7 ms·

Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man

25 points by lnguyen 17y ago

unignorant 17y ago
"they said there was legitimate concern that technological progress would transform the work force by destroying a widening range of jobs" They sound rather crazy... perhaps I am misreading the implication?
- ghshephard 17y ago
  It is a reasonable concern - the foundation of our economy is built around labor being rewarded with recompense which in turn is used to drive the services and consumer goods economy. Robots don't consume services or goods - all they require is manufacturing and maintenance. What happens when your gas station needs fewer employees because everything involved in pumping and payment is automated (as many are in California). What happens when checkouts are all automated (Starting to Happen in Home Depot, Walmart, others..) The answer, of course, is that people move up the feeding chain in employment, and are freed from such low level positions as technology improves - But, and here is the catch, as technology improves, the low-water mark may, in fact, start to rise above where people are capable of competing with technological solutions - then what happens? Imaging a world in which Fast Food Restaurants, Grocery Stores, and Gas Stations were all 95%+ Automated. That may happen within the next 10 years. What are the new jobs for those people? What happens when Taxis, Trains, and Buses are automated (Skytrain in Vancouver, BC has had no drivers on their trains during normal circumstances for 20+ years)? There will always (in my lifetime) be Jobs that technology won't be able to replace, but there are many, many, many jobs that are going to disappear. We need to consider the consequences.
  - shin_lao 17y ago
    The transition is indeed going to be painful for a lot of people.
  - kiba 17y ago
    Jobs are a signal of needs. If all production jobs are eliminated than that is a good thing. It clearly mean the end of scarcity as we know it. Economic as we know it would largely disappear. If that happens, we humans can just relax and enjoy life as it is. Sucking the system's resourcewhile robots produce ever more stuff for us to consume. Jobs are not the end to itself. Rather, they are signals that tells us the demands of individuals in a world of scarce input. If robots multiply that input until it reach a level where humans cannot possibly consume all for many years, than it is a good thing.
  - msluyter 17y ago
    Marshall Brain's "Robotic Nation" explores this in some detail: http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm His own view seems to be summed up as: The conventional wisdom says that the economy will create 50 million new jobs to absorb all the unemployed people, but that raises two important questions: - What will those new jobs be? They won't be in manufacturing -- robots will hold all the manufacturing jobs. They won't be in the service sector (where most new jobs are now) -- robots will work in all the restaurants and retail stores. They won't be in transportation -- robots will be driving everything. They won't be in security (robotic police, robotic firefighters), the military (robotic soldiers), entertainment (robotic actors), medicine (robotic doctors, nurses, pharmacists, counselors), construction (robotic construction workers), aviation (robotic pilots, robotic air traffic controllers), office work (robotic receptionists, call centers and managers), research (robotic scientists), education (robotic teachers and computer-based training), programming or engineering (outsourced to India at one-tenth the cost), farming (robotic agricultural machinery), etc. We are assuming that the economy is going to invent an entirely new category of employment that will absorb half of the working population. - Why isn't the economy creating those new jobs now? Today there are millions of unemployed people. There are also tens of millions of people who would gladly abandon their minimum wage jobs scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, driving trucks and shelving inventory for something better. This imaginary new category of employment does not hinge on technology -- it is going to employ people, after all, in massive numbers -- it is going to employ half of today's working population. Why don't we see any evidence of this new category of jobs today? Although I think he goes a bit overboard in some cases (robotic actors?), I still find this to be rather persuasive.
    - uninverted 17y ago
      I like how science can be automated but programming needs to be outsourced to India.
    - Dilpil 17y ago
      The results of complexity theory heavily suggest that automated science and automated engineering are impossible.
  - unignorant 17y ago
    Maybe I am overly optimistic about human intelligence, but I don't really see a "low water mark", at least in a practical sense -- certainly not anytime soon. There will always be a "least skilled job" in the employment hierarchy. By the time our society reaches a level at which its lowest form of employment exceeds the capabilities of our current checkout clerks and fast food workers, staying alive will likely require very little in the way of monetary resources.
  - asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
