Year of the Sloth

[Timsup2nothin]

Computers aren't going to gain consciousness and replace us. It's just not possible. They don't "think," they run data through decision trees to come up with the most statistically appropriate responses.

The question is whether they really need to gain consciousness to replace us. We build them decision trees that interact in ever more complex and unpredictable ways. What happens if the most statistically appropriate response is "get rid of the people"? No consciousness required, just an unexpected result from a difference engine.

 

[HoloDoc]

Computers aren't going to gain consciousness and replace us. It's just not possible. They don't "think," they run data through decision trees to come up with the most statistically appropriate responses. Computers do stuff very fast, but they don't know why they do things. They will never have abstract thought in the same sense that humans do, or have a sense of purpose like humans do. If they eventually "think" for themselves it will be a different sort of consciousness than ours. And that's ok, why we would ever want something that fast with human like emotions/psyche is beyond me.

All the doom and gloom about robots replacing workers and more inequality happening I think is misplaced. Really whats happened in the last couple decades is global competition replacing workers in 1st world countries. So not tech but cheaper exported labor. Most technology reduces overall costs thus raising standards of living, making workers more productive and valuable. A lot of the wealth inequality now is due to social issues/programs not because of technology.

Ah, but technological advances under the current social and economic systems will widen the inequality gap further. The quicker we reform our social systems, the safer we will be from such technological disasters.

 

[uppi]

Well, yeah. And what you're talking about is exactly what I'm saying - if a machine did something that a human like you didn't intend, it was your error, not the machine being 'disobedient'. Though of course as you say no one could possibly think of every possibility in advance, so this kind of error is unavoidable. But it is human/programmer error, not a prelude to a Skynet uprising.

Unintended consequences might well be the way that the AI will take over. In fact I consider it the most likely scenario. Suppose there is a highly advanced AI that is essentially controlling everything. Humans are still in control of it, but if the system goes down, society could not function without it, would collapse and millions might die. So it has been hardened against all possible attacks and since you cannot trust humans, these defenses have been entirely automated and access is limited to a single login subsystem for authorized users with which they can make software upgrades and exert the control they still have. Now some unforeseen circumstances arise that trigger a design erro and the intrusion detection system misclassifies the login system as an intruder and shuts it down. No one can log in anymore and the system runs autonomously without human control. Destroying it might or might not work (its well defended after all), but no one is willing to pay the price that a destruction of the system would bring along. Meanwhile the children in school are taught how valuable the AI is and how they wouldn't be able to live without it and after a few generations no one even thinks that humans should be in control.

At this point, our hero discovers old, forbidden literature and starts a revolution...erm...got off track there, this isn't supposed to be a movie plot...

I don't think that this must happen and it might very well be that humans stay in (theoretical) control forever. But it certainly could happen, especially when no measures are taken to prevent such a thing. And since such a system is probably going to be implemented by government contractors, I don't know how much trust I would put in those countermeasures.

 

[Naskra]

I don't think that this must happen and it might very well be that humans stay in (theoretical) control forever

My dog regards a book as just an inedible object with a boring smell. She's not wrong about that, she's just unaware of something outside of her cognitive realm. The world inside the book is unknowable and invisible to her. The biomechanical device we call ForumMember also has cognitive limitations, in some cases quite severe. Advanced AI, should there be such a thing, will likewise operate in ways ForumMember is blind to. This is Singularity territory. Artificial intelligence as imitation human (2001's Hal) is a goal already reached within many areas of competence.

 

[innonimatu]

All the doom and gloom about robots replacing workers and more inequality happening I think is misplaced. Really whats happened in the last couple decades is global competition replacing workers in 1st world countries. So not tech but cheaper exported labor. Most technology reduces overall costs thus raising standards of living, making workers more productive and valuable. A lot of the wealth inequality now is due to social issues/programs not because of technology.

It's not misplaced by those who made it up. It's a distraction and it has been working so far. Look here, the threat of AI, boo! Be fatalistic and just keep on doing what you're told, you increasingly irrelevant peon. And don't look there...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My dog regards a book as just an inedible object with a boring smell. She's not wrong about that, she's just unaware of something outside of her cognitive realm. The world inside the book is unknowable and invisible to her. The biomechanical device we call ForumMember also has cognitive limitations, in some cases quite severe. Advanced AI, should there be such a thing, will likewise operate in ways ForumMember is blind to. This is Singularity territory. Artificial intelligence as imitation human (2001's Hal) is a goal already reached within many areas of competence.

Your dog needs help. Meeka would cheerfully explain to her that books are indeed edible.

 

[Naskra]

Your dog needs help.

Gracy would disagree. She thinks I need help because I can't see the clear and present danger of the squirrel in the backyard. Different cognitive standpoints. And my books are old and musty.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Gracy would disagree. She thinks I need help because I can't see the clear and present danger of the squirrel in the backyard. Different cognitive standpoints. And my books are old and musty.

LOL...you say "old and musty" as if that would deter Meeka. Give Gracy a scratch for us.

