7 ms·

> Your job, and every job, goes to a machine. [...] This sort of thinking is textbook Luddism The quick condemnation as "Luddism" is counter-productive because

by jal278 12y ago

> Your job, and every job, goes to a machine. [...] This sort of thinking is textbook Luddism The quick condemnation as "Luddism" is counter-productive because it allows side-stepping critical thinking about how new technologies may impact our life -- whether it is ultimately for the good or the bad. The cry of luddism should be made cautiously, because it so often is accompanied by rose-color technological optimism. Technology surely does hold the potential to make our lives better, and there are many ways in which it has, but when we talk about truly radical technologies that can utterly and irrevocably change the world and the way we view ourselves in relation to it (e.g. powerful AI), it is worthwhile to think long and hard before that game-changer arrives. For example, I do agree that I'd like most jobs to be automated eventually, with the outcome of: > The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure. Yet, I highly doubt that the default outcome of: > Let markets work ( this means voluntary contracts and free trade) so that capital and labor can rapidly reallocate to create new fields and jobs. Is going to be this sort of automation utopia where we're free from labor. More likely there will be a long and painful battle about implementing basic income or some other powerful social safety net; it will likely only be after increased poverty and misery that the safety net will be begrudgingly granted if the particular brand of captialism we currently embrace continues. A more pessimistic outcome is that powerful AI arrives before we've really thought through the moral and ethical issues, and it possibly destroys us, or is developed and exploited by military interests to who knows what outcome.

hershel 12y ago
> The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure. Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Some others like science[1] and large parts of creativity[2] might be highly automated, requiring only a few experts. Fields that aren't highly repetitive(like many types of programming) and things that require a human touch(which computers also seem to attack[3]) might be more resistant to automation. [1]http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scientific-discovery/fulltext http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scien... [2]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-procedural-creation-scares-me-creator-says/ http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-proc... [3]http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-game-designed-to-treat-depression-worked-better-than-counseling/256324/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-ga...
- stonemetal 12y ago
  >Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.
  - hershel 12y ago
    It's really hard to make money on those fields.Very very few do, and i don't expect it to become any better.
    - UK-AL 12y ago
      In the crazy utopian world described, there would probably be a lot of accumulated capital struggling to get used productively. My idea would be in the struggle to accumulate/protect capital, in a world where human materialistic needs are perfectly met. The money will flow into highly risky creative projects. Where the vast vast majority of projects are expected to fail, funded by highly diversified funds. Virtually everyone would be expected to obtain/raise money working for these funds on creative projects. It would be considered the 'norm'. Kickstarter for example could be beginning of this
      - hershel 12y ago
        First , the problem is that this won't happen in an utopian world, this will happen in our materialistic world. We're quite far from that utopian world.That will take long political struggle. My guess is that when we're there , machines will probably surpass humans even in the arts. Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy.
        UK-AL 12y ago
        "Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy." The point is that money making projects will be so rare, that people would have no choice but to put money into projects that have the remotest chance making money. Funds will fund millions/billions of projects on the basis of finding one superstar project. They would diversified on a massive scale. This would be better than letting money flounder. That or a kickstarter model where people simply give money to projects that interests them.
tendom 12y ago
> A more pessimistic outcome is that powerful AI arrives before we've really thought through the moral and ethical issues, and it possibly destroys us, or is developed and exploited by military interests to who knows what outcome. But it's not a very likely one. Spontaneous AI is almost impossible, primarily because we design and control the substrate. AI is very very hard, and when we get there, it will be very unlikely that it turns on us, or at least not for a millennia or two. This fear is a result of some seriously good sci-fi stories, but not a lot of logic or fact,
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Once we get smarter than human AI, it can improve itself or make even better AIs, which make better AIs, and so on. It could very rapidly become far, far more intelligent than us. A being that powerful could do whatever it wants. Manipulate humans, hack the entire internet, design nanotechnology, etc. It's very unlikely that it would have human morality, and so wouldn't care about eliminating us to turn the Earth into a giant supercomputer, or just prevent us from ever creating competing AIs.

by jal278 12y ago

hershel 12y ago

> The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure. Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Some others like science[1] and large parts of creativity[2] might be highly automated, requiring only a few experts. Fields that aren't highly repetitive(like many types of programming) and things that require a human touch(which computers also seem to attack[3]) might be more resistant to automation. [1]http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scientific-discovery/fulltext http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scien... [2]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-procedural-creation-scares-me-creator-says/ http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-proc... [3]http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-game-designed-to-treat-depression-worked-better-than-counseling/256324/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-ga...

stonemetal 12y ago
>Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.
- hershel 12y ago
  It's really hard to make money on those fields.Very very few do, and i don't expect it to become any better.
  - UK-AL 12y ago
    In the crazy utopian world described, there would probably be a lot of accumulated capital struggling to get used productively. My idea would be in the struggle to accumulate/protect capital, in a world where human materialistic needs are perfectly met. The money will flow into highly risky creative projects. Where the vast vast majority of projects are expected to fail, funded by highly diversified funds. Virtually everyone would be expected to obtain/raise money working for these funds on creative projects. It would be considered the 'norm'. Kickstarter for example could be beginning of this
    - hershel 12y ago
      First , the problem is that this won't happen in an utopian world, this will happen in our materialistic world. We're quite far from that utopian world.That will take long political struggle. My guess is that when we're there , machines will probably surpass humans even in the arts. Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy.
      - UK-AL 12y ago
        "Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy." The point is that money making projects will be so rare, that people would have no choice but to put money into projects that have the remotest chance making money. Funds will fund millions/billions of projects on the basis of finding one superstar project. They would diversified on a massive scale. This would be better than letting money flounder. That or a kickstarter model where people simply give money to projects that interests them.

tendom 12y ago

> A more pessimistic outcome is that powerful AI arrives before we've really thought through the moral and ethical issues, and it possibly destroys us, or is developed and exploited by military interests to who knows what outcome. But it's not a very likely one. Spontaneous AI is almost impossible, primarily because we design and control the substrate. AI is very very hard, and when we get there, it will be very unlikely that it turns on us, or at least not for a millennia or two. This fear is a result of some seriously good sci-fi stories, but not a lot of logic or fact,

Houshalter 12y ago
Once we get smarter than human AI, it can improve itself or make even better AIs, which make better AIs, and so on. It could very rapidly become far, far more intelligent than us. A being that powerful could do whatever it wants. Manipulate humans, hack the entire internet, design nanotechnology, etc. It's very unlikely that it would have human morality, and so wouldn't care about eliminating us to turn the Earth into a giant supercomputer, or just prevent us from ever creating competing AIs.