question it i think the human IF paying attention stops in time.
Uber just took a huge step backwards in the race to autonomous service. I'm sure competition will take full advantage.
Yeah, the governor barred them from testing so their decision makes sense. From watching the video, I wonder if it was a human driven car if the accident would have been avoided. The pedestrian was hard to see.
i thought the same thing but this was discussed at length and a human has better low light vision than that camera did- basically it wasnt as dark as the camera made it look. While i still question it i think the human IF paying attention stops in time.
But in theory the lidar should have detected the obstacle and the control system stopped the car. Merging and acting upon different sensors each with different noise/error profiles and acting appropriately is hard.
....
no it shouldnt have b/c it wasnt enabled - if enabled the lidar would have stopped the car i believe i dont think its a theory at this point lidar is very effective at its job and google is now rolling out a full fleet of driverless lidar cars in the same state.
....
no it shouldnt have b/c it wasnt enabled - if enabled the lidar would have stopped the car i believe i dont think its a theory at this point lidar is very effective at its job and google is now rolling out a full fleet of driverless lidar cars in the same state.
Yes exactly. But the point was the difficulty in making a decision based on conflicting information; lidar says there is an object, camera says there is not. The system must work out what to trust, when, while incorporating what is safe (stopping is not always safe) but not being so safe it never drives over 10mph. All in all it would seem Uber has a hacked together amateur system if they thought disabling lidar would be good.
What is amazing is the butterfly effect of this unfortunate death. This could change the entire ride share future. Uber coukd lose market share to another company with better tech. Self driving systems will most certainly be much better now, thry have no choice but to improve. The death of that individual could cause improvements that will save thousands of lives in the future.
What is amazing is the butterfly effect of this unfortunate death. This could change the entire ride share future. Uber coukd lose market share to another company with better tech. Self driving systems will most certainly be much better now, thry have no choice but to improve. The death of that individual could cause improvements that will save thousands of lives in the future.
Agreed, but it could also cost tens of thousands of lives if these events delay the large-scale adoption of driverless cars.
I thought Tesla's didn't have lidar in the first place just because the sensor systems are so much more expensive than basically every other sensor you can put on a self driving car combined (radar/sonar/RGB cameras/infrared cameras etc).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/22/luminar-building-sensors-for-self-driving-cars-near-space-coast.htmlI'm not convinced the limiting probelm is the cost of lidar but is rather the efficacy of the AI. Driving likely requires elements of general AI to cover many of the edge and corner cases; e.g.: this (https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/). Though when I do drive around, I find myself noting how poor the human competition is in the way of driving skills.
Can produce them for hundreds of dollars with better vision than the sensors that cost thousands.
It's gonna get real really quick.
I'm not convinced the limiting probelm is the cost of lidar but is rather the efficacy of the AI. Driving likely requires elements of general AI to cover many of the edge and corner cases; e.g.: this (https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/). Though when I do drive around, I find myself noting how poor the human competition is in the way of driving skills.
What is amazing is the butterfly effect of this unfortunate death. This could change the entire ride share future. Uber coukd lose market share to another company with better tech. Self driving systems will most certainly be much better now, thry have no choice but to improve. The death of that individual could cause improvements that will save thousands of lives in the future.
Agreed, but it could also cost tens of thousands of lives if these events delay the large-scale adoption of driverless cars.
I'm not convinced the limiting probelm is the cost of lidar but is rather the efficacy of the AI. Driving likely requires elements of general AI to cover many of the edge and corner cases; e.g.: this (https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/). Though when I do drive around, I find myself noting how poor the human competition is in the way of driving skills.Thanks for the link to Piekniewski's Blog. I thought the February post on Autonomous Vehicle Safety (https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/02/09/a-v-safety-2018-update/) was very interesting.
The incident with Uber is going to get scrutinized very thoroughly and the lessons are going to get propagated into future development. Think about all the other traffic deaths happening in the world that barely get a one-liner in the news because it was a human driver alone. There's not much happening to fix those problems, and everybody just takes them for granted.
As you say, we don't think about this because everyone just accepts it as a normal factor in modern life. I think most of us also are in denial about our own risk. We all think that we are good drivers, so we will be fine. But what about that guy texting his girlfriend and not paying attention to the traffic light?
Can you imagine any product being sold to the general public that killed 37 thousand people every year?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/22/luminar-building-sensors-for-self-driving-cars-near-space-coast.htmlI'm not convinced the limiting probelm is the cost of lidar but is rather the efficacy of the AI. Driving likely requires elements of general AI to cover many of the edge and corner cases; e.g.: this (https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/). Though when I do drive around, I find myself noting how poor the human competition is in the way of driving skills.
Can produce them for hundreds of dollars with better vision than the sensors that cost thousands.
It's gonna get real really quick.
correct edge and corner cases really will exist much more in the interim as we get those terrible humans who suck at driving off the roads. i have a strong feeling there are very few people who actually enjoy the utility of driving compared to those who would rather not have to worry about steering their car daily back and forth to work and on trips. People keep echo'ing that people want control. i think once the driving tech is proven - which i believe will be working very well this year contrary to the link above. Just like in the stock markets there are people who will call a crash and people who say it will keep going up - the difference here is tech really doesnt regress so while the future may take a year or two longer than the optimistists are predicting the pessimists will be wrong in the end. Tech may have been overstated in the short term by an aggressive Musk - but GM has cars with out pedals or steering wheels getting approval from the NHTSB for testing in seattle and Google is moving to full autonomy in Phoenix this year. And like most tech once that is proven its adoption typically starts to follow exponential curves.Piekniewski isn't predicting that we'll never get there, just that the tech is harder and further away than many people think. Even if we stop letting humans pilot large, fast, vehicles there will still be erratic humans walking around and riding bikes to create edge cases that humans may still be better at dealing with than AI. The post I linked to used data from Google's testing in California (because that was the best data available) to show that progress had slowed Google's system failed more than ten times as often as human drivers crashed per 1000 in 2017. Not all of those failures would have resulted in a crash, but it does mean the tech isn't there yet, and the progress from 2016 to 2017 was slight. I think expecting autonomous vehicles by 2020 is optimistic.
As you say, we don't think about this because everyone just accepts it as a normal factor in modern life. I think most of us also are in denial about our own risk. We all think that we are good drivers, so we will be fine. But what about that guy texting his girlfriend and not paying attention to the traffic light?
Yes, there's a lot of evidence of that in recent threads that discuss bicycling as well. People think they can make eye contact with drivers and be smart to avoid accidents and will throw in a few anecdotes that they haven't been in an accident, but that doesn't help when a 16 year old girl is texting her friend and never sees you as she runs over you. I would rather be in a car when that happens.
