7 ms·

The real question for me is: What is motivating otherwise very intelligent people to promote the idea that AI will take all our jobs and/or enslave us? Possib

The real question for me is: What is motivating otherwise very intelligent people to promote the idea that AI will take all our jobs and/or enslave us? Possible answers: 1) To prop up their investments in AI to get higher valuation. 2) To reach a political goal, such as basic income, which is often justified as necessary in a world where computers and robots take over the work force. 3) ?

hyperbovine 11y ago
A lot of intelligent people are promoting the idea that AI will take a lot of our jobs, for the simple reason that a lot our jobs do not require that much I. Whether it's driving a truck, plowing a field, or making food at a McEatery, a frighteningly large proportion of our economy consists of tasks which can be automated by technology coming online in the next decade or two.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Here's a big task that is a) not directly related to computers, and b) the coming wave of automation can't take away - maintenance. All those buildings, tracks, machines, etc. can't clean and fix themselves. We can't jump over everything with the standard market approach of making cheap disposable crap and replacing it wholesale when some component breaks. There's infrastructure. Like water mains, electrical conduits and cabling, etc. We need one more breakthrough before we can free people from jobs - self-maintaining machines. Which will probably involve self-healing materials. Imagine if you could simplify maintaining underground cables to just making sure there's enough nutrient-rich fluid around them. Then we could automate the production and delivery of such fluid, and we'd be done. The future without jobs is the future where our infrastructure heals itself, just like our bodies do.
  - sinxoveretothex 11y ago
    I don't have an analogical example in mind, but I think that often-times, what happens when a revolution gets past a hurdle like automation vs maintenance, is that the hurdle gets worked around. In this case, I think that, to a large extent, maintenance can be side-stepped by recycling and rebuilding. A bit like how the current world works: we can fix anything, but for most things, it's simpler to throw and buy a new one because the labour is more costly than the product itself. One example is asking a computer repair shop to fix your laptop screen (particularly so if said screen is touch-sensitive). In a world where energy is free (fully solar for example), this is awesome: oh, you just got a month old car but a better design just came out? No problem, you'll get the newest one when your turn comes. I doubt I'll see this kind of world (if it ever comes) in my lifetime, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched, I think.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Maintenance turns out to be a subdiscipline of logistics. And if your instrumentation is good enough, it really becomes a subdisicipline of logistics, plus maybe the machines can begin to defend themselves from ordinary abuse.
chishaku 11y ago
Imagination.
tim333 11y ago
3) Because it's a real possibility. What makes you think the otherwise very intelligent people are wrong? Maybe we should look to the stupid and to philosophers who don't understand computers for answers?
- IanDrake 11y ago
  >What makes you think the otherwise very intelligent people are wrong? Mostly history. Specifically the history of such predictions made by smart people of their own time that never came to pass. I assure you, this has all been predicted before. AI taking over the earth is always a decade away. There are people who wear tin-foil hats and there are those that sell tin-foil hats. The former think they're saving the world, while the latter are just making money off of the former. It's the same business model as religion and global warming.
  - senekerim 11y ago
    This is one of those cases where you can't really extrapolate from history. At least linearly extrapolate.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There are predictions and there are predictions. There will always be those predicting that strong AI is a decade away, right until the point when the last group is actually right about it. But there's a different kind of "prediction", which I think is the type those smart people subscribe to - that we are on the path to an AI, that there's nothing that would make it impossible to achieve as the technology progresses (a reminder: we have a working example that intelligence can be built - our brains). Of course there are a lot of obstacles on the way. Personally, the most probable is that our civilization ends before we reach the necessary level - because of war, or all the economic and political shenanigans we see every day.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    So their predictions are wrong, but yours are correct? You can't argue against someone else by saying all predictions are unreliable, and then insert your own predictions instead. And nice, you managed to cram global warming denial in there too.
pron 11y ago
My explanation is that it's a power fantasy of people who believe they possess superior intelligence and like to dream-up a scenario where super-intelligence becomes a super-power.
svanderbleek 11y ago
3) Press/Media It's low hanging fruit, the public eats it up. Also people can be very intelligent but not have done the research in the field they are commenting on. Elon Musk and Stephan Hawking aren't AI PhDs.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'll grant you Elon and Hawking, especially because the former is a "new guy", but otherwise intelligent people were talking about those issues for decades, and until very, very recently most people have either never heard of the issue, or thought those talking about it are loonies. Mass media is late to the party.
  - amag 11y ago
    This all reminds me of the Y2K debacle. The world would end. Everything would stop. A common example given in the media (by "IT-professionals") was that all elevators would stop, I was always like: "WTF would an elevator check what date it is?"
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Yeah. I remember Y2K and since I was already taking baby steps in programming back then, I was also perplexed as for why it would matter. 16 years later now, I see that about the only thing that could do some real damage was software in factories and stock exchanges breaking, and requiring downtime to fix. It would be that downtime that could do actual harm. Because I've now seen some code that runs in factories and... man, how this is totally and utterly fucked up. I'm happy nothing bad happened back in 2000. I'm also surprised that some manufacturing plants are running at all.
      - amag 11y ago
        Yes, after seeing my fair share of code in different production systems, vehicles, med tech, etc, I'm amazed the world doesn't stop every day..
krisoft 11y ago
If it's not a snark question, and you are truly interested in the dangers intelligent people see in AI, then I recommend the book "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" from Nick Bostrom. I had the same question you had here, and that book shown me well reasoned arguments from the AI worry camp.
gearhart 11y ago
Whilst the "enslave us" thing is a bit alarmist, regarding it taking our jobs there's a certain analogy here with mechanisation. You pointed out (below) that historically people have often been terrified that machines would take all of our jobs, and that terror has turned out to be unfounded. But they weren't wrong, they were just wrong in thinking it would be a bad thing. Over the last 150 years, the proportion of Americans employed in agriculture has dropped from ~70% to ~2% [1]. They've literally been replaced by machines. A large proportion of those people are now doing menial intellectual jobs that likely will be replaced by "AI". A complete shift in the nature of the work we do isn't unprecedented, and it shouldn't be considered impossible, but it shouldn't be considered disastrous either. edit: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_Stat...
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.
  - IanDrake 11y ago
    >Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs What is an example of a non-government bullshit job?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Most of the advertising industry, and resources they draw from other industries, e.g. print (think printing leaflets).
      - eanzenberg 11y ago
        Let's elect dictator TeMPOraL to tell society what he/she deems worthy of human ouptut. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
It's just another apocalyptic narrative. They are apparently fun; you get yards of cognitive dissonance out of it.

