5 ms·

I don't consider myself particularly alarmist about too many things, but I have to admit I'm a little worried about machine intelligence on one front: What hap

by x0x0 12y ago

I don't consider myself particularly alarmist about too many things, but I have to admit I'm a little worried about machine intelligence on one front: What happens when most people have no salable skills due to the combination of robotics and AI? We're essentially going to have to live w/ income supports for the 90+% of Americans, and worse for the countries to which we've exported eg electronic device construction and clothing manufacture. I think there's a nonzero chance society essentially tears itself apart during the transition period. It is now the Republican party position that not all people deserve healthcare, housing, or enough food to eat. What happens when their hated segment of the populace gets much bigger in a job market that doesn't need cashiers, janitors, gardeners, cooks, taxi drivers, car washers, many farmers, or most menial labor? Also, I would note that creating AI that requires less control makes it more useful. So in some sense the development of AI itself fights against controls.

delluminatus 12y ago
I think this is a more legitimate concern than the fear of the "Matrix outcome" that some people seem to have. But, what you're describing is the process of people being replaced by technology. Generally speaking, this will probably not be a problem for a free-market economy, although it will certainly result in some unemployment. The key point is that replacing humans with machines does not only cause unemployment, but it also reduces cost of production, which stimulates capital investment and/or reduces prices in the industry in question. In the general economy, this reduced cost and increased production should offset the lost "purchasing power" from the now-unemployed parties. The stimulus reduces costs in other industries which promotes job growth. The end result is likely to be that the same number of people are employed, but they are employed in a more efficient manner of production. The cost of labor will decrease relative to the amount of production, however because this is tied to a decrease in cost of production, the real value of the labor (in terms of things you can buy) should not decrease. Of course there will be some disenfranchised individuals, especially those who have particular skills that are replaced my mechanization. However, this is more likely to affect skilled laborers (like cooks) than those who are not paid for their skills (like janitors or cashiers). In the end, I guess my point is that a free-market economy naturally balances these factors due to the relationship between supply and demand. However, it's possible that we will reach a point, especially if we truly do hit a Singularity, where we will have to reconsider the use of a scarcity-based economy at all, as production becomes completely divorced from any human action. Hopefully though, at that point the cost of goods will have naturally fallen to such a degree that the transition can be performed peacefully.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Just for starters, consider how an unemployed walmart cashier, strawberry picker, or janitor becomes a doctor. They don't. Replacing humans with machines exactly causes unemployment, as could be easily seen by eg the last 40 years of economic history. Unemployed people can't buy anything. You could also consider comparing the approaching wave of robotic mechanization with the first wave. Again, there was a lot of violence and it took many decades for increased standards of living to reach the working class. Your entire post is economically illiterate.
- rybosome 12y ago
  I'm not an economist, but my understanding of the massive social impact observed in the Industrial Revolution was not so much that it happened at all, but rather the rapidity with which it happened. We ultimately reached a new, stable equilibrium, but until various social forces and trends, government policy, etc. caught up, there was massive disruption. People like Jeremy Howard believe that we are in for a similar wave of disruption. I have no doubt that there is a new, stable equilibrium which we _could_ eventually reach, but if the change is so sudden and the shock strong enough, perhaps there could be permanent or semi-permanent negative consequences before the new equilibrium is reached.
  - delluminatus 12y ago
    I think you're right, that does seem like a possibility. It seems unlikely to me that our wage-paying jobs will be phased out by automation that rapidly, especially if you consider the whole global economy. Of course, I could be completely wrong -- I guess a true Singularity could invalidate almost all labor in a matter of years or even months, depending on what form the AI takes and what it invents.
nekopa 12y ago
I have an experience to share with you: I taught English a a car factory for a year once, and the director of the paint shop was one of my students. He was describing the process for painting a car, and telling me that the hardest part was painting the inside, as you had to open the doors so that the robot paint head could get inside and do its job. So the body rolls into position, 2 guys open the doors, the robot painter goes in and does its thing, comes out and the guys close the doors again. Rinse and repeat for 20 hours a day. I asked him why there isn't a robot to open and close the doors. He said that there is, but in this country its much cheaper to pay people to do it. (I think he said the cost of maintaining the door opening robots to be about $1m a year approximately. So until we have a world where every country has the same salaries as USA/Western Europe/Japan, I think you will always be able to find work. Even if that work should really be done by a robot
- x0x0 12y ago
  That's only true if the price of robots doesn't decline rapidly. Which (I believe) it is, and like virtually any other technology, will continue to do. Even if not, we don't need that many people to open doors. So perhaps an office building will have 2 human janitors and 10 robot janitors; it doesn't really change the problem caused by souped up roombas putting the vast majority of janitors out of work.
plikan13 12y ago
> a job market that doesn't need cashiers, janitors, gardeners, cooks, taxi drivers, car washers, many farmers, or most menial labor? The job that I consider most threatened by advances in AI is actually the job of programmer.