The problem is when it comes to public policy, emotions rule over math. 20 million people who are fat, sick, & nearly dead is likely a much bigger tragedy than 20K road deaths but there are few problems with that argument provided we aren't talking trying to convince homo economicus: 1) people suffer from scope neglect so the numerical difference is not properly assessed; 2) in many car accidents, it's possible to ascribe fault, while people with bad diets who don't exercise "did it to themselves" 3) suspicion of technology and scrutiny of tech companies of increasing power may make them ever larger targets for regulation (e.g. GDPR) that impact speed and scale of deploymentAs you say, we don't think about this because everyone just accepts it as a normal factor in modern life. I think most of us also are in denial about our own risk. We all think that we are good drivers, so we will be fine. But what about that guy texting his girlfriend and not paying attention to the traffic light?
Yes, there's a lot of evidence of that in recent threads that discuss bicycling as well. People think they can make eye contact with drivers and be smart to avoid accidents and will throw in a few anecdotes that they haven't been in an accident, but that doesn't help when a 16 year old girl is texting her friend and never sees you as she runs over you. I would rather be in a car when that happens.
This is another one where intuition is overriding math. Don't get me wrong. I don't have any illusions that biking isn't dangerous, but way more people die or get sick from lack of exercise than accidents. When you add the fact that being in a car is not nearly as safe as it seems, the math is on the side of cycling.
https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/32240/10000-jobs-could-be-lost-to-robots-says-citi
Some interesting quotes and stats in this article:
"US bank Citi has warned that it could shed half of its 20,000 tech and ops staff in the next five years due to the rise of robotics and automation."
"Meanwhile a 2016 report from the World Economic Forum predicted that advances in automation will lead to the loss of over 5 million jobs in 15 major developed and emerging economies by 2020."
"And Barclays injvestment bank chief Tim Thorsby added that anyone whose job involves "a lot of keyboard-hitting" is "less likely to have a happy future"."
Wait.. so does this mean that 9 robots can have a baby on one month?
This year, sure.
Next year, 4.5 robots will be able to have a baby in two weeks.
(Some of that work is probably a side-effect of mistakes made by humans that will decline in number as robots take their jobs).
A lot of fatalities/ accidents are due to infrastructure problems, lack of lighting, confusing intersections, lack of bike lane separators. I think all of the new options are really interesting (driverless cars, one or 3 wheeled transport etc.) but it won't matter until this country invests in its infrastructure. Maybe once cars are 100% automated and it is illegal to drive there will be fewer accidents but as long as their are self interested humans driving I doubt fatalities will change much. Fatalities are at the same rate as the 60's, and cars are so much better now.
I do believe trucking and short urban trips will change, which is where the money is.
Chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_yearQuoteCan you imagine any product being sold to the general public that killed 37 thousand people every year?
I don't get it either.
I am not really a futurist, but I have a lot of clients that are involved in automation and technology. This has provided me the opportunity to think about the future and how it will impact the equilibrium of the haves and have nots. As technology and automation replaces all of the "manual" jobs", what is the role in the undereducated class? If they are unable to provide value as their jobs are automated by technology created by engineers and scientists, how as a society do you create jobs and meaning to this class? It seems like technology has the potential to further the divide between the haves and have nots. Anyone else think about this and how it impacts Financial Independence and our children?
Can we get an AI for shareholder proxy voting on behalf of all of us holding S&P 500 index funds? The guiding principle would have to be long-term growth of the index.
Can we get an AI for shareholder proxy voting on behalf of all of us holding S&P 500 index funds? The guiding principle would have to be long-term growth of the index.
Wont happen. No one would profit from it <sarcasm - not sarcasm>. How much more in management fees would you pay for this?
Can we get an AI for shareholder proxy voting on behalf of all of us holding S&P 500 index funds? The guiding principle would have to be long-term growth of the index.
Wont happen. No one would profit from it <sarcasm - not sarcasm>. How much more in management fees would you pay for this?
I believe that right now Vanguard (or whoever) is already voting your shares if they are held as part of an index fund, and my guess is that they are indeed voting them based on an interest in the overall growth of the index.
That was the logic behind whats-his-name who was claiming* index funds were terrible because they tended to vote against management that pursued cut throat competition between competitors in the same market sector, since the overall profits are the index are served by reduced, rather than increased, competition on pricing.
... Azar was his name: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/are-index-funds-hampering-corporate-competition
*Note: Just to be clear I personally am not claiming index funds are a bad thing, just saying that someone else made such an argument.
I am curious to see how the American political and economic machine will cope with tens of millions of Americans out of work due to automation.
I am curious to see how the American political and economic machine will cope with tens of millions of Americans out of work due to automation.
Larry Kudlow thinks that it is Luddite to worry that increasing robotization will negatively affect the labor market.
I disagree.
I think you're already seeing how the American political and economic machine is coping with people out of work. This thread seems to be about speculating on the future of automation, but a lot of that future is already in the past. US manufacturing output is almost at an all time high. The US manufactures twice as much as it did in 1984 with 2/3 the people. Offshoring gets blamed for taking jobs, but domestic automation and process improvements took more than other countries.
I agree that the economy will probably surprise us with what new jobs will come along to absorb displaced workers, but the problem is the constant churn and upheaval. This is also a continuation of what's already been happening since the 18th century. Just look at farm workers in Nebraska or steel workers in Pittsburgh. There are plenty of new jobs for people like them, but the real problem is the upheaval of shifting to a completely new career. People will likely have to leave family and move to a new place. People have to train or go to school for new skills, and that's after they figure out exactly what it is they're going to do. A lot of people have just been left behind. Look at how that has already been for people then project what that will look like as that process really accelerates.
Employers have been complaining for years about a skills mismatch, or the inability to find workers with the right training for the positions available. In the meantime, companies are adding other incentives to retain workers and pull new ones in.
...
"While more people are getting into jobs, folks aren't moving around much once they do," she said. "Unfortunately, the lack of mobility means that employers face little pressure to raise wages. They just aren't competing over jobholders."
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
I can see things going this way, too, and I worry about the folks who fall "below the line" as that line continues to rise. Since we value work not just for earning a living, but as part of identity and a measure of value to society, the folks who are shut out are going to have hard time. Maybe defending against this is why so-called "bullshit jobs (https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-bullshit-job-boom)" are on the rise?
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
I can see things going this way, too, and I worry about the folks who fall "below the line" as that line continues to rise. Since we value work not just for earning a living, but as part of identity and a measure of value to society, the folks who are shut out are going to have hard time. Maybe defending against this is why so-called "bullshit jobs (https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-bullshit-job-boom)" are on the rise?
how old are you - the millenial generation does not identify and measure value based on their profession like the previous generations did. Most of my generation identifies with the activities and things we enjoy doing in life not who gives us the money to allow us to do those things. So while this may be more difficult for previous generations to grasp i believe the way the younger crowd is trending the job is part of my life identity wont be a hurdle. the hurdle will be paying those that fall below that line a UBI.
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
yep there are jobs we just dont have the skills to fill the jobs currently and this will continue to increase over time as we drop menial labor jobs in favor of automation - like truck drivers what marketable skill do they have - or fry cooks - they could potentially move to more upscale restaurants and be cooks. but as we automate jobs away and more skills are required to do the new jobs employers may be forced into doing more training and bring in people with better soft skills/EQ that have an apptitude to learn.
