7 ms·

Signals of an unsustainable future coming from Davos

38 points by nomoba 11y ago

p4wnc6 11y ago
Oldie but a goodie "Economics of Nanotech and AI" (Robin Hanson, Foresight 2010) [0]. [0] https://vimeo.com/9508131 https://vimeo.com/9508131
tomcam 11y ago
To quote Glenn Reynolds, "I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." These are the people who lecture about sustainability but fly 1500 private jets into Davos in the age of Skype.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  This is about what I think as well. I don't walk around telling everyone that AGW is a hoax but in technical forums I sometimes ask only to be met with downvotes and quotes about 2500 scientists can't be wrong. That said I do a lot of the right things for the "wrong" reasons: I recycle because I don't like wasting perfectly good resources, I take the train because that means I can code on my way to work (and I don't enjoy driving when tired) etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- brbrodude 11y ago
  A person who is able to fly a private jet is certainly the kind of person that's gonna impacted by 'the crisis' much later if at all, as usual. I think it's sort of stupid to put yourself in the same camp they are while we are first, second, third, nth in line. Also note that this line isn't waiting, it walks and there's plenty of people who already done the trip and it doesn't matter if they believe or not, it got real and thats it. I think the phrase is lame. Its witty but I don't see how it's smart. But you're probably farther in this line than I am.
- toyg 11y ago
  This is "unsustainable" in the economic sense, not the ecological one. From an economic perspective, 1500 private jets (with crew and maintenance and fuel etc etc) are much better than a couple of developers and sysadmins to run Skype.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  So I'm not sure I get your point -- if certain highly visible people who talk ("lecture") about a certain issue appear to be hypocritical, that means... it must actually be a non-issue? I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." Some of them already are. You might want to pay closer attention: http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015 http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/2...
- notthegov 11y ago
  This is kind of like saying, if Elon Musk doesn't recycle, he isn't helping the world. I don't mind the inherent hypocrisy because you need those jets and to go to Davos in order to influence policy etc in the right direction. Abstaining and vowing an ascetic life to practice what you preach only puts one at a disadvantage to the opposition. Of course, the powerful who don't actually care about they solution are going to fly on jets no matter what.
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    Elon Musk is the Edison of nowadays.
ktRolster 11y ago
If you read the actual report (instead of that guy's blog), the information is rather positive: >Overall, there is a modestly positive outlook for >employment across most industries, with jobs growth >expected in several sectors. However, it is also clear >that this need for more talent in certain job categories >is accompanied by high skills instability across all job >categories. Combined together, net job growth and skills >instability result in most businesses currently facing > major recruitment challenges and talent shortages, a > pattern already evident in the results and set to get > worse over the next five years Mike Rowe has a great foundation to help people who are trying to find those job: http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblooklike/ http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblo...
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, I am not encouraged by this. What I've observed is that in response to chronic talent shortages, larger organizations prefer to downsize, cut corners, scale-back offerings, and produce output of lower quality. Meanwhile, smaller organizations do not have the budgets necessary, so they try to portray working for them as a lifestyle choice. They offer foosball, on-site beer or coffee, and meaningless amounts of largely worthless equity. What both types absolutely will not do is to compete via wages, benefits, or healthful employment accommodations (for example, private working spaces instead of undifferentiated desks in an open-plan office). The "challenge" of recruitment is not how to attract qualified (let alone 'the best') candidates ... rather it is how to reframe the business such that high quality is not required for executives to maintain their lifestyles. It's a massive flight from quality. It's very frightening.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    > As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, That's too bad. Have you done anything to increase your skills?
    - p4wnc6 11y ago
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with wealth inequality as it exists today. The problem of wealth inequality was predicted to occur within capitalism long ago by a man named Karl Marx. So compelling were his predictions that entire societies have been constructed (and overthrown) in attempt to create a system that is more fair. Russia and China are the two biggest failed experiments in trying to solve this problem. Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism, but he is most famous for being right about wealth inequality and capitalism. What Karl Marx said about inequality is this: It happens because of the private ownership of the means of production. As long as the lifeblood of the economy, its vital resources, factories and technology are owned by a tiny group of individuals, as long as production is governed by the law of capital accumulation and not the needs of society as a whole, poverty, injustice and capitalist crisis will remain and ultimately grow. Workers produce everything; the ruling class produces nothing, yet the ruling class own everything. Take for example your typical Tech corporation: Apple. Apple makes $1,865,306 of revenue per employee. The top senior software engineer gets paid around $222,550, which is a number that is far higher than the average salary of an apple employee. What is evident is this: The people who do almost all of the work in apple (engineers) are only getting paid less than a fifth of the revenue they generate. Where does the rest of this revenue go? It is used to increase the incomes of a few people who do much less or no work. C-level executives pad their salaries with a huge portion of this money. Tim Cook alone got 10.2 million in 2015 and that's not including stock options. While tim cook is a very capable individual, his salary indicates that his work output is equivalent to the work output of 50 engineers. Can a single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no. The rest of the money is either distributed as dividends or reinvested back into the company in the form of infrastructure improvements or just money in the bank. Who directly benefits from this? The Shareholders or in karl marx's words: The people who own the means of production. These are the people attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  The problem with US used to be some people were richer the others while in Soviet Russia almost everyone were equally poor, wasn't it?
arrty88 11y ago
the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  This is really, really not true. Or at least it depends a lot on what you mean by "change." It might be better than it is in Russia, but it is not good at all for most people in the U.S.
- chipgap98 11y ago
  I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. I don't think the US you are describing actually exists
  - arrty88 11y ago
    If you have 5 kids, you probably can't easily change things: http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-contestant-inadvertently-explains-exactly-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/ http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-conte... But anyone with half a brain can start going to local libraries to get interested in subjects, attend community college, apply for new jobs, learn a trade, etc etc
    - vmorgulis 11y ago
      A lot of people are interested by nothing.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. And there are 10s of millions who want to lose weight. Is there a significant social issue preventing the loss of weight, is losing weight an achievable American dream... or does want alone not achieve a dream? The problem isn't the lack of desire, it is the lack of discipline. Even if we made becoming filthy rich as easy as losing weight why would people do the former when they still can't do the latter today?
wrong_variable 11y ago
As anyone who works in technology will tell you - "its turtles all the way down". As long as the internet is held together by duct-tapes - I do not think there is going to be a shortage of jobs. I always find it amusing when tech people think they can make someone else unemployed with a script. Oh gosh - this package manager is awesome - said no one ever. The real reason for job losses is with income inequality caused by dysfunctional govts.
ktRolster 11y ago
The blog relies on some negative quotes about AI from the paper. The hypothesis is that AI will make most workers obsolete. The paper is not a definitive declaration of what will happen, rather it is a survey of CxOs and HR managers. These people have expertise but their expertise is not predicting the outcome of AI.
- toyg 11y ago
  To be fair though, these are the people who "tell" the market what a product should or should not be. If they say they expect AI to replace workers faster and faster, it means that's what they want AI to do, that's where the market is going -- and where the market goes, technology will likely follow one way or the other.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    It's what we all want. AI to do our job so we can play. That's exactly what a "robot butler/maid" is for. http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_s.fit_/rosie-robot-jetsons.jpg http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_...
vmorgulis 11y ago
“In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top."
- walterbell 11y ago
  What happens if this high-skilled labor pool chooses new goals?
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    They can get the power and replace the current elite like during the French Revolution. I think the history will continue to repeat itself until someone explain it with something like science (non-cultural). I see the structure of the society like an electromagnetic field or like gravity. Something people don't know the existence.
    - LiweiZ 11y ago
      I guess you could take a look at complexity theory.
      - vmorgulis 11y ago
        Very interesting. Thank you.
        LiweiZ 11y ago
        I came across that field when I tried to find out answers. I found this is the best way to have a better understand for lots of things so far. It shows a better model for many "dynamic structured" things.
        vmorgulis 11y ago
        I agree with the "non-linear" aspects of the theory. Agents infuence the system and are themselves changed by the result. We can see that in politics. Mankind deseperatly needs this kind of tool to survive. Philosophy or principles are not shared enough to avoid conflicts and wars. Something neutral could help. Thank you again :-)
ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
">Overall, our respondents seem to take a negative view regarding the upcoming employment impact of artificial intelligence, although not on a scale that would lead to widespread societal upheaval—at least up until the year 2020." Four Years is just one election cycle, so buckle-up and enjoy the ride, make sure you're ahead of the tide.

