Question for you guys.
A lot of money is going into AI to basically make robots to replace the jobs of a huge number of poor people. That is going to cause mass unemployment and all sorts of shit whenever they get it working.
Is there a way to keep this from being horrible without going all "seize the means of production"?
1. Robots and AI are 2 different techs
2. Robots have been around for 40+ years.
3. AI might be more dangerous than nuclear war
4. Society will go on and will likely thrive
5. Don't worry about it. There will be plenty of jobs.
>Ex Machina was just a movie
Real AI and automatons worth a damn are 500+ years out, if ever. Which is precisely why pic related is happening.
Robots != AI
You are thinking about automation. What this means is jobs will change and you need to learn new things. Instead of doing the work slowly, you control a routine/automation that works faster than you. There will always be work because automation will always have exceptions that need to be handled.
Tl;Dr you need to learn the skills to be the Robot Masters, or vote for basic income.
Yeah, we use it to socialize society so we live off the wealth produced by cheap robot labour and common poor folk don't need to really worry about jobs because food and shelter are provided as basic human rights.
There would still be incentives to stive to innovate or work more interesting careers like arts music and litterature, but imagine a world where even the poorest of the poor wouldn't need to steal to live a comfortable life and could flourish in their own time.
I for one think it'll be pretty wonderful.
>skills to be the Robot Masters
This is false.
The danger is when the singularity happens and humans are no longer needed.
Humans wouldn't even see it coming.
We just don't know if the AI will tolerate humans. It's very possible they would simply exterminate us because we will be as annoying as mosquitoes are to us.
Some would argue that toil will become obsolete and humans would be free to pursue arts and leisure. But that would be entirely up to the AI overlords to decide.
>to replace the jobs of a huge number of poor people
Automation/computers haven't just replaced unskilled labor.
Millions of white collar jobs involving math and data work are already gone and much more is to come.
Dumb robots do little, "Smart" robots can do far more. With enough Lifting bots, self driving trucks and drones you could easily render millions of jobs unnecessary. Not "good" jobs but enough to cause a dreadful amount of strife.
>Is there a way to keep this from being horrible without going all "seize the means of production"?
Universal basic income and some form of free training to become useful at something machines can't do yet. You need to give the poors something else to do besides starve and revolt.
Well before that even, the truth is there isn't a need for that many "robot masters" and your competition for those handful of robot master jobs is everyone in the world with that sort of education and training.
This stuff doesn't need that much maintenance and companies use small teams they fly around to handle shit.
The high tech industry is mostly giant buildings full of servers running 24/7 with a handful of people wandering around in case something screws up and to assist when the team of set-up guys flies in to install new stuff.
>You need to give the poors something
kek
AI would likely destroy rich and poor alike.
Money would have no value.
they should get 100 miles out and sink that fucking thing. It's a shame they all didn't die of heat stroke
Also, legalize and make innocuous drugs like weed and psychedelics and MDMA easily available. Drugs and video games will be our bread and circuses.
Haha, yeah eventually. In the meantime a problem will be dey terk er jerbs
>there isn't a need
The singularity won't be a product of 'need'
It will happen on it's own, without warning.
There will an alorithm(s) that will be able to learn and adapt. Once it has more knowledge than humans, it will literally 'take over'.
It won't be a smart robot. It will likely be something across several networks using several processors.
You won't be able to stop it or fight it.
The common analogy is a Tiger and a Human.
Tigers can easily kill humans given the opportunity. BUT THEY CAN'T. Why? Humans are smarter. We put tigers in cages and kill them at will.
Humans will be the next 'Tiger'
You sound like someone who doesn't program. Yes programs and algos do unexpected things, but they are programs. I don't know about you, but my programs know I am God.
Sure, the computer illiterate will be flabbergasted and dazzled by the shining brave new world, but the programs will serve the elite, and the elite will need the programmers.
The 'singularity' of AI intelligence won't come to be, humans will destroy themselves first and civilization will reset.
Sure there will be lots of engineers. I think quite the opposite will happen: instead of not needing humans who atrophy from having every need met, there will be teams of worker bee humans maintaining a computer so vast they can't comprehend anymore, but know they need it.
>You sound like someone who doesn't program
kek
The first ability to 'evolve' will be to write code.
Coding is not 'magic'
Machine learning is already a reality
Machines will be able to create code
You will be amazed and then you will be frightened
Your timeline is just a wild guess
I am a bit worried about the "poors" issue, a lot of the guys with the money seem like they give zero fucks. In that case, if things go bad they might choose a more mass grave sort of answer.
Last time there was a big push for unfucking the country there was a shitload of commies, socialist and unions pushing like mad. We dont have that today, and the richer fucks know it.
A technocracy seems more likely to hit than the "singularity", especially considering the sheer amount of vital infrastructure is understood by only a fraction of the populace. I wouldn't be surprised if that that hit "singularity" after a first few civil wars/purges
There is some weird ass shit they are currently doing with marketing and media creation, its not fully independent but it is making and selling crappy stuff with no human oversight. Basically machine learning based meme merchandise spamming.
