6 ms·

Insane. Insane. A hundred years ago, people thinking about machines doing the work for us recognized that this was a good thing. Now, we worry about "our" "o

by Vivtek 14y ago

Insane. Insane. A hundred years ago, people thinking about machines doing the work for us recognized that this was a good thing. Now, we worry about "our" "outrunning" the robots. Which is fucking impossible. We are building them to do the work - let them do it. Let us be human - as prices fall, we won't need to work nearly as much with the stupid fiddly bits of putting pieces of metal against other pieces of metal, and can instead just do whatever we want to. Sure, lots of people will explore beer in great detail, and other people will make a lot of concrete geese with more elaborate clothing, but who cares? Why does Eric Schmidt think that's a problem? Prices of things we need will fall. We'll need to work less to live. Robots will give us that. There isn't a problem here. Longer term, sure, I suppose mere human brains won't be the biggest around any more. Maybe we'll stop caring. So? If it's inevitable, it's inevitable. Love your children now and let them worry about it. They'll evolve, or they'll die - the same deal every other life form gets.

marvin 14y ago
There is a problem, and that is that our (or at least the American) social system is not built to handle a world where most things are automated. If you are unemployed and unable to find work with your current skills (because all the jobs you are intellectually capable of doing have been automated), how will you earn enough money to eat and pay rent? This is one of the big problems we need to find a solution for in the next 100 years. I don't think that Schmidt has the right solution, but his perspective definitely offers some insights into the problems that lie ahead. He is onto something.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  This stems from an incorrect understanding of economics. Does increasing the size of the labor pool have a detrimental or beneficial effect on workers? Overall it has a positive effect. The more people are in the labor force the greater amount of total work gets done, and thus the richer we all become. The same math also works with robots. Treat the robot like a worker. They have an effective wage in the form of maintenance costs, and they provide a benefit in the form of the value they create. Just as with workers every robot generally has a net positive effect on the global value of the entire economy. They don't take away jobs, they don't destroy wealth, they create wealth and they create additional jobs.
  - marvin 14y ago
    I have never tried to claim that robots destroy wealth. That would be ludicrous. But they do take away jobs. New jobs might be created to replace them. However, I don't think this will happen as easily as before. The Luddite fallacy is outdated. We won't be able to add new (profitable!) jobs indefinitely, because our standard of living can't keep increasing indefinitely. (Or at least not at the rate it is today - there are only so many fancy cars, nice apartments and computer entertainment systems a single person can use). Robots do free up parts of the labor pool, but the world needs to adapt to this extra "labor". I hope you're not misunderstanding what I'm saying; I believe that automation is unequivocally a good force. But our current system isn't built to handle a very high degree of automation. When the winner-take-all effect of the Internet starts becoming more visible in additional parts of the economy, reform will be necessary. To sum up my opinion in a single soundbite: The labor dislocations caused by current and future automation efforts won't resolve as easily as they have until now, where everyone simply switched to a new, profitable job right away.
    - bradleyland 14y ago
      Imagine if you were to travel deep in to the Amazon and locate an indigenous tribe. This tribe is still a hunter gatherer society. What do you think would happen if you introduced just a little bit of modernization. Simple things like agriculture and irrigation. Sanitary water systems. Basic things that we take for granted. One possible outcome is that the now obsolete hunter class amongst the tribe would revolt. The sudden loss of their jobs would leave them with no purpose, so why wouldn't they revolt? Another possible outcome is that they would find a new purpose and help push their tribe in to the future. In a lot of ways, we're facing the same shift today. We need less labor to make "things" than we ever have in the past. Resenting the loss of this need is only one solution. If we look back over human history, we know that the lost of labor requirements for the current status of living has only resulted in an elevation of the tasks we set ourselves to. That is our choice, and that is why I'm so excited to see people like Elon Musk set themselves against tasks that others cower in fear of. I'm glad for people like Paul Graham who are looking for ways to make entrepreneurship available to more people. I'm thankful for people like James Cameron, who use their wealth to explore parts of the earth for the benefit of all. I'm not saying it will be easy, but I don't see the wall that you're seeing.
- pitt1980 14y ago
  the social systems adjust to the facts on the ground the facts on the ground don't adjust to the social systems the next Marx will come up with a theory that fits the facts, and if it makes enough sense to the people on the ground, it'll gain steam and political momentum, and then there will be a new social system in place
- anonymous 14y ago
  You hit the nail right on the head. This generation cannot solve such problems. Probably neither will the next one. But the one after that, maybe they will get to grow without seeing the current jobs situation as The One True Way. Which in the end means Schmidt got it right - we need universal access to education. That is literally the only problem that we need to solve - leave the future problems for the future people.
Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
Insane comment ;) There were quite a few stupid people saying things were impossible before. Don't worry, let your children worry is a sure recipe for failure. There are so many possible huge problems with AI, including an unfriendly one. During human history the technology has played a huge role in determining the structure of societies. When the modern killing devices are cheap - bronze swords in Ancient Greece and Rome, muskets in per-revolutionary US and France - there is a lot of individual freedom, as the elite is incapable of ignoring the will of the masses. On the other hand when those devices are extremely expensive - knight armor in European Dark Ages - there is absolute control in the hands of a very few. Modern AI driven drones and robots are extremely anti-democratic, they allow a small elite to employ a few expert button pushers to destroy any kind of opposition. With CCTV, Facebook, WireTrap, Internet monitoring and logging, etc. your children will stand no chance to change the Orwellian future your stupidity has doomed them to.

