4 ms·

My thoughts: http://marojejian.tumblr.com/post/62339785940/rise-of-the-machines-anesthesiologists-are-not-safe http://marojejian.tumblr.com/post/62339785940/ris

My thoughts: http://marojejian.tumblr.com/post/62339785940/rise-of-the-machines-anesthesiologists-are-not-safe http://marojejian.tumblr.com/post/62339785940/rise-of-the-ma... On the one hand the benefits of such technology are amazing. On the other, it’s scary to see such high-end professions encroached upon by machines. But the resolution here is the same as for the cashier or the buggy whip driver. We need this technology, but we need to ensure that: a) Our economy is flexible enough to rapidly develop new industries that will require human workers. b) Our workers have the education, the infrastructure, the incentives and the entrepreneurial mindset needed to move with (or ahead of?) the market into new fields without calamity. But will there always be new applications for humans? Well not always…. but that would imply a situation where AI has truly supplanted us in all respects, and our technology can supply all our needs without us lifting a finger. Call me when that happens. Sounds nice.

lukifer 13y ago
People don't want jobs. They want a good standard of living, and to have a social role. They want to matter to others. Jobs can deliver on that, but it's just one social construct among many. Because our economic engines have been so focused on human labor since the dawn of agriculture, we now think of jobs as the most significant type of role to play, tied only with "parent", followed by a long tail of non-profit edge cases (volunteering, running a racquetball league, etc.) But while there will always be significant demand for human labor, its value is steadily diminishing, a trend that shows no sign of stopping, with the lion's share of the benefit going to those own the hardware and/or the patents. (Maybe machines make cheaper goods, but who cares if I can't make any income to buy those goods?) Maybe we can invent or entrench enough human jobs where a computer can't compete (a Starbucks bot can get you coffee, but it can't smile at you); but to assume that that's either possible or optimal seems like putting the cart before the horse. While hypothetically our existing political structures could try to solve this problem (basic income, etc.), those processes have been so effectively captured and divorced from anything resembling democratic rule that I'm not very confident in good results. Ironically enough, this seems like the perfect problem to be solved by software: allocate resources to ensure basics of survival and dignity, incentivize desirable social behavior and wealth creation, and create sufficient negative space for people to also create social value in unpredictable and unmeasurable ways, by having actual free time. It's a tough nut to crack.

lukifer 13y ago

People don't want jobs. They want a good standard of living, and to have a social role. They want to matter to others. Jobs can deliver on that, but it's just one social construct among many. Because our economic engines have been so focused on human labor since the dawn of agriculture, we now think of jobs as the most significant type of role to play, tied only with "parent", followed by a long tail of non-profit edge cases (volunteering, running a racquetball league, etc.) But while there will always be significant demand for human labor, its value is steadily diminishing, a trend that shows no sign of stopping, with the lion's share of the benefit going to those own the hardware and/or the patents. (Maybe machines make cheaper goods, but who cares if I can't make any income to buy those goods?) Maybe we can invent or entrench enough human jobs where a computer can't compete (a Starbucks bot can get you coffee, but it can't smile at you); but to assume that that's either possible or optimal seems like putting the cart before the horse. While hypothetically our existing political structures could try to solve this problem (basic income, etc.), those processes have been so effectively captured and divorced from anything resembling democratic rule that I'm not very confident in good results. Ironically enough, this seems like the perfect problem to be solved by software: allocate resources to ensure basics of survival and dignity, incentivize desirable social behavior and wealth creation, and create sufficient negative space for people to also create social value in unpredictable and unmeasurable ways, by having actual free time. It's a tough nut to crack.