14 ms·

Why is the underlying assumption always "as technology continues to replace jobs and generate massive wealth" in the world of BI? It seems like BI is an answer

Why is the underlying assumption always "as technology continues to replace jobs and generate massive wealth" in the world of BI? It seems like BI is an answer to a false dichotomy. What if we fix our society instead? What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today, right now in this very moment instead of some far distant realization of "when all jobs are automated" which is a highly debatable premise, and if even true, a long ways away. That's the thing that is so frustrating to me about my fellow people in tech. Driven to automate. Why? To what end? If you stop and think who really benefits the most from this endless pursuit to automate, you will see it really isn't your common neighbor. I will say I feel this way with most fields of research and schools of political thought as well. So much is being done for theoretical problems in the distant future, when we could double down on current issues. Instead we fund obscure research that may or may not reach fruition, or the underlying assumptions might change under this hope that some future results will solve our current problems, meanwhile the status quo remains for those suffering now. And you wonder why people are becoming increasingly weary with science, and even technology. Technology was suppose to make people happier and have endless opportunities, yet it is becoming increasingly obvious society is even more unhappy, more anti-social, more fragmented than ever before. More people are unhappier than ever before, more people are committing suicide, more people are addicted to pain killers and opioids than ever before, more people are addicts in general. Sure we are living longer, long enough to stuff our faces with all the processed junk our wonderful technology has created so cheaply, but we have missed out on the meaning, I am afraid. Maybe I have just become so cynical I can't work in tech anymore. What can I say though. It pays good.