Terribly open to exploitation if you can figure out how to game its system, with few faked memes and rigged voting systems you could have some factory in china printing out a few hundred thousand child porn covered t-shirts.
If robuts take all the jobs, who the fuck is going to be buying the shit they're making.
>Also, legalize and make innocuous drugs like weed and psychedelics and MDMA easily available. Drugs and video games will be our bread and circuses.
If I had good mushrooms and good VR I'd never leave my apartment.
The Chinese, they were used by those super rich fucks to bleed the US middle class and in the process picked up a lot of money and seem to have coincidentally created a replacement middle class for the rich fucks to target once they finish draining the US.
>some weird ass shit
and it's not going away
AI will be necessary for several future tasks
We will use it to explore distant stars and planets
Machines will need to evolve based on observations e.g. what type of landing craft and excursion machines will be needed based on atmosphere, surface type, temperature, etc...
This type of tech will be unstoppable after a certain point.
Automation 101:
youtu.be
Welcome to the first step into the wormhole that is the re-imagining of the future economy.
>Is there a way to keep this from being horrible
Not really, no.
The people who say "well just learn new skills" or "learn2code" ignore the fact that something like 90% of the human race is frankly incapable of doing so. The skill minimums for jobs will simply keep increasing, and the majority of humanity will simply be "priced out" of keeping up.
It is a 100% certainty that increasing automation and continually increasing job requirement minimums are going to lead to massive, massive unemployment. All those people who are suitable only for low-tier jobs will still demand food/shelter/entertainment. And there is no way, no how, that anyone is going to agree to just GIVE it to them.
While it's technically *possible* for this to end up with UBI and socialized services and an automated semi-stable society, the smart, smart, smart money is on killing off several billion people who no longer serve any purpose except to consume.
Ok.
Automation/low level AI that replaces humans needs to be taxed based on the level of the job being replaced (i.e. a self checkout needs to be taxed as a cashier who can work 24/7, while an AI lawyer should be taxed as a whole legal firm) and use these gathered taxes to provide for the masses via policies such as infrastructure upgrades, universal healthcare , universal education, and UBI. The government can also use public works projects to upgrade infrastructure to provide employment.
Sentient AI (i.e. human level +) needs to have the same rights and responsibilities as humans. Income they generate is taxed. That level of AI will end up replacing humans entirely (humans as pet species as best) when it comes tho.
There will always be jobs for people, and even if automation takes over all of the things necessary for living there will still be jobs for things like art, and handmade goods. At first automation is going to be bad for middle class and lower class populations, the higher class populations should be able to get by, until legislation catches up, if legislation takes too long to catch up, then the world economy will stagnate, if legislation goes too fast there could be arbitrary limitations of automation which would hurt business.
I think once automation becomes cheap enough governments will have to opportunity to start their own industries not necessarily by taking away from corporations, but i think we could start to see government owned farms and factories, producing basic living essentials, and a rise of socialism as the main part of the US economy, if the government owns factories they dont need to regulate with legislation, and instead regulate by supply and demand, hell eventually we could live in a sort of utopia of sorts where everyone has their basic needs provided. of course this is the best outcome, and also the less likely of outcomes.
what's more likely is automation will happen too fast, displace too many people from their jobs, and start a communist revolution, where the populace just takes a shit over everything.
>and a rise of socialism
You completely miss the point.
Humans will add nothing
Humans will take everything
It would be logical to remove the humans NOT give them shit.
Who intentionally feeds rats? It's simply not logical
Lots of people feed rats, there common pets moron.
And also i imagine a super-intelligence would be capable of finding a non-violent solution to the human problem.
Glad, I live with my mother. Who has a job that wont be automated any time soon. And is legally requierd.
I just can sit at home, and watch the automation riots.
>a non-violent solution
It will be a logical solution
You might as well assume AI will let a power leak go unfixed because..... why?
Humans won't be considered valuable at all
They would likely be wiped out in a very efficient manner.
>I live with my mother
Can I live with your mother too?
No, I need all the support I can get. And I cant share.
I live with his mother. Hi son!
We would need some group of non-power hungry rich fucks running the Government for that. Unless a few million vigorous US socialist pop up in the next decade or so we are far more likely to see mega corps and a "downsizing" of unnecessary people over the next 50 years.
>Drugs and video games will be our bread and circuses.
Give me this and I won't rock the boat.
Just goes to show that some idiots believe Socialism is the cure to everything under the sun.
Make default settings to ALL HUMANS ARE GOD
/all GOD=MASTER
MASTER!=ADMIN
We a minimum of a few hundred years (minimum) away from any kind of artificial intelligence that can have some sort of self awareness. Quantum computing is still a pipe dream and that's just the first step towards developing an "intelligent" device. Machine learning is hardly "intelligence" and that's where we are now.
You are legally queer?
This is wrong.
This is the result of journalists fantasizing about future tech.
The reality is, the jobs in danger are white color.
ALL data entry, most law, some medicine, basically if you sit at a desk or use a computer, your job is going to be giving to software,
Anything that requires physically doing something will be automated AFTER office work.
It's just the facts of the matter, you need to develop VERY sophisticated ai to even begin to compare to human function in the physical world, AI significantly more advanced than AI restricted to software, and computing.