    What happens when your gas station needs fewer employees because everything involved in pumping and payment is automated (as many are in California). What happens when checkouts are all automated (Starting to Happen in Home Depot, Walmart, others..) Have you ever been to Japan? But, and here is the catch, as technology improves, the low-water mark may, in fact, start to rise above where people are capable of competing with technological solutions - then what happens? Ancient Greece - lots of slaves, ancient Rome - a whole lot of slave, in fact their economy collapsed when they ran out of slaves. The future we can look forward to is this order: 1. An economy much like modern day Japan. 2. An economy similar to ancient Greece where people busy themselves with pursuits of the mind. 3. An economy similar to ancient Rome where a whole lot of people have nothing to do and we have a vital need for bread and circuses, luckily easily taken care of by robots. 4. Machines as smart or smarter then man - Singularity!
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Have you ever been to Japan? The thing is, Japan has a relatively homogenous society and a population decline, which may better equip them to deal with social problems (although they encounter their own social difficulties, eg hikikimori, freeters etc.). The same technological trends may play out very differently in a less diverse or younger population where competition for resources is more necessary, acute and violent. I'm struck by the fact that a lot of Americans whose careers were invested in manufacturing and who didn't have an exit or transfer strategy are now feeling unable to adapt and tend to become politically polarized as a result. Depending on their political affiliations they may place the blame on capitalism, globalism, China, illegal aliens, computers, or wherever...the underlying point being that there are a lot of people finding themselves in an economic dead end with limited future prospects, and they're very angry about it. Such people tend to be both pessimistic and confrontational.
jcapote 17y ago
Am I the only one looking forward to this?
- kiba 17y ago
  You're not the only one looking forward to this. I welcome the day when software are not only living, but also sentinment. Alas, we're only limited to crafting software system into never needing rebooting while software system are being modified on the fly.
  - berntb 17y ago
    Ah yes, a world with networked sentient software controlling the next-next generation of automated labs for making biotech bacteria. How could that go wrong? I am a big tech optimist, but sentient software could arguably be classed as WMDs.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I know it was a typo, but software that's sentimental as well as sentient is probably what we need, as opposed to the vast, cool and unsympathetic variety.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      I think most proponents of strong AI include the idea that they should be built on the foundation of a "premise-state" compatible with our human ideals such as intrinsic respect for life, appreciation of complexity and diversity, decentralisation of power, privacy of thought and freedom of action, etc etc.
      - anigbrowl 17y ago
        Which, sadly, demonstrates how far AI as a discipline has to go. I am much more encouraged by the development of Rommbas and similar that seek out an electrical outlet, and so are actually motivated to learn, by something akin to hunger.
- 17y ago
shin_lao 17y ago
Of course robots will take jobs from human beings. Have you ever seen a BMW factory? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRg64HX5gA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRg64HX5gA Is it a bad thing to have dumb jobs done by machines? I'm always amused when I read "stop making progress, there are some risks!". Of course there are, duh. As for singularity I think it's an overrated theory. Some solutions are not just a question of intelligence. As if "intelligence" was the solution to everything.... You also need resources, time and luck.
- uninverted 17y ago
  Luck is a myth, and you can waive the need for time with better hardware.
- lsd5you 17y ago
  > I'm always amused when I read "stop making progress, there are some risks!". Of course there are, duh. It's ironic that you characature one point of view as facile, yet your point of view is similarly so - with no characture needed. What is being discussed is existential risk, and 'unfortunately' you'll probably never get to look silly for taking your point of view, because if it does come to pass we won't be here to discuss it. I mean to take the concept of making progress and it having associated risks and then make such as generalisation is just not sensible. Progress does not have to continue having the same properties it has had historically (which is why perhaps putting too much stock in history and its wisdoms is dangerous). We could be heading towards a proverbial waterfall. The last remark about intelligence seems rather optimistic... resources, time and luck are largely limiting factors because of our own biological limitations.
  - shin_lao 17y ago
    Perhaps we are simply a link in evolution between biological life and cybernetic life. Who knows? I still think however that the Super AI singularity is a phantasm. Intelligence is not the key to everything. As fast as ideas can go, putting them into action is the tricky part.
rw 17y ago
When it comes to intelligent nonhuman organisms, the question seems to be: dominate or cooperate?
die_sekte 17y ago
There will be the time when mankind stops to exist. The only question is: Will we exterminate ourselves or will we transform ourselves into something greater?
kingkawn 17y ago
I'm sure Skynet only has our best interests in mind.
tybris 17y ago
Constraints usually aren't that hard to implement. For example, "computer worms and viruses that defy extermination" is and always will be a computer security problem, not a philosophical AI problem.
kingkawn 17y ago
All assuming of course that sentient machines want anything to do with us. They may just join the dolphins in swimming around having fun.

