5 ms·

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

by arbuge 11y ago

mnsc 11y ago
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
- t0rb3n 11y ago
  You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly. > Why would anyone want to prevent/change that? What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man? edit: And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
    - stevetrewick 11y ago
      >Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
      - PavlovsCat 11y ago
        Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
  - johanneskanybal 11y ago
    https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product...
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Basic economics and history? Common sense? In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened? Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death? Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum. Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
  - bottled_poe 11y ago
    > Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them. > The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing. Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out. Here's a comment I bookmarked: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=45379367 http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453... > The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
- boken 11y ago
  Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation. No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > Apathy and disagreement are different things. Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds. > This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic. There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm": > 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct > 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official > 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it. edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
lhecker 11y ago
Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said: > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. > Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. > So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
- asift 11y ago
  >If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    Then disagree with the premise. Is it wrong? Why is it ridiculous? Are the adavances in robotics and ML that we are currently experiencing going to hit a wall soon?
    - asift 11y ago
      It's not that advancements are going to hit a wall. It's absurd to assume human demand for consumption is finite. There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines.
      - lbebber 11y ago
        > There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
      - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
        Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.
wcummings 11y ago
He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase" http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.
forgottenpass 11y ago
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this? Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.
- igorgue 11y ago
  Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room. I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

by arbuge 11y ago

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

mnsc 11y ago

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.

PavlovsCat 11y ago

Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?

t0rb3n 11y ago
You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly. > Why would anyone want to prevent/change that? What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man? edit: And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
  - stevetrewick 11y ago
    >Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
- johanneskanybal 11y ago
  https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product...
stevetrewick 11y ago
Basic economics and history? Common sense? In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened? Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death? Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum. Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
- bottled_poe 11y ago
  > Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them. > The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing. Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out. Here's a comment I bookmarked: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=45379367 http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453... > The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
boken 11y ago
Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation. No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > Apathy and disagreement are different things. Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds. > This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic. There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm": > 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct > 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official > 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it. edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

lhecker 11y ago

Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said: > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. > Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. > So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

asift 11y ago
>If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Then disagree with the premise. Is it wrong? Why is it ridiculous? Are the adavances in robotics and ML that we are currently experiencing going to hit a wall soon?
  - asift 11y ago
    It's not that advancements are going to hit a wall. It's absurd to assume human demand for consumption is finite. There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines.
    - lbebber 11y ago
      > There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.

wcummings 11y ago

He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase" http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Houshalter 11y ago
Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.

forgottenpass 11y ago

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this? Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.
igorgue 11y ago
Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room. I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."