4 ms·

The difference is that previous automation was a force multiplier. Today's automation is a mind multiplier. This is unprecedented territory. It really is diffe

The difference is that previous automation was a force multiplier. Today's automation is a mind multiplier. This is unprecedented territory. It really is different this time. I hate all of the "singularity" hokum, but it's getting really hard to predict what's going to happen.

oh_sigh 10y ago
The computer itself has been a mind multiplier since the beginning. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is something completely new.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  The new thing is that computers can learn to learn.
  - q3r3qr3q 10y ago
    You mean the machine learning stuff, that's been around since 1959?
    - gpawl 10y ago
      and now is finally energy efficient enough for practical usage.
    - mamp 10y ago
      In theory, but we didn't have enough data or computing power for machines to compete with human performance (also algorithmic improvements). I feel that the disruption isn't going to be completely new compared to past changes but probably across more industries at the same time because machines can soon move and think e.g. Driving, diagnosis, planning (through better prediction), assembly.
    - taneq 10y ago
      That machine learning stuff which has been around for the past 60 years out of humanity's, what, 10,000 years of 'modern' humans (starting with the invention of agriculture)? That's only really reached parity with humans on a broad range of cognitive tasks in the past within the last 5-10 years? Yes, that stuff.
hetman 10y ago
I feel like that difference is overstated. Weaving was once a highly skilled profession requiring intricate control by an intelligent operator yet it was increasingly automated even before the advent of computing. I think the difference in what we consider "force" work and what is "mind" work is highly subjective to the things we've grown used to thinking of as menial based on the technology we've learned to take for granted. The new forms of automation seem to be doing nothing but continuing the same gradual trend rather than offering some kind of paradigm shift. For example I have yet to see any automated systems replacing human creativity, when that begins to happen then we really will be in uncharted territory.
- novos 10y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity has some links to examples but I'm on mobile.
  - hetman 10y ago
    These tend to be imitations of an existing style at best with a sprinkling of randomness thrown in, and nonsensical at worst. Certainly nothing fascinating enough to have people queuing to experience it paid ticket in hand. Still, artistic creativity seems like a pretty lofty goal at this point so it wouldn't be the first place I would expect to see genuine creativity emerge.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gpawl 10y ago
  Weaving is clearly a mechanical task that required a mind to control the hardware. Problem-solving is not a mechanical task.
  - K0SM0S 10y ago
    > Problem-solving is not a mechanical task Food for thought: how sure are we that this statement is true? What does it even mean, seen from a cybernetics perspective? How complex does a task need to be until it's not considered mechanical anymore? Isn't the brain, eventually, a very complex biological machine?

oh_sigh 10y ago

The computer itself has been a mind multiplier since the beginning. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is something completely new.

ThomPete 10y ago
The new thing is that computers can learn to learn.
- q3r3qr3q 10y ago
  You mean the machine learning stuff, that's been around since 1959?
  - gpawl 10y ago
    and now is finally energy efficient enough for practical usage.
  - mamp 10y ago
    In theory, but we didn't have enough data or computing power for machines to compete with human performance (also algorithmic improvements). I feel that the disruption isn't going to be completely new compared to past changes but probably across more industries at the same time because machines can soon move and think e.g. Driving, diagnosis, planning (through better prediction), assembly.
  - taneq 10y ago
    That machine learning stuff which has been around for the past 60 years out of humanity's, what, 10,000 years of 'modern' humans (starting with the invention of agriculture)? That's only really reached parity with humans on a broad range of cognitive tasks in the past within the last 5-10 years? Yes, that stuff.

hetman 10y ago

I feel like that difference is overstated. Weaving was once a highly skilled profession requiring intricate control by an intelligent operator yet it was increasingly automated even before the advent of computing. I think the difference in what we consider "force" work and what is "mind" work is highly subjective to the things we've grown used to thinking of as menial based on the technology we've learned to take for granted. The new forms of automation seem to be doing nothing but continuing the same gradual trend rather than offering some kind of paradigm shift. For example I have yet to see any automated systems replacing human creativity, when that begins to happen then we really will be in uncharted territory.

novos 10y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity has some links to examples but I'm on mobile.
- hetman 10y ago
  These tend to be imitations of an existing style at best with a sprinkling of randomness thrown in, and nonsensical at worst. Certainly nothing fascinating enough to have people queuing to experience it paid ticket in hand. Still, artistic creativity seems like a pretty lofty goal at this point so it wouldn't be the first place I would expect to see genuine creativity emerge.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gpawl 10y ago
Weaving is clearly a mechanical task that required a mind to control the hardware. Problem-solving is not a mechanical task.
- K0SM0S 10y ago
  > Problem-solving is not a mechanical task Food for thought: how sure are we that this statement is true? What does it even mean, seen from a cybernetics perspective? How complex does a task need to be until it's not considered mechanical anymore? Isn't the brain, eventually, a very complex biological machine?