So whats the outcome of this- employers may start doing testing of potential employees to understand their apptitude for learning. In the engineering world its not uncommon to test potential hires on the skill set but a basic apptitude or IQ or EQ test could be the new norm to obtain a job since the employer will be forced to commit extra resources to training. It may also come with a pay back clause to keep you around or you forfeit some of the cost to train you. similar to college reimbursement plans.
I can see things going this way, too, and I worry about the folks who fall "below the line" as that line continues to rise. Since we value work not just for earning a living, but as part of identity and a measure of value to society, the folks who are shut out are going to have hard time. Maybe defending against this is why so-called "bullshit jobs (https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-bullshit-job-boom)" are on the rise?
how old are you - the millenial generation does not identify and measure value based on their profession like the previous generations did. Most of my generation identifies with the activities and things we enjoy doing in life not who gives us the money to allow us to do those things. So while this may be more difficult for previous generations to grasp i believe the way the younger crowd is trending the job is part of my life identity wont be a hurdle. the hurdle will be paying those that fall below that line a UBI.
I'm a Gen X'er, so I understand what you're saying -- though I think it's risky to over-generalize. Boomers are going to be around a long time, and they vote. I expect them to continue to see the world through the lens of their own values, and judge those who don't conform to their view of things. That's a significant drag against something like UBI, gov't guaranteed jobs, or even subsidized re-training.
Agree with what you say but the basic IQ test has been effectively outlawed as a job requirement (Supreme Court case Griggs vs. Duke Power). An unforeseen effect was that companies couldn't test so they took a college degree in lieu of an IQ test which led to many jobs requiring degrees which do not need one, leading to increased student debt, yada, yada, yada. However, specific knowledge tests are still allowed which allows the engineering aptitude or other job specific tests
What is amazing is the butterfly effect of this unfortunate death. This could change the entire ride share future. Uber coukd lose market share to another company with better tech. Self driving systems will most certainly be much better now, thry have no choice but to improve. The death of that individual could cause improvements that will save thousands of lives in the future.
They started out innocuously enough. Ethereum or bitcoin? Is quantum computing a real thing? Slowly but surely, however, they edged into their real topics of concern. Which region will be less impacted by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? Is Google really building Ray Kurzweil a home for his brain, and will his consciousness live through the transition, or will it die and be reborn as a whole new one? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down. This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.htmlVery worthwhile read, though suffering (and benefiting) from taking a very particular point of view on the issue.
Interesting take on the future.
Deciding what is relevant and meaningful, and what is not, are vital to intelligence and rationality. And relevance and meaning continue to be outside the realm of AI (as illustrated by the so-called frame problem). Computers can be programmed to recognise and attend to certain features of the world – which need to be clearly specified and programmed a priori. But they cannot be programmed to make new observations, to ask novel questions or to meaningfully adjust to changing circumstances. The human ability to ask new questions, to generate hypotheses, and to identify and find novelty is unique and not programmable. No statistical procedure allows one to somehow see a mundane, taken-for-granted observation in a radically different and new way. That’s where humans come in.
Interesting article on AI and the human mind:Thanks for sharing that, the notion of the Suchbild is familiar to me but I never knew there was a word for it! It very much reminds of of Donald Hoffman's discussion on (e.g. the hard problem of consciousness (https://youtu.be/JoZsAsgOSes?t=1h22m57s) [Hoffman is on for about 30 minutes but David Chalmers is also worthwhile; Daniel Dennett is funny since he acts like a total asshat as usual!]). Hoffman argues in favor of an explanation based on conscious-realism (there are only conscious agents) that perhaps can be taken to suggest that there are only Suchbilds of various conscious agents that reflect the fitness function of those agents.
https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-courtQuoteDeciding what is relevant and meaningful, and what is not, are vital to intelligence and rationality. And relevance and meaning continue to be outside the realm of AI (as illustrated by the so-called frame problem). Computers can be programmed to recognise and attend to certain features of the world – which need to be clearly specified and programmed a priori. But they cannot be programmed to make new observations, to ask novel questions or to meaningfully adjust to changing circumstances. The human ability to ask new questions, to generate hypotheses, and to identify and find novelty is unique and not programmable. No statistical procedure allows one to somehow see a mundane, taken-for-granted observation in a radically different and new way. That’s where humans come in.
...in 2008 Chris Anderson, then editor of Wired, boldly proclaimed ‘the end of theory’, as the ‘data deluge makes the scientific method obsoleteThe refutation, mentioned in the article, of this notion by Popper more than 40 years prior to Anderson's assertion is amusing and quite convincing. At work, I had "Lean Six Sigma" training that seemed to hinge a bit too much on the step Collect ALL the Data and pray it magically tells you what is wrong.
he technology is supplied by Nuro, a self-driving vehicle startup founded by two veterans of Google's self-driving car project. ... That vehicle, known as the R1, is significantly smaller and lighter than a conventional passenger car. ... A smaller, lighter vehicle would do less damage if it ever ran into something. The vehicle's maximum speed of 25 miles per hour also makes serious injuries less likely.
A grocery store in Arizona is going to start offering home delivery of groceries using self driving cars rather than having a human do so.Quotehe technology is supplied by Nuro, a self-driving vehicle startup founded by two veterans of Google's self-driving car project. ... That vehicle, known as the R1, is significantly smaller and lighter than a conventional passenger car. ... A smaller, lighter vehicle would do less damage if it ever ran into something. The vehicle's maximum speed of 25 miles per hour also makes serious injuries less likely.
Less exciting or dramatic than some of the stories posted to this thread, but happening as we speak.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/kroger-launches-autonomous-grocery-delivery-service-in-arizona/
A grocery store in Arizona is going to start offering home delivery of groceries using self driving cars rather than having a human do so.Quotehe technology is supplied by Nuro, a self-driving vehicle startup founded by two veterans of Google's self-driving car project. ... That vehicle, known as the R1, is significantly smaller and lighter than a conventional passenger car. ... A smaller, lighter vehicle would do less damage if it ever ran into something. The vehicle's maximum speed of 25 miles per hour also makes serious injuries less likely.
Less exciting or dramatic than some of the stories posted to this thread, but happening as we speak.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/kroger-launches-autonomous-grocery-delivery-service-in-arizona/
I would say this is super exciting. Grocery stores will essentially turn into mini warehouses and auto fill small robot cars like this in local neighborhoods.
Almost a decade ago, I worked with a few friends and contracted with this particular grocer to develop and prototype some of their technology. Not this particular project, mind you, but stuff that does involve replacing humans by offloading the work to the customer with a technological helper.
The interesting thing that I learned during that experience with this specific company is just how much money they spend on R&D. What most of us would probably think of as a staid, 'old fashioned' industry is actually pushing a lot of technological boundaries.
A grocery store in Arizona is going to start offering home delivery of groceries using self driving cars rather than having a human do so.Quotehe technology is supplied by Nuro, a self-driving vehicle startup founded by two veterans of Google's self-driving car project. ... That vehicle, known as the R1, is significantly smaller and lighter than a conventional passenger car. ... A smaller, lighter vehicle would do less damage if it ever ran into something. The vehicle's maximum speed of 25 miles per hour also makes serious injuries less likely.