hyperbovine 11y ago

A lot of intelligent people are promoting the idea that AI will take a lot of our jobs, for the simple reason that a lot our jobs do not require that much I. Whether it's driving a truck, plowing a field, or making food at a McEatery, a frighteningly large proportion of our economy consists of tasks which can be automated by technology coming online in the next decade or two.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Here's a big task that is a) not directly related to computers, and b) the coming wave of automation can't take away - maintenance. All those buildings, tracks, machines, etc. can't clean and fix themselves. We can't jump over everything with the standard market approach of making cheap disposable crap and replacing it wholesale when some component breaks. There's infrastructure. Like water mains, electrical conduits and cabling, etc. We need one more breakthrough before we can free people from jobs - self-maintaining machines. Which will probably involve self-healing materials. Imagine if you could simplify maintaining underground cables to just making sure there's enough nutrient-rich fluid around them. Then we could automate the production and delivery of such fluid, and we'd be done. The future without jobs is the future where our infrastructure heals itself, just like our bodies do.
- sinxoveretothex 11y ago
  I don't have an analogical example in mind, but I think that often-times, what happens when a revolution gets past a hurdle like automation vs maintenance, is that the hurdle gets worked around. In this case, I think that, to a large extent, maintenance can be side-stepped by recycling and rebuilding. A bit like how the current world works: we can fix anything, but for most things, it's simpler to throw and buy a new one because the labour is more costly than the product itself. One example is asking a computer repair shop to fix your laptop screen (particularly so if said screen is touch-sensitive). In a world where energy is free (fully solar for example), this is awesome: oh, you just got a month old car but a better design just came out? No problem, you'll get the newest one when your turn comes. I doubt I'll see this kind of world (if it ever comes) in my lifetime, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched, I think.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Maintenance turns out to be a subdiscipline of logistics. And if your instrumentation is good enough, it really becomes a subdisicipline of logistics, plus maybe the machines can begin to defend themselves from ordinary abuse.

chishaku 11y ago

Imagination.

tim333 11y ago

3) Because it's a real possibility. What makes you think the otherwise very intelligent people are wrong? Maybe we should look to the stupid and to philosophers who don't understand computers for answers?

