3 ms·

I haven't read Kasparov's book and the short article doesn't really dive deep into it so I can only comment on the BBC soundbite... If people are "pushing back

by jasode 9y ago

I haven't read Kasparov's book and the short article doesn't really dive deep into it so I can only comment on the BBC soundbite... If people are "pushing back against AI", it's not the progress of technology they're against -- it's the economic consequences. People are worried about joblessness and no financial security for retirement. It's similar to saying "embrace outsourcing because you get cheaper products" or "embrace H1B because America was built on immigrants and their skills". You can't just speak of those aspirations as general platitudes without being aware of what the real worries are. People aren't xenophobic -- they just want to keep their livelihoods. If you don't address the commoner's concerns, you'll be perceived as disingenuous.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seppin 9y ago
> you'll be perceived as disingenuous. or just, quite rightly, ignorant to economic causation.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Nicely said. If people could have confidence that technological progress would help them they would be for it.
harryf 9y ago
> If you don't address the commoner's concerns, you'll be perceived as disingenuous. True but I argue that the current hype about AI replacing jobs has much more to do with media clickbait than any real issue we should be worrying about right now. If your business is selling ads next to cheap content, it's a great story - scares people into clicks. That to me is a real issue here. How do we prevent the media pandering scare-content like this? For those old enough remember the "Y2K bug" that was going to have planes falling from the sky on the stoke of midnight 2000 there's a great analysis of the press's role in this at http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world ... > "Encouraged by these stories, some governments had spent fortunes in public money (and secured no better result than those who spent next to nothing). Journalists reported that the British government had spent £396 million on Y2K protection. They also reported that it had spent £430 million. And that it had spent £788 million. The American government had spent far more, they said - $100 billion, or $200 billion, or $320 billion, or $600 billion, or $858 billion, depending on which journalist you were reading. Anyway, it was a lot. Beyond that, the private sector had spawned a mini-industry of companies selling millennium bug kits, while publishers turned out bug books and bug videos, and estate agents sold bug-resistant homes, and a few families sold their houses and fled to remote cabins in order to give themselves a chance to survive the coming bug-related chaos. But this was not a story." > "The sun rose on January 1 2000 like the lights coming on at an orgy. Everybody who had been so busy - the journalists, the governments, the bug-related businesses and the computer experts - all picked themselves up, hoped nobody was looking and quietly tip-toed away."
- blazespin 9y ago
  Except that it had already happened. Sure, jobs will be created by low interest rates, but they are all pointless bullshit jobs that frankly we could all live with out. They are just an excuse to work. Thus the opiod crisis, increasing suicide rates, and Trump.
- florianletsch 9y ago
  > (...) the current hype about AI replacing jobs has much more to do with media clickbait than any real issue we should be worrying about right now. Hype? For sure. But the current advances in autonomous vehicles will have a very real impact on the working life of the common truck driver (3.5 million in US alone), I think we all agree on that.
  - credit_guy 9y ago
    I for one don't agree. If the autonomous trucks displace the truck drivers over the span of 50 years, I don't see the problems. Very few current drivers will be in the workforce 50 years from now.

by jasode 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

seppin 9y ago

> you'll be perceived as disingenuous. or just, quite rightly, ignorant to economic causation.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Nicely said. If people could have confidence that technological progress would help them they would be for it.

harryf 9y ago

> If you don't address the commoner's concerns, you'll be perceived as disingenuous. True but I argue that the current hype about AI replacing jobs has much more to do with media clickbait than any real issue we should be worrying about right now. If your business is selling ads next to cheap content, it's a great story - scares people into clicks. That to me is a real issue here. How do we prevent the media pandering scare-content like this? For those old enough remember the "Y2K bug" that was going to have planes falling from the sky on the stoke of midnight 2000 there's a great analysis of the press's role in this at http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world ... > "Encouraged by these stories, some governments had spent fortunes in public money (and secured no better result than those who spent next to nothing). Journalists reported that the British government had spent £396 million on Y2K protection. They also reported that it had spent £430 million. And that it had spent £788 million. The American government had spent far more, they said - $100 billion, or $200 billion, or $320 billion, or $600 billion, or $858 billion, depending on which journalist you were reading. Anyway, it was a lot. Beyond that, the private sector had spawned a mini-industry of companies selling millennium bug kits, while publishers turned out bug books and bug videos, and estate agents sold bug-resistant homes, and a few families sold their houses and fled to remote cabins in order to give themselves a chance to survive the coming bug-related chaos. But this was not a story." > "The sun rose on January 1 2000 like the lights coming on at an orgy. Everybody who had been so busy - the journalists, the governments, the bug-related businesses and the computer experts - all picked themselves up, hoped nobody was looking and quietly tip-toed away."

blazespin 9y ago
Except that it had already happened. Sure, jobs will be created by low interest rates, but they are all pointless bullshit jobs that frankly we could all live with out. They are just an excuse to work. Thus the opiod crisis, increasing suicide rates, and Trump.
florianletsch 9y ago
> (...) the current hype about AI replacing jobs has much more to do with media clickbait than any real issue we should be worrying about right now. Hype? For sure. But the current advances in autonomous vehicles will have a very real impact on the working life of the common truck driver (3.5 million in US alone), I think we all agree on that.
- credit_guy 9y ago
  I for one don't agree. If the autonomous trucks displace the truck drivers over the span of 50 years, I don't see the problems. Very few current drivers will be in the workforce 50 years from now.