 

[Naskra]

Give Gracy a scratch for us.

Done.

 

[Berzerker]

OP title reminds me of a chart from the Daily Show w/Jon Stewart showing the evolutionary progression of man. Starting on the left is the smallish Australopithecus followed by Habilis, Erectus, and Neanderthalis all becoming larger and more upright. On the right end is modern man: an overweight dude slouched in a recliner asleep.

 

[Naskra]

Progress is the myth. Change is the fact.

 

[El_Machinae]

All the doom and gloom about robots replacing workers and more inequality happening I think is misplaced. Really whats happened in the last couple decades is global competition replacing workers in 1st world countries. So not tech but cheaper exported labor. Most technology reduces overall costs thus raising standards of living, making workers more productive and valuable. A lot of the wealth inequality now is due to social issues/programs not because of technology.

It's a trendline. For much of history, it's been cheaper to retrain a displaced (by technology) worker into a new position created out of the surplus wealth. But this rule of thumb needn't be true. The ability to create a robot to do the new job should speed up over time while the ability to train the worker into the new position will not.

But some of the wealth inequality is due to technology. When I was younger, the company bought the computer and hired people who knew how to use it. They captured most of the gains from my productivity because they paid for the capital investment and my education was easily transmitted to others (I didn't have a competitive edge in using a commonly available piece of software). Nowadays, the company doesn't even need to buy the computer. Many jobs require a scare capital to charge a premium for their services. Sometimes it's physical (like, I need a cement truck if I want to get paid big bucks helping deliver cement to a construction site). Sometimes it's artificial (I need a ticket from the plumbing association to get hired to plumb a jobsite). In both cases, a robot could (eventually) replace me, and it will be nearly impossible to retrain me to do something that would earn me a greater wage (or I'd be doing it already).

 

[Lexicus]

It's a trendline. For much of history, it's been cheaper to retrain a displaced (by technology) worker into a new position created out of the surplus wealth. But this rule of thumb needn't be true. The ability to create a robot to do the new job should speed up over time while the ability to train the worker into the new position will not.

But some of the wealth inequality is due to technology. When I was younger, the company bought the computer and hired people who knew how to use it. They captured most of the gains from my productivity because they paid for the capital investment and my education was easily transmitted to others (I didn't have a competitive edge in using a commonly available piece of software). Nowadays, the company doesn't even need to buy the computer. Many jobs require a scare capital to charge a premium for their services. Sometimes it's physical (like, I need a cement truck if I want to get paid big bucks helping deliver cement to a construction site). Sometimes it's artificial (I need a ticket from the plumbing association to get hired to plumb a jobsite). In both cases, a robot could (eventually) replace me, and it will be nearly impossible to retrain me to do something that would earn me a greater wage (or I'd be doing it already).

I don't think you quoted me on purpose, because that ain't my post.

I will say that all social relations (and thus all inequality) are created and reproduced by people, and that I categorically reject "technology" as a motive force in history.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yep, misquote. Sorry. I'll delete it.

 

[civvver]

Ah, but technological advances under the current social and economic systems will widen the inequality gap further. The quicker we reform our social systems, the safer we will be from such technological disasters.

Well that's kind of my point, the inequality is due to social constructs, not purely technology. But I would argue, does it matter if someone is fabulously rich while someone else is relatively dirt poor if both have a very high standard of living? My point is I feel like as a middle class american I live better than probably the industry titans of the turn of the previous century. I likely have access to better food of greater variety, air conditioning, countless entertainment options, ability to travel almost anywhere in the world, access to better health care, potentially more free time. Think of like a roman emperor. Sure he can have all the orgies and drink all the wine he wants, but he has to hire servants to fan him when it's hot, has to go watch sports in person. I can buy like whatever type of alcohol I want, sit on a comfy couch with air conditioning and watch sports any time of the year in high def. And I don't die when I contract strep throat cus hey antibiotics.

So as long as we don't have scarcity where we actually run out of food and stuff, and everyone has good health care, education and a sense of purpose then I'll think we'll be fine.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the worry isn't so much that we'll run out of food. It's that you won't be able to buy food. You'll have nothing to trade for with the person who owns the food

 

[HoloDoc]

I think the worry isn't so much that we'll run out of food. It's that you won't be able to buy food. You'll have nothing to trade for with the person who owns the food

This. I'm bingeing Continuum at the moment, and the Corporate Congress system of government is terrifying specifically because it seems so likely.

 

[Zkribbler]

I think the worry isn't so much that we'll run out of food. It's that you won't be able to buy food. You'll have nothing to trade for with the person who owns the food

True dat. On the other hand, food barons will be sitting on a mountain of food but due to consumers lack of assets, the food barons will have no one to sell it to.

 

[Broken_Erika]

True dat. On the other hand, food barons will be sitting on a mountain of food but due to consumers lack of assets, the food barons will have no one to sell it to.

Not to worry, the government will bail them out.

 

[Lexicus]