25 points by lnguyen 17y ago

"they said there was legitimate concern that technological progress would transform the work force by destroying a widening range of jobs" They sound rather crazy... perhaps I am misreading the implication?

ghshephard 17y ago
It is a reasonable concern - the foundation of our economy is built around labor being rewarded with recompense which in turn is used to drive the services and consumer goods economy. Robots don't consume services or goods - all they require is manufacturing and maintenance. What happens when your gas station needs fewer employees because everything involved in pumping and payment is automated (as many are in California). What happens when checkouts are all automated (Starting to Happen in Home Depot, Walmart, others..) The answer, of course, is that people move up the feeding chain in employment, and are freed from such low level positions as technology improves - But, and here is the catch, as technology improves, the low-water mark may, in fact, start to rise above where people are capable of competing with technological solutions - then what happens? Imaging a world in which Fast Food Restaurants, Grocery Stores, and Gas Stations were all 95%+ Automated. That may happen within the next 10 years. What are the new jobs for those people? What happens when Taxis, Trains, and Buses are automated (Skytrain in Vancouver, BC has had no drivers on their trains during normal circumstances for 20+ years)? There will always (in my lifetime) be Jobs that technology won't be able to replace, but there are many, many, many jobs that are going to disappear. We need to consider the consequences.
- shin_lao 17y ago
  The transition is indeed going to be painful for a lot of people.
- kiba 17y ago
  Jobs are a signal of needs. If all production jobs are eliminated than that is a good thing. It clearly mean the end of scarcity as we know it. Economic as we know it would largely disappear. If that happens, we humans can just relax and enjoy life as it is. Sucking the system's resourcewhile robots produce ever more stuff for us to consume. Jobs are not the end to itself. Rather, they are signals that tells us the demands of individuals in a world of scarce input. If robots multiply that input until it reach a level where humans cannot possibly consume all for many years, than it is a good thing.
- msluyter 17y ago
  Marshall Brain's "Robotic Nation" explores this in some detail: http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm His own view seems to be summed up as: The conventional wisdom says that the economy will create 50 million new jobs to absorb all the unemployed people, but that raises two important questions: - What will those new jobs be? They won't be in manufacturing -- robots will hold all the manufacturing jobs. They won't be in the service sector (where most new jobs are now) -- robots will work in all the restaurants and retail stores. They won't be in transportation -- robots will be driving everything. They won't be in security (robotic police, robotic firefighters), the military (robotic soldiers), entertainment (robotic actors), medicine (robotic doctors, nurses, pharmacists, counselors), construction (robotic construction workers), aviation (robotic pilots, robotic air traffic controllers), office work (robotic receptionists, call centers and managers), research (robotic scientists), education (robotic teachers and computer-based training), programming or engineering (outsourced to India at one-tenth the cost), farming (robotic agricultural machinery), etc. We are assuming that the economy is going to invent an entirely new category of employment that will absorb half of the working population. - Why isn't the economy creating those new jobs now? Today there are millions of unemployed people. There are also tens of millions of people who would gladly abandon their minimum wage jobs scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, driving trucks and shelving inventory for something better. This imaginary new category of employment does not hinge on technology -- it is going to employ people, after all, in massive numbers -- it is going to employ half of today's working population. Why don't we see any evidence of this new category of jobs today? Although I think he goes a bit overboard in some cases (robotic actors?), I still find this to be rather persuasive.
  - uninverted 17y ago
    I like how science can be automated but programming needs to be outsourced to India.
  - Dilpil 17y ago
    The results of complexity theory heavily suggest that automated science and automated engineering are impossible.
- unignorant 17y ago
  Maybe I am overly optimistic about human intelligence, but I don't really see a "low water mark", at least in a practical sense -- certainly not anytime soon. There will always be a "least skilled job" in the employment hierarchy. By the time our society reaches a level at which its lowest form of employment exceeds the capabilities of our current checkout clerks and fast food workers, staying alive will likely require very little in the way of monetary resources.
- asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
  What happens when your gas station needs fewer employees because everything involved in pumping and payment is automated (as many are in California). What happens when checkouts are all automated (Starting to Happen in Home Depot, Walmart, others..) Have you ever been to Japan? But, and here is the catch, as technology improves, the low-water mark may, in fact, start to rise above where people are capable of competing with technological solutions - then what happens? Ancient Greece - lots of slaves, ancient Rome - a whole lot of slave, in fact their economy collapsed when they ran out of slaves. The future we can look forward to is this order: 1. An economy much like modern day Japan. 2. An economy similar to ancient Greece where people busy themselves with pursuits of the mind. 3. An economy similar to ancient Rome where a whole lot of people have nothing to do and we have a vital need for bread and circuses, luckily easily taken care of by robots. 4. Machines as smart or smarter then man - Singularity!
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Have you ever been to Japan? The thing is, Japan has a relatively homogenous society and a population decline, which may better equip them to deal with social problems (although they encounter their own social difficulties, eg hikikimori, freeters etc.). The same technological trends may play out very differently in a less diverse or younger population where competition for resources is more necessary, acute and violent. I'm struck by the fact that a lot of Americans whose careers were invested in manufacturing and who didn't have an exit or transfer strategy are now feeling unable to adapt and tend to become politically polarized as a result. Depending on their political affiliations they may place the blame on capitalism, globalism, China, illegal aliens, computers, or wherever...the underlying point being that there are a lot of people finding themselves in an economic dead end with limited future prospects, and they're very angry about it. Such people tend to be both pessimistic and confrontational.