38 points by nomoba 11y ago

Oldie but a goodie "Economics of Nanotech and AI" (Robin Hanson, Foresight 2010) [0]. [0] https://vimeo.com/9508131 https://vimeo.com/9508131

tomcam 11y ago

To quote Glenn Reynolds, "I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." These are the people who lecture about sustainability but fly 1500 private jets into Davos in the age of Skype.

reitanqild 11y ago
This is about what I think as well. I don't walk around telling everyone that AGW is a hoax but in technical forums I sometimes ask only to be met with downvotes and quotes about 2500 scientists can't be wrong. That said I do a lot of the right things for the "wrong" reasons: I recycle because I don't like wasting perfectly good resources, I take the train because that means I can code on my way to work (and I don't enjoy driving when tired) etc.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
brbrodude 11y ago
A person who is able to fly a private jet is certainly the kind of person that's gonna impacted by 'the crisis' much later if at all, as usual. I think it's sort of stupid to put yourself in the same camp they are while we are first, second, third, nth in line. Also note that this line isn't waiting, it walks and there's plenty of people who already done the trip and it doesn't matter if they believe or not, it got real and thats it. I think the phrase is lame. Its witty but I don't see how it's smart. But you're probably farther in this line than I am.
toyg 11y ago
This is "unsustainable" in the economic sense, not the ecological one. From an economic perspective, 1500 private jets (with crew and maintenance and fuel etc etc) are much better than a couple of developers and sysadmins to run Skype.
kafkaesq 11y ago
So I'm not sure I get your point -- if certain highly visible people who talk ("lecture") about a certain issue appear to be hypocritical, that means... it must actually be a non-issue? I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." Some of them already are. You might want to pay closer attention: http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015 http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/2...
notthegov 11y ago
This is kind of like saying, if Elon Musk doesn't recycle, he isn't helping the world. I don't mind the inherent hypocrisy because you need those jets and to go to Davos in order to influence policy etc in the right direction. Abstaining and vowing an ascetic life to practice what you preach only puts one at a disadvantage to the opposition. Of course, the powerful who don't actually care about they solution are going to fly on jets no matter what.
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  Elon Musk is the Edison of nowadays.

ktRolster 11y ago

If you read the actual report (instead of that guy's blog), the information is rather positive: >Overall, there is a modestly positive outlook for >employment across most industries, with jobs growth >expected in several sectors. However, it is also clear >that this need for more talent in certain job categories >is accompanied by high skills instability across all job >categories. Combined together, net job growth and skills >instability result in most businesses currently facing > major recruitment challenges and talent shortages, a > pattern already evident in the results and set to get > worse over the next five years Mike Rowe has a great foundation to help people who are trying to find those job: http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblooklike/ http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblo...

p4wnc6 11y ago
As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, I am not encouraged by this. What I've observed is that in response to chronic talent shortages, larger organizations prefer to downsize, cut corners, scale-back offerings, and produce output of lower quality. Meanwhile, smaller organizations do not have the budgets necessary, so they try to portray working for them as a lifestyle choice. They offer foosball, on-site beer or coffee, and meaningless amounts of largely worthless equity. What both types absolutely will not do is to compete via wages, benefits, or healthful employment accommodations (for example, private working spaces instead of undifferentiated desks in an open-plan office). The "challenge" of recruitment is not how to attract qualified (let alone 'the best') candidates ... rather it is how to reframe the business such that high quality is not required for executives to maintain their lifestyles. It's a massive flight from quality. It's very frightening.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  > As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, That's too bad. Have you done anything to increase your skills?
  - p4wnc6 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with wealth inequality as it exists today. The problem of wealth inequality was predicted to occur within capitalism long ago by a man named Karl Marx. So compelling were his predictions that entire societies have been constructed (and overthrown) in attempt to create a system that is more fair. Russia and China are the two biggest failed experiments in trying to solve this problem. Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism, but he is most famous for being right about wealth inequality and capitalism. What Karl Marx said about inequality is this: It happens because of the private ownership of the means of production. As long as the lifeblood of the economy, its vital resources, factories and technology are owned by a tiny group of individuals, as long as production is governed by the law of capital accumulation and not the needs of society as a whole, poverty, injustice and capitalist crisis will remain and ultimately grow. Workers produce everything; the ruling class produces nothing, yet the ruling class own everything. Take for example your typical Tech corporation: Apple. Apple makes $1,865,306 of revenue per employee. The top senior software engineer gets paid around $222,550, which is a number that is far higher than the average salary of an apple employee. What is evident is this: The people who do almost all of the work in apple (engineers) are only getting paid less than a fifth of the revenue they generate. Where does the rest of this revenue go? It is used to increase the incomes of a few people who do much less or no work. C-level executives pad their salaries with a huge portion of this money. Tim Cook alone got 10.2 million in 2015 and that's not including stock options. While tim cook is a very capable individual, his salary indicates that his work output is equivalent to the work output of 50 engineers. Can a single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no. The rest of the money is either distributed as dividends or reinvested back into the company in the form of infrastructure improvements or just money in the bank. Who directly benefits from this? The Shareholders or in karl marx's words: The people who own the means of production. These are the people attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI.