knodi123 10y ago
> Driven to automate. Why? To what end? If you stop and think who really benefits the most from this endless pursuit to automate, you will see it really isn't your common neighbor. So, the alternative is to pick a level of automation that society is comfortable with, and legally enforce that we never go past it? Maybe a jobs program where we take jobs away from robots and give them to humans, like repeatedly hammering sheet metal into certain shapes? We'll need a one-world government to ensure that while we do all this, our neighboring countries don't just invest in robots and undercut us on price. I sympathize with what you're feeling, but basically, there's no way to get to the idyllic world you envision without powerful totalitarian overlords.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It seems like BI is an answer to a false dichotomy. [...] > What if we fix our society instead? What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today, right now in this very moment BI is usually presented as a right now improvement, that also gives more improvement as technology advances. So, the false dichotomy I see is yours: between "improvement right now" and "improvement as technology and productivity improve".
- treehau5 10y ago
  > BI is usually presented as a right now improvement Not as far as I've seen, and not in this article this discussions about, or any of the articles it subsequently links to in it's body. " Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of living should fall dramatically." That is what I am questioning: what most view as an inevitability and BI is solution for. I am happy to read BI articles about solving the current socioeconomic problems. The few I have read all make this "automated utopia" assumption. I read exactly one that talks about implementing it with today's constraints.
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Amen. Honestly I think that the popular idea (in the technology world) that magical hardware/software are going to "replace all the jobs" is wishful thinking. I don't think that the very baubles that amuse and distract humanity will also be its doom or its salvation.
jernfrost 10y ago
Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty. Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society? It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today. We can't simply fix the world today by some political decision. There simply isn't enough wealth in the world to create a good life for the whole worlds population. Growing the economy for the whole world to the point there there will be enough for everybody will take significant time. You can't just do it right now, as much as you like. Then you have countries such as the US, which has at least the same wealth asa e.g. Nordic countries but yet has significant poverty problems largely eradicated in Nordic nations. In a sort of naive and theoretical way these problems should be possible to solve given that enough wealth exists. But in practice such a thing would be difficult to achieve. If you just installed a nordic style system in the US today, it wouldn't cause an immediate solution to all social problems. The existence of the nordic style welfare system over many years has made sure that there doesn't exist a large poorly educated and dysfunctional class of people. You can treat an illness much more easily if you tackle it early on. However if you let it fester for years as the US has done, you will need much stronger forms of medication. E.g the years bad blood between blacks and whites in America can't be changed by merely passing a set of laws. What you can do is starting with reforms today, but it will be years before one can reap the benefits. People's values, attitudes etc doesn't move that fast. That is why one needs a lot of patience for solving a lot of world problems. It is likely much faster to develop an advance AI system than getting blacks and white American to trust each other e.g. Likewise it will take decades before Americans are going to think poor people aren't just lazy and caused their own predicament.
- treehau5 10y ago
  I would like to take the time to follow up to some of your points. I don't think you are wrong, or are invalid, just offering other thoughts to your thinking. >Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty. I have found that the people who are biased towards automation being society's silver bullet are the only one's who think this. > Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society? I suppose that's one way to look back at history, quite revisionist, however. Great nations were united under great causes. Alexander the Great build the most diverse empire on this principle. Russia is currently being (mostly) united under its renewal of it's Orthodox roots, that were suppressed during the Atheistic regime that crippled it prior. Value systems can be provably shown to improve the well-being of societies. Obviously the problems arise when different value systems clash, which is why I am against the current era of globalization, but that's another story. (I think it's okay that different people be different). The other side of your point here I think is the technology. Yes the technology helped the stone age folks, but so did education -- sharing knowledge. The tools, in my opinion, always had one purpose in mind: better the fellow man. Our current tools we are building have lost this purpose long ago, or it's ends are highly questionable, at best they are being built with this utopian view in mind, without considering the great tragedy that will happen in between then, which was my original point. The rich oligarch caveleaders didnt oppress the other lesser pleblean cavepeople when they invented the hammer or fire, or keep it to themselves. It immediately improved everyone's situation. > It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today. I am really glad us fortunate to live in the western world are benefiting. By the way, as it relates to the overall population, the "western world" is miniscule. > E.g the years bad blood between blacks and whites in America can't be changed by merely passing a set of laws. I would 100% agree. We have to get the people who promote this worldview of separation out of positions of power. Here's what some people will consider a cooky view: Both sides of that issue are financially incentivized to keep racisim alive and well. > It is likely much faster to develop an advance AI system than getting blacks and white American to trust each other I take the symbolism as us having a black president for 8 years with generally good favorability ratings, and an excellent impact on the country overall as a sign things can improve much faster than you give it credit for. Cognitive systems, on the other hand, I think is much further away.
someguydave 10y ago
>What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today, right now in this very moment instead of some far distant realization of "when all jobs are automated" which is a highly debatable premise, and if even true, a long ways away. I would note that the "fight to prevent future catistrophic climate change" is exactly like this as well... "We must immediately upend the existing social order because of some distant and uncertain threat that looms in the future!"

knodi123 10y ago

> Driven to automate. Why? To what end? If you stop and think who really benefits the most from this endless pursuit to automate, you will see it really isn't your common neighbor. So, the alternative is to pick a level of automation that society is comfortable with, and legally enforce that we never go past it? Maybe a jobs program where we take jobs away from robots and give them to humans, like repeatedly hammering sheet metal into certain shapes? We'll need a one-world government to ensure that while we do all this, our neighboring countries don't just invest in robots and undercut us on price. I sympathize with what you're feeling, but basically, there's no way to get to the idyllic world you envision without powerful totalitarian overlords.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It seems like BI is an answer to a false dichotomy. [...] > What if we fix our society instead? What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today, right now in this very moment BI is usually presented as a right now improvement, that also gives more improvement as technology advances. So, the false dichotomy I see is yours: between "improvement right now" and "improvement as technology and productivity improve".