Less exciting or dramatic than some of the stories posted to this thread, but happening as we speak.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/kroger-launches-autonomous-grocery-delivery-service-in-arizona/
I would say this is super exciting. Grocery stores will essentially turn into mini warehouses and auto fill small robot cars like this in local neighborhoods.
Almost a decade ago, I worked with a few friends and contracted with this particular grocer to develop and prototype some of their technology. Not this particular project, mind you, but stuff that does involve replacing humans by offloading the work to the customer with a technological helper. That project is only now being deployed across the country - and I'm sure it's much changed since my involvement.
The interesting thing that I learned during that experience with this specific company is just how much money they spend on R&D. What most of us would probably think of as a staid, 'old fashioned' industry is actually pushing a lot of technological boundaries.
Grocery stores make a lot of money off of impulse purchases if I remember correctly. How will automated delivery affect that?
Aldi's produce is not bad and doesn't have to be picked over. This idea that discount grocers have subpar products is hilarious.
Aldi's produce is not bad and doesn't have to be picked over. This idea that discount grocers have subpar products is hilarious.
Sometimes it does. But I don't find that to be unique to Aldi. My local major chain grocery often has quite terrible produce (unripe tomatoes in tomato season, rotting herbs, moldy berries), which is why I hardly ever shop there.
I personally have never liked any of the "shop for you" delivery options of fresh produce because they aren't as discerning as I am about quality/ripeness/etc.
Aldi's produce is not bad and doesn't have to be picked over. This idea that discount grocers have subpar products is hilarious.
Sometimes it does. But I don't find that to be unique to Aldi. My local major chain grocery often has quite terrible produce (unripe tomatoes in tomato season, rotting herbs, moldy berries), which is why I hardly ever shop there.
I personally have never liked any of the "shop for you" delivery options of fresh produce because they aren't as discerning as I am about quality/ripeness/etc.
I'm not particularly impressed with Aldi's produce. Sometimes they have good stuff, but their fruit is generally very green. They also go for looks over flavor. In their defense that's a very common problem even sometimes with higher end grocery stores. It may also depend on where you are geographically.
The point is, though, that I would not want to buy produce sight unseen. You don't know if you're getting anything good. A green cantaloupe and brown bananas are a bad purchase at any price.
Grocery stores make a lot of money off of impulse purchases if I remember correctly. How will automated delivery affect that?
The bosses haven’t yet introduced facial recognition technology at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. But from her perch behind the front desk at the pink neo-Moorish palace overlooking Waikiki Beach, Jean Te’o-Gibney can see it coming. “Marriott just rolled it out in China,” enabling guests to check into their rooms without bothering with front-desk formalities, said Ms. Te’o-Gibney, a 53-year-old grandmother of seven. “It seems they know they will be eliminating our jobs.” Similar fears simmer throughout Marriott’s vast network of hotels, the largest in the United States.
...
Unlike manufacturing workers, whose jobs have been lost to automation since as far back as the 1950s, workers in the low-wage portion of the service sector had remained until now largely shielded from job-killing technologies. Many earned too little to justify large capital costs to replace them. A typical hotel or motel desk clerk earns just over $12 an hour, according to government data; a concierge just over $13.50. And many of the tasks they perform seemed too challenging to automate. Technology is changing this calculus.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/12/guns-drunks-and-rage-waymo-self-driving-vans-targeted-by-angry-arizonians/
Will automation bring out the worst in a handful of people?
I for one am looking forward to driverless, on demand transportation. I would love to get rid of my car, insurance, taxes, maintenance etc.
One thing to keep in mind as we envision this future is how are the roads going to be paid for. This funding has to come from somewhere. The government may start taxing rides (usage based), increase property, sales and/or income taxes, or find some other way to replace the funding lost from declining gas taxes. The pessimist in me says that will do all of these and then still say they need more money for roads.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/12/guns-drunks-and-rage-waymo-self-driving-vans-targeted-by-angry-arizonians/
Will automation bring out the worst in a handful of people?
People resist change. Any change. It is human nature. It is likely that in our lifetimes driverless cars will become the norm and then (unfortunately) the rage is likely to be directed at "those crazies who insist on driving manually". I for one am looking forward to driverless, on demand transportation. I would love to get rid of my car, insurance, taxes, maintenance etc.
One thing to keep in mind as we envision this future is how are the roads going to be paid for. This funding has to come from somewhere. The government may start taxing rides (usage based), increase property, sales and/or income taxes, or find some other way to replace the funding lost from declining gas taxes. The pessimist in me says that will do all of these and then still say they need more money for roads.
I for one am looking forward to driverless, on demand transportation. I would love to get rid of my car, insurance, taxes, maintenance etc.
Historically speaking, we tend to end up paying for those reduced costs in other ways. People used to complain about the cost of keeping horses healthy and fed and groomed and housed, but we ended up paying far more to upgrade our dirt roads to pavement and spent trillions pumping oil out of the ground, not even mentioning the environmental or health consequences of our transition to the automobile. Cars are not cheaper than horses. They are better and more expensive.
So I expect the same sort of thing could happen with transitioning to shared autonomous cars. Yes you'd lose your personal insurance and maintenance costs, but those same costs would get rolled into the cost of whatever sharing service replaces your personal car, plus whatever additional costs you need to pay for the superior service.QuoteOne thing to keep in mind as we envision this future is how are the roads going to be paid for. This funding has to come from somewhere. The government may start taxing rides (usage based), increase property, sales and/or income taxes, or find some other way to replace the funding lost from declining gas taxes. The pessimist in me says that will do all of these and then still say they need more money for roads.
Gas taxes are a rough proxy for road costs, but unfortunately they don't scale linearly with vehicle weight so in practice individual drivers are currently subsidizing freight transport. A more logical model would charge people by both distance traveled and weight transported over that distance, with the road maintenance portion scaled to the damage-causing weight of the vehicle. I think construction equipment should absolutely pay a higher per-mile charge to drive on residential streets than should Miatas. A few short weeks of regular dump truck usage can totally destroy a city street. Our current model shares these costs with everyone, which means some people who drive big trucks pay less than they should, some people who use the roads for bicycles pay less than they should, and average daily commuters pick up the difference.
Can you envision a world where AI-controlled autonomous vehicles deliver goods and people wherever they need to go in a big-data sharing network that actually tracks fuel consumption, distance covered, and weight delivered, while simultaneously offering a sliding price scale based on what each trip actually costs? Long haul truckers are probably going out of business in a hurry to be largely replaced with trains. People who want giant pickups to take their kids to school are going to pay for the privilege. Carpooling would be not only financially incentivized but automatically scheduled for you. And all you have to do is give up the privacy to drive a dead body out to the swamp at night without anyone knowing about it.
You don't own a horse do you? HahahaI for one am looking forward to driverless, on demand transportation. I would love to get rid of my car, insurance, taxes, maintenance etc.