by Vivtek 14y ago

marvin 14y ago

There is a problem, and that is that our (or at least the American) social system is not built to handle a world where most things are automated. If you are unemployed and unable to find work with your current skills (because all the jobs you are intellectually capable of doing have been automated), how will you earn enough money to eat and pay rent? This is one of the big problems we need to find a solution for in the next 100 years. I don't think that Schmidt has the right solution, but his perspective definitely offers some insights into the problems that lie ahead. He is onto something.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
This stems from an incorrect understanding of economics. Does increasing the size of the labor pool have a detrimental or beneficial effect on workers? Overall it has a positive effect. The more people are in the labor force the greater amount of total work gets done, and thus the richer we all become. The same math also works with robots. Treat the robot like a worker. They have an effective wage in the form of maintenance costs, and they provide a benefit in the form of the value they create. Just as with workers every robot generally has a net positive effect on the global value of the entire economy. They don't take away jobs, they don't destroy wealth, they create wealth and they create additional jobs.
- marvin 14y ago
  I have never tried to claim that robots destroy wealth. That would be ludicrous. But they do take away jobs. New jobs might be created to replace them. However, I don't think this will happen as easily as before. The Luddite fallacy is outdated. We won't be able to add new (profitable!) jobs indefinitely, because our standard of living can't keep increasing indefinitely. (Or at least not at the rate it is today - there are only so many fancy cars, nice apartments and computer entertainment systems a single person can use). Robots do free up parts of the labor pool, but the world needs to adapt to this extra "labor". I hope you're not misunderstanding what I'm saying; I believe that automation is unequivocally a good force. But our current system isn't built to handle a very high degree of automation. When the winner-take-all effect of the Internet starts becoming more visible in additional parts of the economy, reform will be necessary. To sum up my opinion in a single soundbite: The labor dislocations caused by current and future automation efforts won't resolve as easily as they have until now, where everyone simply switched to a new, profitable job right away.
  - bradleyland 14y ago
    Imagine if you were to travel deep in to the Amazon and locate an indigenous tribe. This tribe is still a hunter gatherer society. What do you think would happen if you introduced just a little bit of modernization. Simple things like agriculture and irrigation. Sanitary water systems. Basic things that we take for granted. One possible outcome is that the now obsolete hunter class amongst the tribe would revolt. The sudden loss of their jobs would leave them with no purpose, so why wouldn't they revolt? Another possible outcome is that they would find a new purpose and help push their tribe in to the future. In a lot of ways, we're facing the same shift today. We need less labor to make "things" than we ever have in the past. Resenting the loss of this need is only one solution. If we look back over human history, we know that the lost of labor requirements for the current status of living has only resulted in an elevation of the tasks we set ourselves to. That is our choice, and that is why I'm so excited to see people like Elon Musk set themselves against tasks that others cower in fear of. I'm glad for people like Paul Graham who are looking for ways to make entrepreneurship available to more people. I'm thankful for people like James Cameron, who use their wealth to explore parts of the earth for the benefit of all. I'm not saying it will be easy, but I don't see the wall that you're seeing.
pitt1980 14y ago
the social systems adjust to the facts on the ground the facts on the ground don't adjust to the social systems the next Marx will come up with a theory that fits the facts, and if it makes enough sense to the people on the ground, it'll gain steam and political momentum, and then there will be a new social system in place
anonymous 14y ago
You hit the nail right on the head. This generation cannot solve such problems. Probably neither will the next one. But the one after that, maybe they will get to grow without seeing the current jobs situation as The One True Way. Which in the end means Schmidt got it right - we need universal access to education. That is literally the only problem that we need to solve - leave the future problems for the future people.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago

Insane comment ;) There were quite a few stupid people saying things were impossible before. Don't worry, let your children worry is a sure recipe for failure. There are so many possible huge problems with AI, including an unfriendly one. During human history the technology has played a huge role in determining the structure of societies. When the modern killing devices are cheap - bronze swords in Ancient Greece and Rome, muskets in per-revolutionary US and France - there is a lot of individual freedom, as the elite is incapable of ignoring the will of the masses. On the other hand when those devices are extremely expensive - knight armor in European Dark Ages - there is absolute control in the hands of a very few. Modern AI driven drones and robots are extremely anti-democratic, they allow a small elite to employ a few expert button pushers to destroy any kind of opposition. With CCTV, Facebook, WireTrap, Internet monitoring and logging, etc. your children will stand no chance to change the Orwellian future your stupidity has doomed them to.