by x0x0 12y ago

delluminatus 12y ago

I think this is a more legitimate concern than the fear of the "Matrix outcome" that some people seem to have. But, what you're describing is the process of people being replaced by technology. Generally speaking, this will probably not be a problem for a free-market economy, although it will certainly result in some unemployment. The key point is that replacing humans with machines does not only cause unemployment, but it also reduces cost of production, which stimulates capital investment and/or reduces prices in the industry in question. In the general economy, this reduced cost and increased production should offset the lost "purchasing power" from the now-unemployed parties. The stimulus reduces costs in other industries which promotes job growth. The end result is likely to be that the same number of people are employed, but they are employed in a more efficient manner of production. The cost of labor will decrease relative to the amount of production, however because this is tied to a decrease in cost of production, the real value of the labor (in terms of things you can buy) should not decrease. Of course there will be some disenfranchised individuals, especially those who have particular skills that are replaced my mechanization. However, this is more likely to affect skilled laborers (like cooks) than those who are not paid for their skills (like janitors or cashiers). In the end, I guess my point is that a free-market economy naturally balances these factors due to the relationship between supply and demand. However, it's possible that we will reach a point, especially if we truly do hit a Singularity, where we will have to reconsider the use of a scarcity-based economy at all, as production becomes completely divorced from any human action. Hopefully though, at that point the cost of goods will have naturally fallen to such a degree that the transition can be performed peacefully.

x0x0 12y ago
Just for starters, consider how an unemployed walmart cashier, strawberry picker, or janitor becomes a doctor. They don't. Replacing humans with machines exactly causes unemployment, as could be easily seen by eg the last 40 years of economic history. Unemployed people can't buy anything. You could also consider comparing the approaching wave of robotic mechanization with the first wave. Again, there was a lot of violence and it took many decades for increased standards of living to reach the working class. Your entire post is economically illiterate.
rybosome 12y ago
I'm not an economist, but my understanding of the massive social impact observed in the Industrial Revolution was not so much that it happened at all, but rather the rapidity with which it happened. We ultimately reached a new, stable equilibrium, but until various social forces and trends, government policy, etc. caught up, there was massive disruption. People like Jeremy Howard believe that we are in for a similar wave of disruption. I have no doubt that there is a new, stable equilibrium which we _could_ eventually reach, but if the change is so sudden and the shock strong enough, perhaps there could be permanent or semi-permanent negative consequences before the new equilibrium is reached.
- delluminatus 12y ago
  I think you're right, that does seem like a possibility. It seems unlikely to me that our wage-paying jobs will be phased out by automation that rapidly, especially if you consider the whole global economy. Of course, I could be completely wrong -- I guess a true Singularity could invalidate almost all labor in a matter of years or even months, depending on what form the AI takes and what it invents.

nekopa 12y ago

I have an experience to share with you: I taught English a a car factory for a year once, and the director of the paint shop was one of my students. He was describing the process for painting a car, and telling me that the hardest part was painting the inside, as you had to open the doors so that the robot paint head could get inside and do its job. So the body rolls into position, 2 guys open the doors, the robot painter goes in and does its thing, comes out and the guys close the doors again. Rinse and repeat for 20 hours a day. I asked him why there isn't a robot to open and close the doors. He said that there is, but in this country its much cheaper to pay people to do it. (I think he said the cost of maintaining the door opening robots to be about $1m a year approximately. So until we have a world where every country has the same salaries as USA/Western Europe/Japan, I think you will always be able to find work. Even if that work should really be done by a robot

x0x0 12y ago
That's only true if the price of robots doesn't decline rapidly. Which (I believe) it is, and like virtually any other technology, will continue to do. Even if not, we don't need that many people to open doors. So perhaps an office building will have 2 human janitors and 10 robot janitors; it doesn't really change the problem caused by souped up roombas putting the vast majority of janitors out of work.

plikan13 12y ago

> a job market that doesn't need cashiers, janitors, gardeners, cooks, taxi drivers, car washers, many farmers, or most menial labor? The job that I consider most threatened by advances in AI is actually the job of programmer.