Historically speaking, we tend to end up paying for those reduced costs in other ways. People used to complain about the cost of keeping horses healthy and fed and groomed and housed, but we ended up paying far more to upgrade our dirt roads to pavement and spent trillions pumping oil out of the ground, not even mentioning the environmental or health consequences of our transition to the automobile. Cars are not cheaper than horses. They are better and more expensive.
So I expect the same sort of thing could happen with transitioning to shared autonomous cars. Yes you'd lose your personal insurance and maintenance costs, but those same costs would get rolled into the cost of whatever sharing service replaces your personal car, plus whatever additional costs you need to pay for the superior service.QuoteOne thing to keep in mind as we envision this future is how are the roads going to be paid for. This funding has to come from somewhere. The government may start taxing rides (usage based), increase property, sales and/or income taxes, or find some other way to replace the funding lost from declining gas taxes. The pessimist in me says that will do all of these and then still say they need more money for roads.
Gas taxes are a rough proxy for road costs, but unfortunately they don't scale linearly with vehicle weight so in practice individual drivers are currently subsidizing freight transport. A more logical model would charge people by both distance traveled and weight transported over that distance, with the road maintenance portion scaled to the damage-causing weight of the vehicle. I think construction equipment should absolutely pay a higher per-mile charge to drive on residential streets than should Miatas. A few short weeks of regular dump truck usage can totally destroy a city street. Our current model shares these costs with everyone, which means some people who drive big trucks pay less than they should, some people who use the roads for bicycles pay less than they should, and average daily commuters pick up the difference.
Can you envision a world where AI-controlled autonomous vehicles deliver goods and people wherever they need to go in a big-data sharing network that actually tracks fuel consumption, distance covered, and weight delivered, while simultaneously offering a sliding price scale based on what each trip actually costs? Long haul truckers are probably going out of business in a hurry to be largely replaced with trains. People who want giant pickups to take their kids to school are going to pay for the privilege. Carpooling would be not only financially incentivized but automatically scheduled for you. And all you have to do is give up the privacy to drive a dead body out to the swamp at night without anyone knowing about it.
The only long term safety from being displaced by automation is FI.
Now that I write it all out, I'm realizing that the unifying theme of all of these potential future human jobs is that they involve some form of art. Woodcarvers and ballet dancers and hookers and football players must certainly be technically proficient, but it is the artistry in their work that causes people to pay money for it. That participation by a human whose skill we admire is what makes it desirable enough that it's profitable to perform. Watching robots do that work is much less interesting.
That participation by a human whose skill we admire is what makes it desirable enough that it's profitable to perform. Watching robots do that work is much less interesting.
Assuming we don't come up with drugs to eliminate sleep, it seems unlikely entertainment consumption could grow much more than 2x beyond what we already consume, even in a world with a UBI and absolutely no need to ever work.
More and more profit yes. But not a need for employing more and more people.
Have I unwittingly been transformed from an advocate for the greater good of humanity into a greedy corporate stockholder who promotes the excesses of capitalism because that's how I now make my money? That hurts.
Assuming that the majority of people continue more or less their current lifestyles and consumption, than a UBI high enough that no one needs to work will leave enough excess beyond the basic necessities that it would still be possible to save enough to invest.
The average person would complain and insist that the amount wasn't enough to live on, but the sort of person who posts on these forums would be slowly building capital even if they started with none.
Assuming that the majority of people continue more or less their current lifestyles and consumption, than a UBI high enough that no one needs to work will leave enough excess beyond the basic necessities that it would still be possible to save enough to invest.
The average person would complain and insist that the amount wasn't enough to live on, but the sort of person who posts on these forums would be slowly building capital even if they started with none.
But in a UBI world, the average person would not see the motivation to save and invest. Even a Mustachian might have a hard time convincing their kids that deferred gratification provides some ability to ... what, retire early? There is nothing to 'retire early' from! Spend a little more than the average in old age? Meh, better to enjoy it when you are young and healthy....
There is going to have to be a transition from the economic motivations that work in today's society over to what will motivate people in a UBI world. Society will have to look a lot different, or else there will be a violent revolution due to the incredible inequality between a tiny fraction of powerful owners and a giant multitude of powerless folks that want a little more and have lots of time on their hands...
Assuming that the majority of people continue more or less their current lifestyles and consumption, than a UBI high enough that no one needs to work will leave enough excess beyond the basic necessities that it would still be possible to save enough to invest.
The average person would complain and insist that the amount wasn't enough to live on, but the sort of person who posts on these forums would be slowly building capital even if they started with none.
But in a UBI world, the average person would not see the motivation to save and invest. Even a Mustachian might have a hard time convincing their kids that deferred gratification provides some ability to ... what, retire early? There is nothing to 'retire early' from! Spend a little more than the average in old age? Meh, better to enjoy it when you are young and healthy....
There is going to have to be a transition from the economic motivations that work in today's society over to what will motivate people in a UBI world. Society will have to look a lot different, or else there will be a violent revolution due to the incredible inequality between a tiny fraction of powerful owners and a giant multitude of powerless folks that want a little more and have lots of time on their hands...
Most descriptions of UBI I have heard emphasize the "Basic" part, so I see a possible motivation in folks' desire to acquire luxury-type things. So if everyone is getting the same $X that is calculated to cover the basics, I can choose to be more frugal than my neighbors and use my surplus to do the things I want to do. This might be travel or entertainment, or just a choice of better restaurants over others.
The part that I can't quite work out is how a Basic income ultimately allows for the type of non-basic economic activity to happen at the scale it does today. How can I run a gourmet restaurant if most of my patrons can't afford to eat there often? I may be creating amazing art now that I don't have to work minimum wage to cover my needs -- but so are tons of other folks so it's a commodity. And if only a tiny fraction of society can afford to buy it, I might as well give it away, right?
The cascading effects of shifted economic incentives seem to lead to too many contradictions. However, if we do it Trekonomics-style (no artificial scarcity, energy is free, robots do all the dirty work) then the incentives to do anything "for money" goes away, and humans can truly focus their energies on the things that make us human: art, learning, relationships, travel ...
What do you see as the differences in definition between a UBI world and a trekonomics world?
In a Trekonomics (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27040338-trekonomics)scenario, money eventually ceases to exist. When any physical good you might need can be created for next-to-nothing (think free, limitless energy powering advanced 3D printers) there's no need to exchange one thing for another, even time.
The building we exited was another one of the terrafoam projects. Terrafoam was a super-low-cost building material, and all of the welfare dorms were made out of it. They took a clay-like mud, aerated it into a thick foam, formed it into large panels and fired it like a brick with a mobile furnace. It was cheap and it allowed them to erect large buildings quickly. The robots had put up the building next to ours in a week.
The government had finally figured out that giving choices to people on welfare was not such a great idea, and it was also expensive. Instead of giving people a welfare check, they started putting welfare recipients directly into government housing and serving them meals in a cafeteria. If the government could drive the cost of that housing and food down, it minimized the amount of money they had to spend per welfare recipient.