reitanqild 11y ago
The problem with US used to be some people were richer the others while in Soviet Russia almost everyone were equally poor, wasn't it?

arrty88 11y ago

the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.

p4wnc6 11y ago
This is really, really not true. Or at least it depends a lot on what you mean by "change." It might be better than it is in Russia, but it is not good at all for most people in the U.S.
chipgap98 11y ago
I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. I don't think the US you are describing actually exists
- arrty88 11y ago
  If you have 5 kids, you probably can't easily change things: http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-contestant-inadvertently-explains-exactly-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/ http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-conte... But anyone with half a brain can start going to local libraries to get interested in subjects, attend community college, apply for new jobs, learn a trade, etc etc
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    A lot of people are interested by nothing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. And there are 10s of millions who want to lose weight. Is there a significant social issue preventing the loss of weight, is losing weight an achievable American dream... or does want alone not achieve a dream? The problem isn't the lack of desire, it is the lack of discipline. Even if we made becoming filthy rich as easy as losing weight why would people do the former when they still can't do the latter today?

wrong_variable 11y ago

As anyone who works in technology will tell you - "its turtles all the way down". As long as the internet is held together by duct-tapes - I do not think there is going to be a shortage of jobs. I always find it amusing when tech people think they can make someone else unemployed with a script. Oh gosh - this package manager is awesome - said no one ever. The real reason for job losses is with income inequality caused by dysfunctional govts.

ktRolster 11y ago

The blog relies on some negative quotes about AI from the paper. The hypothesis is that AI will make most workers obsolete. The paper is not a definitive declaration of what will happen, rather it is a survey of CxOs and HR managers. These people have expertise but their expertise is not predicting the outcome of AI.

toyg 11y ago
To be fair though, these are the people who "tell" the market what a product should or should not be. If they say they expect AI to replace workers faster and faster, it means that's what they want AI to do, that's where the market is going -- and where the market goes, technology will likely follow one way or the other.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  It's what we all want. AI to do our job so we can play. That's exactly what a "robot butler/maid" is for. http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_s.fit_/rosie-robot-jetsons.jpg http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_...

vmorgulis 11y ago

“In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top."

walterbell 11y ago
What happens if this high-skilled labor pool chooses new goals?
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  They can get the power and replace the current elite like during the French Revolution. I think the history will continue to repeat itself until someone explain it with something like science (non-cultural). I see the structure of the society like an electromagnetic field or like gravity. Something people don't know the existence.
  - LiweiZ 11y ago
    I guess you could take a look at complexity theory.
    - vmorgulis 11y ago
      Very interesting. Thank you.
      - LiweiZ 11y ago
        I came across that field when I tried to find out answers. I found this is the best way to have a better understand for lots of things so far. It shows a better model for many "dynamic structured" things.
        vmorgulis 11y ago
        I agree with the "non-linear" aspects of the theory. Agents infuence the system and are themselves changed by the result. We can see that in politics. Mankind deseperatly needs this kind of tool to survive. Philosophy or principles are not shared enough to avoid conflicts and wars. Something neutral could help. Thank you again :-)

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago

">Overall, our respondents seem to take a negative view regarding the upcoming employment impact of artificial intelligence, although not on a scale that would lead to widespread societal upheaval—at least up until the year 2020." Four Years is just one election cycle, so buckle-up and enjoy the ride, make sure you're ahead of the tide.