3 ms·

The question isn't whether the 95% can do neurosurgery. It's whether there's anything they can do better than a robot that other people want. Given the overal

by dspeyer 14y ago

The question isn't whether the 95% can do neurosurgery. It's whether there's anything they can do better than a robot that other people want. Given the overall flexibility of the human mind, and the complete failure of general-purpose AI, I bet there's something. I could be convinced otherwise, but it would require much stronger evidence than a half decade of unemployment that could easily come from economic or political causes.

cargo8 14y ago
Do you really believe the success (at this time in technology) of general-purpose AI has a strong correlation to the potential for human labor to be replaced by machine labor? It would seem with the plethora of startups being created every day at providing services and products in different markets by utilizing technology means that there will be plenty of different companies willing to focus on a particular market / product / service to develop their AI. Does the success of general-purpose AI really limit the possibility of developing specialized machine labor AI? I can see how it will be slower to reach the point of replacing all of these jobs than if general-purpose AI worked well, but I don't think it really limits the possibility.
- dspeyer 14y ago
  So long as humans can do general purpose thinking and machines can't, any task that requires general purpose thinking will require humans. Many of these tasks may be things that go undone now, but will become affordable when machine-made stuff gets cheaper and removes expenses from people's budgets. Assuming the economics doesn't mess everything up. Which it easily could. But the fundamental problem is self-solving until we run out of applications of general purpose thinking.
flyinRyan 14y ago
The failure of general-purpose AI is simply the failure of general purpose robots. We've already seen the future: specialized "appliance" robots that do one job to perfection. They don't need to duplicate human conciseness, they need only enough AI to accurately do one specific job and nothing more. I don't think that's hard at all, just currently expensive.

by dspeyer 14y ago

cargo8 14y ago

Do you really believe the success (at this time in technology) of general-purpose AI has a strong correlation to the potential for human labor to be replaced by machine labor? It would seem with the plethora of startups being created every day at providing services and products in different markets by utilizing technology means that there will be plenty of different companies willing to focus on a particular market / product / service to develop their AI. Does the success of general-purpose AI really limit the possibility of developing specialized machine labor AI? I can see how it will be slower to reach the point of replacing all of these jobs than if general-purpose AI worked well, but I don't think it really limits the possibility.

dspeyer 14y ago
So long as humans can do general purpose thinking and machines can't, any task that requires general purpose thinking will require humans. Many of these tasks may be things that go undone now, but will become affordable when machine-made stuff gets cheaper and removes expenses from people's budgets. Assuming the economics doesn't mess everything up. Which it easily could. But the fundamental problem is self-solving until we run out of applications of general purpose thinking.

flyinRyan 14y ago

The failure of general-purpose AI is simply the failure of general purpose robots. We've already seen the future: specialized "appliance" robots that do one job to perfection. They don't need to duplicate human conciseness, they need only enough AI to accurately do one specific job and nothing more. I don't think that's hard at all, just currently expensive.