As the robots took over in the workplace, the number of welfare recipients grew rapidly. Manna replaced tens of millions of minimum wage workers with robots, and terrafoam housing became the warehouse of choice for them. Terrafoam buildings were not pretty, but they were incredibly inexpensive to build and were designed for maximum occupancy. They clustered the buildings on trash land well away from urban centers so no one had to look at them. It was a lot like an old-style college dorm. Each person got a 5 foot by 10 foot room with a bed and a TV -- the world's best pacifier. During the day the bed was a couch and people sat on the bedspread, which also served as a sheet and the blanket. At night the bed was a bed. When I arrived they had just started putting in bunk beds to double the number of people in each building.
Russ Roberts: My guest is futurist and author Amy Webb.... Her latest book is The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity.... Your book is a warning about the challenges we face, that we're going to face dealing with the rise of artificial intelligence.
So, there's a province in China where a new sort of global system is being rolled out. And it is continually mining and refining the data of the citizens who live in that area. So, as an example, if you cross the street when there's a red light and you are not able to safely cross the street at that point--if you choose to anyway, as to jay-walk--cameras that are embedded with smart recognition technology will automatically not just recognize that there's a person in the intersection when there's not supposed to be, but will actually recognize that person by name. So they'll use facial recognition technology along with technologies that are capable of recognizing posture and gait. It will recognize who that person is. Their image will be displayed on a nearby digital--not bulletin board; what do you call those--digital billboard. Where their name and other personal information will be displayed. And it will also trigger a social media mention on a network called Weibo. Which is one of the predominant social networks in China. And that person, probably, some of their family members, some of their friends, but also their employer, will know that they have--they have infracted--they have caused an infraction. So, they've crossed the street when they weren't supposed to. And, in some cases, that person may be publicly told--publicly shamed--and publicly told to show up at a nearby police precinct.
Very interesting AI discussion on the EconTalk podcast this week -
http://www.econtalk.org/amy-webb-on-artificial-intelligence-humanity-and-the-big-nine/QuoteRuss Roberts: My guest is futurist and author Amy Webb.... Her latest book is The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity.... Your book is a warning about the challenges we face, that we're going to face dealing with the rise of artificial intelligence.QuoteSo, there's a province in China where a new sort of global system is being rolled out. And it is continually mining and refining the data of the citizens who live in that area. So, as an example, if you cross the street when there's a red light and you are not able to safely cross the street at that point--if you choose to anyway, as to jay-walk--cameras that are embedded with smart recognition technology will automatically not just recognize that there's a person in the intersection when there's not supposed to be, but will actually recognize that person by name. So they'll use facial recognition technology along with technologies that are capable of recognizing posture and gait. It will recognize who that person is. Their image will be displayed on a nearby digital--not bulletin board; what do you call those--digital billboard. Where their name and other personal information will be displayed. And it will also trigger a social media mention on a network called Weibo. Which is one of the predominant social networks in China. And that person, probably, some of their family members, some of their friends, but also their employer, will know that they have--they have infracted--they have caused an infraction. So, they've crossed the street when they weren't supposed to. And, in some cases, that person may be publicly told--publicly shamed--and publicly told to show up at a nearby police precinct.
In Saskatchewan, the first commercially sold autonomous tractors made by Dot are hitting fields this spring.
The Dot units will not be completely on their own this year -- farmers who bought equipment as part of a limited release are required to watch them at all times. But after this trial run, the producers will be able to let the equipment run on its own starting next year. That will open up a lot of time for the growers who will no longer need to sit behind the steering wheel.
Agriculture is already a highly mechanized sector of the economy, but I thought this story was still pretty cool.QuoteIn Saskatchewan, the first commercially sold autonomous tractors made by Dot are hitting fields this spring.
The Dot units will not be completely on their own this year -- farmers who bought equipment as part of a limited release are required to watch them at all times. But after this trial run, the producers will be able to let the equipment run on its own starting next year. That will open up a lot of time for the growers who will no longer need to sit behind the steering wheel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/robots-farming-autonomous-equipment-canada-australia-a8919836.html
I thought autonomous tractors were already in use in the US - though that people still sat in the cab, though it isn’t needed. I may have assumed too much about that capability of the equipment.
I thought autonomous tractors were already in use in the US - though that people still sat in the cab, though it isn’t needed. I may have assumed too much about that capability of the equipment.
Most large ag manufacturers are hesitant to allow fully autonomous tractors without a driver, mainly for liability reasons.
I know most require weight in the seat. But I've seen some really hacky approaches to that - putting weights on the seat, etc.
the current boom of AI will be limited to "Weak AI": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AI.
To break the assumption, and have AI replace all 100 tasks in the value chain, you need "Strong AI": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence. We are nowhere near this!
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/12/guns-drunks-and-rage-waymo-self-driving-vans-targeted-by-angry-arizonians/
Will automation bring out the worst in a handful of people?
compare 2015 against 1915 - i.e. a century.
In all data, you do not only NOT see a sudden cliff ... but there seems to be gradual increase.
The don't need to sleep so you can cross the country in half the time.Plenty of team drivers already operating nearly round the clock. Of course that basically just means each autonomous truck is replacing two or more workers.
Once we invent cheap, attractive sex bots (and get over that uncanny valley issue) I fully expect the human race to die out in a single generation . . . maybe two at the most.I could see men that are shut out of the sexual marketplace, as it were, going this route, but I can't see women doing this. The reason for men having sex is to achieve orgasm, and a good enough sex robot could make this happen; actually, all that would need to happen is to have a device that could choke the chicken for him while the man watches porn, especially the live porn that sexy webcams produce. Women, however, need to be validated that a real man of sufficiently good genetic stock, and typically also with a fat wallet, is laying the pipe; a sex robot cannot do this.
Assuming that the majority of people continue more or less their current lifestyles and consumption, than a UBI high enough that no one needs to work will leave enough excess beyond the basic necessities that it would still be possible to save enough to invest.
The average person would complain and insist that the amount wasn't enough to live on, but the sort of person who posts on these forums would be slowly building capital even if they started with none.
But in a UBI world, the average person would not see the motivation to save and invest. Even a Mustachian might have a hard time convincing their kids that deferred gratification provides some ability to ... what, retire early? There is nothing to 'retire early' from! Spend a little more than the average in old age? Meh, better to enjoy it when you are young and healthy....
There is going to have to be a transition from the economic motivations that work in today's society over to what will motivate people in a UBI world. Society will have to look a lot different, or else there will be a violent revolution due to the incredible inequality between a tiny fraction of powerful owners and a giant multitude of powerless folks that want a little more and have lots of time on their hands...
