5 ms·

My great grandfathers we're all farmers. Only one of my cousins is a farmer. That supposed "90% don't have any income" -event already happened. My extended fami

by vlehto 11y ago

My great grandfathers we're all farmers. Only one of my cousins is a farmer. That supposed "90% don't have any income" -event already happened. My extended family is richer than ever. Human beings have tendency to find new jobs before they hit rock bottom and help each other out. That probably explains lot of this dynamic. Purchase parity controlled cost of square meter of habitable indoors space has remained pretty stable. People just want bigger houses. And are more willing to pay for it than before. >You would already now see plenty of new types of jobs replacing those that are lost. Short term yes. Short term seems to work out as unemployment is well below 20% in EU and U.S. But 30 years from now? Nobody has any idea. Just like for the past century. In other words, why is this time really different? Automation has been happening for a long time now. Computerized automation has been happening since 70's. Secretaries going unemployed did not cause permanent dent on employment.

ThomPete 11y ago
It's not different this time because it's not a different time. It's just that technology is a very long trend who's exponential growth is now starting to rear it's ugly head. It used to be a tool to help us compete with others. Those who used them best got the biggest productivity gains. But now technology is not just competing with our muscles it's competing with our brains. Thats why it's different. We are moving away from a world where technology was our servant to a world were it very well be our master. Again your analogy says nothing when you take it in the bigger evolutionary perspective. There are no natural laws that says that just because something been a certain way for 150 years it will always be like that. The bigger trend shows no special treatment of humans.
- vlehto 11y ago
  I don't get what this bigger trend is that shows how humans will be slaves for technology. Could you explain please?
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Technology is able to simulate higher and higher levels of abstraction. Did the horses find other jobs after cars renderede them useless for transportation? No because something better equipped at that job came along. Why do you think it will be any different for us? We also have limits. Computers on the other hand their limits are way beyond ours because they can reproduce faster than us, they can learn faster than us, they can endure more than we can. They are perfectly equipped for going into outspace. They can simulate almost everything maybe even black holes one day. And so on. We have only just started to explore what AI can do. We are barely a second into the potential. Evolution didn't start with humans either. It'e a continues process that start simple but eventually build something quite extraordinary. Some would say that biology found a way to reproduce even faster trough technology and the digital space.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      That is strong AI argument. If strong AI happens, I'm not worried about income inequality, jobs, economy or anything like that. How world is for humans after that point depends completely how somebody managed to program ethics and motivation into that AI. That AI probably can learn and modify itself, so the original designers probably can't even foresee what is going to happen. It's impossible to imagine something more intelligent than you. So any science fiction on the subject is bound to fall short. If we choose to be afraid of that, only real option is to go full unabomber.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about here. Just like no job require all human abilities no robot ai will need to be general purpose or self aware or strong by any metrics. There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber not sure why you think think thats the only one.
        vlehto 11y ago
        >Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about here. I see absolutely no reason for this. Evolution does not mean development, just adaptation. It doesn't really predict anything alone. Everything imaginable about hard AI suggests revolution rather than evolution. >There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber What alternatives? You probably cannot control strong AI in any meaningful way if it can access internet. Going back to 80's isn't really full unabomber, but anyhow drastic measure.
ThomPete 11y ago
Regarding jobs. Yes in fact it did make a dent and it has been since WW2. Decade after decade. https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-united-states/ https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-united-...
- vlehto 11y ago
  What is job growth exactly? If it is what I think it is, smaller population growth would explain that completely.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Population grew didnt fall. Job growth is the amount of new jobs crrated. Its not that exotic a concept.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      "New jobs created" means nothing. Somebody hiring 100 popcorn salesmen and firing 100 popcorn salesmen causes 100 jobs created. You want to look at net increase of jobs. Then you want to compare net increase in jobs to population growth. Because if population is growing faster of slower than jobs, you get the real problem of unemployment. But then again you could go straight at looking unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Sta... It's remarkably stable. All variations from about 5-8% are pretty easily explained by economic downturns. You might also notice that even during WWII U.S. did not reach 0% unemployment. Almost as if apparent amount of jobs could not sway unemployment more than few percentage points.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        The unemployment is so low because the way they calculate it. The amount of people not being counted is increasing. Also the wages a lot of the jobs provide is less than adequate to provide someone with a stable income. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unempl...

by vlehto 11y ago

ThomPete 11y ago

It's not different this time because it's not a different time. It's just that technology is a very long trend who's exponential growth is now starting to rear it's ugly head. It used to be a tool to help us compete with others. Those who used them best got the biggest productivity gains. But now technology is not just competing with our muscles it's competing with our brains. Thats why it's different. We are moving away from a world where technology was our servant to a world were it very well be our master. Again your analogy says nothing when you take it in the bigger evolutionary perspective. There are no natural laws that says that just because something been a certain way for 150 years it will always be like that. The bigger trend shows no special treatment of humans.

vlehto 11y ago
I don't get what this bigger trend is that shows how humans will be slaves for technology. Could you explain please?
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Technology is able to simulate higher and higher levels of abstraction. Did the horses find other jobs after cars renderede them useless for transportation? No because something better equipped at that job came along. Why do you think it will be any different for us? We also have limits. Computers on the other hand their limits are way beyond ours because they can reproduce faster than us, they can learn faster than us, they can endure more than we can. They are perfectly equipped for going into outspace. They can simulate almost everything maybe even black holes one day. And so on. We have only just started to explore what AI can do. We are barely a second into the potential. Evolution didn't start with humans either. It'e a continues process that start simple but eventually build something quite extraordinary. Some would say that biology found a way to reproduce even faster trough technology and the digital space.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    That is strong AI argument. If strong AI happens, I'm not worried about income inequality, jobs, economy or anything like that. How world is for humans after that point depends completely how somebody managed to program ethics and motivation into that AI. That AI probably can learn and modify itself, so the original designers probably can't even foresee what is going to happen. It's impossible to imagine something more intelligent than you. So any science fiction on the subject is bound to fall short. If we choose to be afraid of that, only real option is to go full unabomber.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about here. Just like no job require all human abilities no robot ai will need to be general purpose or self aware or strong by any metrics. There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber not sure why you think think thats the only one.
      - vlehto 11y ago
        >Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about here. I see absolutely no reason for this. Evolution does not mean development, just adaptation. It doesn't really predict anything alone. Everything imaginable about hard AI suggests revolution rather than evolution. >There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber What alternatives? You probably cannot control strong AI in any meaningful way if it can access internet. Going back to 80's isn't really full unabomber, but anyhow drastic measure.

ThomPete 11y ago

Regarding jobs. Yes in fact it did make a dent and it has been since WW2. Decade after decade. https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-united-states/ https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-united-...

vlehto 11y ago
What is job growth exactly? If it is what I think it is, smaller population growth would explain that completely.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Population grew didnt fall. Job growth is the amount of new jobs crrated. Its not that exotic a concept.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    "New jobs created" means nothing. Somebody hiring 100 popcorn salesmen and firing 100 popcorn salesmen causes 100 jobs created. You want to look at net increase of jobs. Then you want to compare net increase in jobs to population growth. Because if population is growing faster of slower than jobs, you get the real problem of unemployment. But then again you could go straight at looking unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Sta... It's remarkably stable. All variations from about 5-8% are pretty easily explained by economic downturns. You might also notice that even during WWII U.S. did not reach 0% unemployment. Almost as if apparent amount of jobs could not sway unemployment more than few percentage points.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      The unemployment is so low because the way they calculate it. The amount of people not being counted is increasing. Also the wages a lot of the jobs provide is less than adequate to provide someone with a stable income. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unempl...