jcapote 17y ago

Am I the only one looking forward to this?

kiba 17y ago
You're not the only one looking forward to this. I welcome the day when software are not only living, but also sentinment. Alas, we're only limited to crafting software system into never needing rebooting while software system are being modified on the fly.
- berntb 17y ago
  Ah yes, a world with networked sentient software controlling the next-next generation of automated labs for making biotech bacteria. How could that go wrong? I am a big tech optimist, but sentient software could arguably be classed as WMDs.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I know it was a typo, but software that's sentimental as well as sentient is probably what we need, as opposed to the vast, cool and unsympathetic variety.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    I think most proponents of strong AI include the idea that they should be built on the foundation of a "premise-state" compatible with our human ideals such as intrinsic respect for life, appreciation of complexity and diversity, decentralisation of power, privacy of thought and freedom of action, etc etc.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Which, sadly, demonstrates how far AI as a discipline has to go. I am much more encouraged by the development of Rommbas and similar that seek out an electrical outlet, and so are actually motivated to learn, by something akin to hunger.
17y ago

shin_lao 17y ago

Of course robots will take jobs from human beings. Have you ever seen a BMW factory? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRg64HX5gA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRg64HX5gA Is it a bad thing to have dumb jobs done by machines? I'm always amused when I read "stop making progress, there are some risks!". Of course there are, duh. As for singularity I think it's an overrated theory. Some solutions are not just a question of intelligence. As if "intelligence" was the solution to everything.... You also need resources, time and luck.

uninverted 17y ago
Luck is a myth, and you can waive the need for time with better hardware.
lsd5you 17y ago
> I'm always amused when I read "stop making progress, there are some risks!". Of course there are, duh. It's ironic that you characature one point of view as facile, yet your point of view is similarly so - with no characture needed. What is being discussed is existential risk, and 'unfortunately' you'll probably never get to look silly for taking your point of view, because if it does come to pass we won't be here to discuss it. I mean to take the concept of making progress and it having associated risks and then make such as generalisation is just not sensible. Progress does not have to continue having the same properties it has had historically (which is why perhaps putting too much stock in history and its wisdoms is dangerous). We could be heading towards a proverbial waterfall. The last remark about intelligence seems rather optimistic... resources, time and luck are largely limiting factors because of our own biological limitations.
- shin_lao 17y ago
  Perhaps we are simply a link in evolution between biological life and cybernetic life. Who knows? I still think however that the Super AI singularity is a phantasm. Intelligence is not the key to everything. As fast as ideas can go, putting them into action is the tricky part.

rw 17y ago

When it comes to intelligent nonhuman organisms, the question seems to be: dominate or cooperate?

die_sekte 17y ago

There will be the time when mankind stops to exist. The only question is: Will we exterminate ourselves or will we transform ourselves into something greater?

kingkawn 17y ago

I'm sure Skynet only has our best interests in mind.

tybris 17y ago

Constraints usually aren't that hard to implement. For example, "computer worms and viruses that defy extermination" is and always will be a computer security problem, not a philosophical AI problem.

kingkawn 17y ago

All assuming of course that sentient machines want anything to do with us. They may just join the dolphins in swimming around having fun.