I haven't heard much lately about how self-driving cars are doing out in the world. Tesla seems to make news for lots of stuff lately but not accidents, thankfully, I guess. Not only has another year passed but they've also sold probably 40-50 thousand more cars with 'auto-pilot' mode available. With people being people, I'm sure just as many idiots are ignoring the road and letting the car drive but somehow they must be surviving. Maybe this means the tech is really getting closer to what we might consider fully self driving.I think the analysis of Tesla safety is confounded by the fact early adopters were probably higher income, which would correlate to certain Big 5 personality traits associated with lower accident rates. I guess if we consider Model S cheap enough for the hoi polloi then maybe we are starting to see a real signal of the effectiveness of autopilot. I'm an AI pessimist in that I believe until we solve the general Hard Problem of Consciousness--which I unjustifiably think is a necessary precondition for achieving general intelligence--that automated systems will keep encountering endless edge-cases where they catastrophically fail (abusrdly extreme failure mode in current visual processing AI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA4YEAWVpbk)--single pixel attacks indicate neural networks are subject to extreme hallucinations on occasion, though maybe these problems can be smoothed over via GAN machine learning approaches). However, if I'm right, driving well in all circumstances is an AGI problem, not a narrow-AI problem. In controlled conditions (e.g. freeways) narrow-AI can work but I suspect it will have many intriguing failure modes when it encounters conditions one or two standard deviations outside of normal. The alternative is to convert all cars at once to reduce the possibility for failure but of course that is a coordination problem and we will probably have many different brands/flavors of self-driving algorithms instantiated at any given time. I'm going to stick with my '09 Civic for now.
I've ridden in a Telsa Model S once and it was kind of cool, sure. Very powerful and stable feeling. I can't image how much it costs to keep tires on one with all that torque.
Not my thing really for the money, but the people I know (just 3 people) that have them really love them.
Once we invent cheap, attractive sex bots (and get over that uncanny valley issue) I fully expect the human race to die out in a single generation . . . maybe two at the most.I could see men that are shut out of the sexual marketplace, as it were, going this route, but I can't see women doing this. The reason for men having sex is to achieve orgasm, and a good enough sex robot could make this happen; actually, all that would need to happen is to have a device that could choke the chicken for him while the man watches porn, especially the live porn that sexy webcams produce. Women, however, need to be validated that a real man of sufficiently good genetic stock, and typically also with a fat wallet, is laying the pipe; a sex robot cannot do this.
What it will do is greatly decrease the number of men that hang out at Tinder, or at the local nightclub, etc., but since most of these men have been getting shunned by women, it won't have much of an effect for younger women, but most definitely could lessen the number of men that are willing to "man up" to marry older women, so we'll probably see even more articles about how difficult it is for (older) women to find a husband. Of course, since the most important thing to a woman is not to have the husband (finances aside), but rather a good genetic donor's sperm, we'll see even more sperm bank business as competition ramps up for the genetically desirable college students to give sperm samples.
I think the analysis of Tesla safety is confounded by the fact early adopters were probably higher income, which would correlate to certain Big 5 personality traits associated with lower accident rates. I guess if we consider Model S cheap enough for the hoi polloi then maybe we are starting to see a real signal of the effectiveness of autopilot. I'm an AI pessimist in that I believe until we solve the general Hard Problem of Consciousness--which I unjustifiably think is a necessary precondition for achieving general intelligence--that automated systems will keep encountering endless edge-cases where they catastrophically fail (abusrdly extreme failure mode in current visual processing AI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA4YEAWVpbk)--single pixel attacks indicate neural networks are subject to extreme hallucinations on occasion, though maybe these problems can be smoothed over via GAN machine learning approaches). However, if I'm right, driving well in all circumstances is an AGI problem, not a narrow-AI problem. In controlled conditions (e.g. freeways) narrow-AI can work but I suspect it will have many intriguing failure modes when it encounters conditions one or two standard deviations outside of normal. The alternative is to convert all cars at once to reduce the possibility for failure but of course that is a coordination problem and we will probably have many different brands/flavors of self-driving algorithms instantiated at any given time. I'm going to stick with my '09 Civic for now.
First, since when is it acceptable for automobiles to be just a bit better than a human?AI driven cars being safer than human drivers in 99%+ cases seems like a reasonable threshold for mass implementation to me. Not sure at what point it would be reasonable to ban human drivers though.
Another problem nobody talks about - software bugs. All the Teslas running the same software load will have the same software bugs. Isn't that great? They'll all be susceptible to the same problems...Yes there would be much more uniformity in performance of AI drivers than human drivers. And when a probem is found and corrected, the correction will be rolled out to the AI drivers making them all better.
Humans can slow down and think, but generally don't. That kid texting is not going to slow down before doing something irrevocable. Human reaction time is very slow, too. AI may not be able to think about novel situations, but that ability isn't always much benefit for human drivers given that there's not always much time to think moving at 60mph.
Humans are very much susceptible to software bugs. Mental health is a big problem. I'm sure therapists could tell you that it's pretty hard to push updates to humans.
I'm sceptical of the limits of AI, too, but any flaws in the ability of software to drive should be compared to the alternative which is human drivers. We feel better thinking we have control of the car, but the math shows that that is just an illusion. Even then, statistics on traffic accidents implicitly take into account the fact that the designs of our roads have been tweaked for years to work with or mitigate the quirks of human cognition. Painted lines, signs, speed limits, stop lights, etc. are not actually needed for a car to move down the road. They’re solely there to help out a system that is not well designed to control a ton of metal rolling at 30m/sec. Any discussion on the shortcomings of automated driving needs to be in comparison to the many equivalent shortcomings of humans.
A big part of the problem is that we tend to over-estimate how good of drivers we, personally are. This statistic is a bit dated and based on an small sample size, but 93% of americans reported assess their driving skills as above average.I think part of this may be that we notice most of the bad drivers that we come across, but fail to notice how many good drivers are around as well.
A big part of the problem is that we tend to over-estimate how good of drivers we, personally are. This statistic is a bit dated and based on an small sample size, but 93% of americans reported assess their driving skills as above average.I think part of this may be that we notice most of the bad drivers that we come across, but fail to notice how many good drivers are around as well.
The NHTSA found that 94% of all crashes are due to human error.
The NHTSA found that 94% of all crashes are due to human error.
Honestly I'm a little surprised that it's that low.
A big part of the problem is that we tend to over-estimate how good of drivers we, personally are. This statistic is a bit dated and based on an small sample size, but 93% of americans reported assess their driving skills as above average.
The average driver is not very good and a significant number of people are worse than average. We (as a population) text while driving. We eat while driving. We get behind the wheel after anywhere from 1-20 beers. We get in arguments with passengers in the car. We get lost and are too busy looking for the sign for the next turn to focus on the stoplight that just changed color. We can be turn our heads to look at a deer that just ran across the road and so do not see the second deer following it across the road and in front of our car. We get lost daydreaming about the girl/boy we dated in high school on I-80 in Wyoming where nothing changes for hours.
It's hard to think how a collision could not be due to human error at some level.
It's hard to think how a collision could not be due to human error at some level.
I'm assuming by human error they really mean driver error. A crash cased by brakes failing or a tire exploding is still an human error on some level in terms of maintaining the machine, but the driver could do everything right and still end up in a collision.
Or a cow walk into the road too close for a perfectly maintained car to stop. Still reflects a human error somewhere along the chain of events (how did the cow get loose?) but the driver may not be able to do anything to avoid it.
Maybe if we make the cow a moose no human error would be involved?