treehau5 10y ago
> BI is usually presented as a right now improvement Not as far as I've seen, and not in this article this discussions about, or any of the articles it subsequently links to in it's body. " Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of living should fall dramatically." That is what I am questioning: what most view as an inevitability and BI is solution for. I am happy to read BI articles about solving the current socioeconomic problems. The few I have read all make this "automated utopia" assumption. I read exactly one that talks about implementing it with today's constraints.
- someguydave 10y ago
  Amen. Honestly I think that the popular idea (in the technology world) that magical hardware/software are going to "replace all the jobs" is wishful thinking. I don't think that the very baubles that amuse and distract humanity will also be its doom or its salvation.

jernfrost 10y ago

Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty. Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society? It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today. We can't simply fix the world today by some political decision. There simply isn't enough wealth in the world to create a good life for the whole worlds population. Growing the economy for the whole world to the point there there will be enough for everybody will take significant time. You can't just do it right now, as much as you like. Then you have countries such as the US, which has at least the same wealth asa e.g. Nordic countries but yet has significant poverty problems largely eradicated in Nordic nations. In a sort of naive and theoretical way these problems should be possible to solve given that enough wealth exists. But in practice such a thing would be difficult to achieve. If you just installed a nordic style system in the US today, it wouldn't cause an immediate solution to all social problems. The existence of the nordic style welfare system over many years has made sure that there doesn't exist a large poorly educated and dysfunctional class of people. You can treat an illness much more easily if you tackle it early on. However if you let it fester for years as the US has done, you will need much stronger forms of medication. E.g the years bad blood between blacks and whites in America can't be changed by merely passing a set of laws. What you can do is starting with reforms today, but it will be years before one can reap the benefits. People's values, attitudes etc doesn't move that fast. That is why one needs a lot of patience for solving a lot of world problems. It is likely much faster to develop an advance AI system than getting blacks and white American to trust each other e.g. Likewise it will take decades before Americans are going to think poor people aren't just lazy and caused their own predicament.

treehau5 10y ago
I would like to take the time to follow up to some of your points. I don't think you are wrong, or are invalid, just offering other thoughts to your thinking. >Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty. I have found that the people who are biased towards automation being society's silver bullet are the only one's who think this. > Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society? I suppose that's one way to look back at history, quite revisionist, however. Great nations were united under great causes. Alexander the Great build the most diverse empire on this principle. Russia is currently being (mostly) united under its renewal of it's Orthodox roots, that were suppressed during the Atheistic regime that crippled it prior. Value systems can be provably shown to improve the well-being of societies. Obviously the problems arise when different value systems clash, which is why I am against the current era of globalization, but that's another story. (I think it's okay that different people be different). The other side of your point here I think is the technology. Yes the technology helped the stone age folks, but so did education -- sharing knowledge. The tools, in my opinion, always had one purpose in mind: better the fellow man. Our current tools we are building have lost this purpose long ago, or it's ends are highly questionable, at best they are being built with this utopian view in mind, without considering the great tragedy that will happen in between then, which was my original point. The rich oligarch caveleaders didnt oppress the other lesser pleblean cavepeople when they invented the hammer or fire, or keep it to themselves. It immediately improved everyone's situation. > It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today. I am really glad us fortunate to live in the western world are benefiting. By the way, as it relates to the overall population, the "western world" is miniscule. > E.g the years bad blood between blacks and whites in America can't be changed by merely passing a set of laws. I would 100% agree. We have to get the people who promote this worldview of separation out of positions of power. Here's what some people will consider a cooky view: Both sides of that issue are financially incentivized to keep racisim alive and well. > It is likely much faster to develop an advance AI system than getting blacks and white American to trust each other I take the symbolism as us having a black president for 8 years with generally good favorability ratings, and an excellent impact on the country overall as a sign things can improve much faster than you give it credit for. Cognitive systems, on the other hand, I think is much further away.

someguydave 10y ago

>What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today, right now in this very moment instead of some far distant realization of "when all jobs are automated" which is a highly debatable premise, and if even true, a long ways away. I would note that the "fight to prevent future catistrophic climate change" is exactly like this as well... "We must immediately upend the existing social order because of some distant and uncertain threat that looms in the future!"