Narz
keeping it real

Anyway, I don't want to be a pet. If that's humanity's goal that's pretty sad.
I think the vision of becoming a cyborg myself is much more inspiring (though still a lil weird)
We've been chatting about it for thousands of years, still no solution in sight.
My bad, I started reading the sentence & went into autopilot "So it's not that the machines would be our slaves, it's that..."
Anyway, I don't want to be a pet. If that's humanity's goal that's pretty sad.
I think the vision of becoming a cyborg myself is much more inspiring (though still a lil weird)
Not saying it would be the end of humanity's days of labor, it would just be the end of humanity's days of compulsory labor. People would be free to work if they want to, but no one would have to work to meet their basic survival needs.
Eventually we will reach the point where even high-level human functions, such as corporate executives and high-level government positions can be placed in the hands of an AI. At that point, there will no longer be an elite ruling class to exploit the masses. At that point everyone just gets taken care of by the various machines we have built to run and maintain our civilization.
I've been saying exactly this for a long time and most people's response is that I'm being "too pessimistic" or that "I'm sure we'll think of something."I recently read Ford's book as well. He does a very good job of showing how this time really is different. The economy was able to adjust and make jobs for people displaced by manufacturing equipment in the past, but now that robots have gained the ability to read, interpret images, move around in physical environments based on sensory data, write sensible text, look up appropriate information from massive databases, etc., even most of the service jobs that were created in response to the decline of employment in manufacturing are at serious risk. Because most jobs are funamentally routine and repetitive, automation now threatens most jobs. Further, the relentless progress of Moore's Law has led to automation becoming competitive with even poorly-paid workers abroad and in industries like fast food. Increasing the level of education in the population seems to have just triggered an arms race of credentialism rather than driving down long-term unemployment in the population as a whole.
It's physically possible for society to respond to this by letting everyone work fewer hours for the same pay, guaranteeing a reasonable minimum income to people whether they're employed or not, and the like. But of course this isn't how capitalism works: instead, those who own the increasingly productive capital make large sums of money while anybody left unemployed is left to suffer, and lower prices for consumer goods doesn't do much to make their lives easier. And there doesn't seem to be any sign that this situation will be responded to by strengthening the welfare state: overall, social welfare programs are being weakened rather than strengthened. Ford doesn't really seem to have a solution other than advocating a guaranteed minimum income and the like, but while I agree, I don't see any political will for this at all.
We still need a mechanism by which the people who own the food will give the food to people who cannot provide any service of value.
I was only really convinced that this is a serious problem earlier this year after dismissing it for years. There are a few things that cause people to dismiss the argument, including that this effect has been feared for quite a while (back at least to the original Luddites) without materializing and that it sometimes gets conflated with the view that "robots are making work obsolete" or "they'll throw everyone out of work" or that a variety of science fiction about sentient AIs is coming true. I don't think any of those are well-supported at least for now - computers really don't think much like humans and are still just tools, and some jobs will resist automation for a long time or possibly forever.I've been saying exactly this for a long time and most people's response is that I'm being "too pessimistic" or that "I'm sure we'll think of something."![]()
I've been saying exactly this for a long time and most people's response is that I'm being "too pessimistic" or that "I'm sure we'll think of something."![]()
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that world either since it would more or less achieve the same result of a struggle-free existence.
I largely agree with you. It seems to me that it will turn out to be an adjustment problem with bending our economic and moral beliefs to fit a new situation rather than some sort of apocalyptic thing. But I think it will take decades to make this adjustment, and a very large proportion of the population will be left behind at least initially with nothing to catch them from a hard fall. It's taking a long time for people to even come to terms with the effect of computer technology on employment, let alone develop sensible policies. I don't know what the long-term future holds and it's very likely we'll solve these problems and make a positive story out of it, but the short to medium term doesn't look as bright as most technophiles make it out to be.The problem I have with the naysayers is they usually portray automation as all doom and gloom. Sure there are going to be difficulties and suffering that result from this, but it's nothing to go all Chicken Little about. Just as with every major transitional period in human history there are always those who get left behind, but humanity as a whole has always ultimately come through the other side better off than before. It will be the same with this transitional period as well. Granted, due to the nature of this transitional period there will be a much larger segment of the population that gets left behind, but I still don't think it will be a large enough segment to warrant all the anti-technology talk I'm hearing nowadays.
Is that why you fight battles on the Internet? A little excitement?![]()
I largely agree with you. It seems to me that it will turn out to be an adjustment problem with bending our economic and moral beliefs to fit a new situation rather than some sort of apocalyptic thing. But I think it will take decades to make this adjustment, and a very large proportion of the population will be left behind at least initially with nothing to catch them from a hard fall. It's taking a long time for people to even come to terms with the effect of computer technology on employment, let alone develop sensible policies. I don't know what the long-term future holds and it's very likely we'll solve these problems and make a positive story out of it, but the short to medium term doesn't look as bright as most technophiles make it out to be.
The only thing that keeps the rich from eating the poor is that the poor don't taste very good.
There are a variety of ideologies that the rich can adopt to justify their wealth to themselves, but enjoyment of other people's suffering doesn't really seem to come into it.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy - that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness
I recently read Ford's book as well. He does a very good job of showing how this time really is different. The economy was able to adjust and make jobs for people displaced by manufacturing equipment in the past, but now that robots have gained the ability to read, interpret images, move around in physical environments based on sensory data, write sensible text, look up appropriate information from massive databases, etc., even most of the service jobs that were created in response to the decline of employment in manufacturing are at serious risk. Because most jobs are funamentally routine and repetitive, automation now threatens most jobs. Further, the relentless progress of Moore's Law has led to automation becoming competitive with even poorly-paid workers abroad and in industries like fast food. Increasing the level of education in the population seems to have just triggered an arms race of credentialism rather than driving down long-term unemployment in the population as a whole.
It's physically possible for society to respond to this by letting everyone work fewer hours for the same pay, guaranteeing a reasonable minimum income to people whether they're employed or not, and the like. But of course this isn't how capitalism works: instead, those who own the increasingly productive capital make large sums of money while anybody left unemployed is left to suffer, and lower prices for consumer goods doesn't do much to make their lives easier. And there doesn't seem to be any sign that this situation will be responded to by strengthening the welfare state: overall, social welfare programs are being weakened rather than strengthened. Ford doesn't really seem to have a solution other than advocating a guaranteed minimum income and the like, but while I agree, I don't see any political will for this at all.