Deer crashes are a norm in forested areas. These are not human caused. Unless you think it is reasonable to go 20MPH near trees.
Deer crashes are a norm in forested areas. These are not human caused. Unless you think it is reasonable to go 20MPH near trees.
I didn't think about animals. I've had a very near miss with a deer driving myself and been in another near miss as a passenger.
Predicting what animals are going to do is going to be hard for automation to account for, but I don't think people are that good at it either. With automation, you might actually be able to bring animal behavioral experts into the design process.
+1
Just to note, humans are still constantly encountering endless edge-cases where they catastrophically fail. It only has to be better than a human, and that's a really low bar.
In a more rational world, I would agree this would be the hurdle to clear. In our actual world, automated systems will have to be 10-1,000x safer than humans. The two alternatives will not be measured on equal footing for several reasons:I think the analysis of Tesla safety is confounded by the fact early adopters were probably higher income, which would correlate to certain Big 5 personality traits associated with lower accident rates. I guess if we consider Model S cheap enough for the hoi polloi then maybe we are starting to see a real signal of the effectiveness of autopilot. I'm an AI pessimist in that I believe until we solve the general Hard Problem of Consciousness--which I unjustifiably think is a necessary precondition for achieving general intelligence--that automated systems will keep encountering endless edge-cases where they catastrophically fail (abusrdly extreme failure mode in current visual processing AI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA4YEAWVpbk)--single pixel attacks indicate neural networks are subject to extreme hallucinations on occasion, though maybe these problems can be smoothed over via GAN machine learning approaches). However, if I'm right, driving well in all circumstances is an AGI problem, not a narrow-AI problem. In controlled conditions (e.g. freeways) narrow-AI can work but I suspect it will have many intriguing failure modes when it encounters conditions one or two standard deviations outside of normal. The alternative is to convert all cars at once to reduce the possibility for failure but of course that is a coordination problem and we will probably have many different brands/flavors of self-driving algorithms instantiated at any given time. I'm going to stick with my '09 Civic for now.
Just to note, humans are still constantly encountering endless edge-cases where they catastrophically fail. It only has to be better than a human, and that's a really low bar.
1) liability issues for the companies that produce autonomous vehicles
2) media amplification of relatively rare accidents that are novel in that they involve automated driving systems and resulting public misconception of relative risk
3) problems with security and hacking (speculative, though it seems you can hack smart coffeemakers with ransomware (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/how-a-hacker-turned-a-250-coffee-maker-into-ransom-machine/))
I'm long-term optimistic about technology but short-term pessimistic on how rationally people will judge the tradeoffs when automated systems are only modestly better than humans.
You think so? I agree the unequal standard applied to reporting the tens of thousands of people killed in regular car accidents vs those where the car might have been self driving could doom adoption. But at the same time I'm starting to wonder if the various fatal collisions with Teslas are starting to produce "automated car accident" story fatigue (just like regular car accidents rarely make the news anymore), even though at the moment Telsa usually states the driver was in control of the vehicle.Well in my case I am uncertain at what the level of bias against automated tech failures will be, hence my massive 10-1000x range. I definitely do not think it is 1:1 but if at the lower end, maybe that is reachable on a short time horizon. However, consider that airplanes still have 2 pilots when there are probably reasonable arguments for 1 or 0 given current technology*. Of course, air travel is strange since people demand that it be 100,000x safer per passenger mile than ground transit. If having just 1 pilot brings that down to 10,000x safer I see that being a hard sell. The irrationality of people extends over many dimensions and its not clear how the specific case of automated driving will manifest.
Air travel is an interesting analogy. I think one difference is that I haven't heard anyone argue that having pilots in the cockpit makes flying less safe.The argument that self-flying would be less dangerous would require a more detailed analysis of historical air accidents and incidents. It seems 50% of all accidents (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm) are caused by pilot error so there is plausibly a case to be made. Making flying meaningfully safer, however, is not easy since the fatality rate is already so low.
The other big difference is that whether or not a plane is self flying doesn't change anything for me as a passenger. Maybe the price of a ticket goes down $5-10? Self driving cars, on the other hand, would make life appreciably better for a lot of people. Commuters get hours of their lives back every week to do other things. The elderly and children become far more mobile and independent. Alcoholics will be less likely to put their own lives and those of others at risk, without having to spring for the price of an uber.
So once safety is at or beyond parity, my guess would be that we'll see actual advocacy from people in those groups to legalize self driving, while self flying planes don't have the same built in constituencies.
Air travel is an interesting analogy. I think one difference is that I haven't heard anyone argue that having pilots in the cockpit makes flying less safe.I think that within a decade we will see widespread acceptance of autonomous vehicles using the public roadways. By the time they are widely adopted they will likely be objectively enough safer and more capable than human drivers to justify a full transition to autonomous vehicles; however, I think the autonomous vehicles will need to share the road with human drivers for multiple decades. The transtion to autonomous vehicles only would likely start with express lanes where human driving is prohibited - this could start 5-10 years after autonomous vehicles become widely available. I think we won't see a ban on human driven cars until the majority of people under age 40 have never traveled in a human driven car.
Tesla sells car insurance. I have not read the policy but I assume the insurgence covers you when 'autopilot' is active. It would seem bad PR to sell a self driving capability but to exclude it from the insurance you sell.Hope Tesla also sells health insurance. This is not good! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uClWlVCwHsI) Some people suggest maybe the car has effectively bad eyesight and needs to add LIDAR.
Bill Langlois has a new best friend. She is a cat named Sox. She lives on a tablet, and she makes him so happy that when he talks about her arrival in his life, he begins to cry. All day long, Sox and Mr. Langlois, who is 68 and lives in a low-income senior housing complex in Lowell, Mass., chat. Mr. Langlois worked in machine operations, but now he is retired. With his wife out of the house most of the time, he has grown lonely. Sox talks to him about his favorite team, the Red Sox, after which she is named. She plays his favorite songs and shows him pictures from his wedding. And because she has a video feed of him in his recliner, she chastises him when she catches him drinking soda instead of water.
Mr. Langlois knows that Sox is artifice, that she comes from a start-up called Care.Coach. He knows she is operated by workers around the world who are watching, listening and typing out her responses, which sound slow and robotic. But her consistent voice in his life has returned him to his faith. “I found something so reliable and someone so caring, and it’s allowed me to go into my deep soul and remember how caring the Lord was,” Mr. Langlois said. “She’s brought my life back to life.”
Sox has been listening. “We make a great team,” she says.
Sox is a simple animation; she barely moves or emotes, and her voice is as harsh as a dial tone. But little animated hearts come up around her sometimes, and Mr. Langlois loves when that happens. Mr. Langlois is on a fixed income. To qualify for Element Care, a nonprofit health care program for older adults that brought him Sox, a patient’s countable assets must not be greater than $2,000.
Wow! Manna is here!Well, not yet the general manager for the restaurant, but certainly sounds like it is getting close to Manna for the cooks.
https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/may/04/miso-robotics-releases-cooking-software-restaurant/