IanDrake 11y ago
>What makes you think the otherwise very intelligent people are wrong? Mostly history. Specifically the history of such predictions made by smart people of their own time that never came to pass. I assure you, this has all been predicted before. AI taking over the earth is always a decade away. There are people who wear tin-foil hats and there are those that sell tin-foil hats. The former think they're saving the world, while the latter are just making money off of the former. It's the same business model as religion and global warming.
- senekerim 11y ago
  This is one of those cases where you can't really extrapolate from history. At least linearly extrapolate.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There are predictions and there are predictions. There will always be those predicting that strong AI is a decade away, right until the point when the last group is actually right about it. But there's a different kind of "prediction", which I think is the type those smart people subscribe to - that we are on the path to an AI, that there's nothing that would make it impossible to achieve as the technology progresses (a reminder: we have a working example that intelligence can be built - our brains). Of course there are a lot of obstacles on the way. Personally, the most probable is that our civilization ends before we reach the necessary level - because of war, or all the economic and political shenanigans we see every day.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  So their predictions are wrong, but yours are correct? You can't argue against someone else by saying all predictions are unreliable, and then insert your own predictions instead. And nice, you managed to cram global warming denial in there too.

pron 11y ago

My explanation is that it's a power fantasy of people who believe they possess superior intelligence and like to dream-up a scenario where super-intelligence becomes a super-power.

svanderbleek 11y ago

3) Press/Media It's low hanging fruit, the public eats it up. Also people can be very intelligent but not have done the research in the field they are commenting on. Elon Musk and Stephan Hawking aren't AI PhDs.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I'll grant you Elon and Hawking, especially because the former is a "new guy", but otherwise intelligent people were talking about those issues for decades, and until very, very recently most people have either never heard of the issue, or thought those talking about it are loonies. Mass media is late to the party.
- amag 11y ago
  This all reminds me of the Y2K debacle. The world would end. Everything would stop. A common example given in the media (by "IT-professionals") was that all elevators would stop, I was always like: "WTF would an elevator check what date it is?"
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yeah. I remember Y2K and since I was already taking baby steps in programming back then, I was also perplexed as for why it would matter. 16 years later now, I see that about the only thing that could do some real damage was software in factories and stock exchanges breaking, and requiring downtime to fix. It would be that downtime that could do actual harm. Because I've now seen some code that runs in factories and... man, how this is totally and utterly fucked up. I'm happy nothing bad happened back in 2000. I'm also surprised that some manufacturing plants are running at all.
    - amag 11y ago
      Yes, after seeing my fair share of code in different production systems, vehicles, med tech, etc, I'm amazed the world doesn't stop every day..

krisoft 11y ago

If it's not a snark question, and you are truly interested in the dangers intelligent people see in AI, then I recommend the book "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" from Nick Bostrom. I had the same question you had here, and that book shown me well reasoned arguments from the AI worry camp.

gearhart 11y ago

Whilst the "enslave us" thing is a bit alarmist, regarding it taking our jobs there's a certain analogy here with mechanisation. You pointed out (below) that historically people have often been terrified that machines would take all of our jobs, and that terror has turned out to be unfounded. But they weren't wrong, they were just wrong in thinking it would be a bad thing. Over the last 150 years, the proportion of Americans employed in agriculture has dropped from ~70% to ~2% [1]. They've literally been replaced by machines. A large proportion of those people are now doing menial intellectual jobs that likely will be replaced by "AI". A complete shift in the nature of the work we do isn't unprecedented, and it shouldn't be considered impossible, but it shouldn't be considered disastrous either. edit: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_Stat...

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.
- IanDrake 11y ago
  >Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs What is an example of a non-government bullshit job?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Most of the advertising industry, and resources they draw from other industries, e.g. print (think printing leaflets).
    - eanzenberg 11y ago
      Let's elect dictator TeMPOraL to tell society what he/she deems worthy of human ouptut. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

It's just another apocalyptic narrative. They are apparently fun; you get yards of cognitive dissonance out of it.