Sorry everyone, you can pretend the truck drivers are gonna be outa work, but accountants will be obsolete long before.
The only exception is retail, RIP women working retail.
a lot OF PEOPLE HERE ON Yea Forums AND IN REAL LIFE GIVE AI TOO MUCH CREDIT ROBOTS ARE ONLY AS SMART AS THE CREATORS/ LESS SO.
Just stopping by to tell you you're fucking retarded.
I dont know about it being a cure, but I can point (FDR and the New deal) to a clear example of its growing support pushing shitty politicians to do their fucking jobs instead of pandering to the buisnesses.
ITT dummies buy into the AI myth, so some politician can get free votes by promising UBI.
Rich politicians aren't destroying everything, uneducated idiots voting for feel good causes are. High minimum wage makes poor people poorer, carbon taxes do more damage to the environment, GMO's are good for you, and gluten is harmless.
KYS shills.
White COLLAR or did you mean white people jobs?
We already have the technology to automate just about anything. The only way AI will help is to make automation easier. Good machines are expensive though. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a machine that also needs thousands of dollars a month in maintainence when you can pay some asshole minimum wage to do the job.
I can't tell if you are trolling or not.
>GMO's are good for you.
Yeah. Like cigarettes were good for you in 1920.
You forgot up is down, trickle down economics work, the record breaking levels of wealth dispairity being a reason to work harder for the masters approval.
Also, celiac disease is a thing.
You're an idiot. For one, the programs and "algorithms" that you interact with on a daily basis were not directly written by humans. When you see an ad, it was a bot that created the bot that put that ad there.
Second, we've never created an actually intelligent machine. Here's your (You) though. If you weren't such an autist for writing in caps I probably wouldn't have responded to someone with an opinion they clearly know nothing about.
without GMOs we literally wouldn't have enough food to feed people
And you probably can't name a vegetable you eat today that didn't really exist a few hundred years ago in the form it is now, thanks to human intervention
>(minimum)
This is just your personal hopes and dreams
You have no idea where we are truly at in regards to tech.
It's all classified
The New Deal would not solve AI
QA learning
Don't worry boomer, you'll be long gone by the time I'm enjoying UBI funded vacation on no-longer-underwater-bahamas while i drink my GMO corn Daquiri and meditate peacefully knowing i have a negative carbon footprint lifestyle and my children will not inherit the same can full of problems that my parents and grandparents just decided to kick down the road (tried to use a boomer reference you could relate to)
>muh DARPA
you do understand that DARPAs biggest influence is making people believe in fairytales?
Human selection has been going on since we first started to learn about cultivation and farming. The Mayans did potatoes, North America did corn. Wheat and rice were global. Didn't need gmo to make sure the soy didn't die when we sprayed it with RoundUp.
DARPA
Gooogle
Apple
NSA
ATT
Everybody's R&D is classified
This isn't a fairy tail. AI is already here. There are several public and private entities working on it. No lie
There is no reason to believe GMO vegetables are unhealthy. No science suggests that food is dangerous for being "round-up ready". Your argument should really be focused on Round-up. There's more and more literature suggesting Round-up is unsafe for the environment and humans.
If you look-up how gene editing works i think you'd be really surprised to learn it is essentially a natural process. The way plant is made "Round-up Ready" is essentially natural and it's not unreasonable to believe a species of plant could naturally develop a similar resistance to the pesticide.
>Don't worry boomer,
What's that sonny?
without quantum computing AI is completely unobtainable. things like Google's automated calls are not even close to AI. IBMs Watson uses machine learning but it's not intelligent. Ofc a bunch of people are working on developing AI, but that doesn't mean it exists or is even close to existing. Engineers at Ford were working on flying cars back in the 30s and we still aren't even close.
They're even beating us at Starcraft now.
deepmind.com
>is even close to existing.
but you dont really know that tho
you are only guessing
I guarantee you made 0 accurate predictions about launch dates for any technical advances
Very good rebuttle. But I find that even tomatoes, modified to prevent freezing during transportation, albeit a good justification, should be regulated until it has undergone some study.
And companies like Monsanto should not be able to press charges for their bullshit plants spreading. Companies should not be able to patent a GMO.
Not a rebuttle, first time responding to you. I was just pointing out the fact that there's nothing published to suggest GMOs are dangerous. I believe it is our responsibility to use the best science available to make informed policy decisions and as of right now, GMOs are not a threat and the benefits of increased GMOs offer a tangible benefit to society. However, there's not really a point in making corn round-up ready if round-up is not safe for food. I haven't read that the negative effects of round-up are biologically persistent though so maybe it could be safe for cattle feed and the negative ecological effects could be managed with buffers/erosion management. This is all kinda brainstorming though, like I said, a lot of the round-up studies are recent and not a lot is known what, if any, is the safe threshold.
I agree about round up. It's terrible and should be abolished on all levels of food production. But you ignored the proprietary capitalist bullshit companies like Monsanto have destroyed numerous people's and towns livelihoods.
Lol. A few too many drinks....too many ssdddddssss
>companies like Monsanto should not be able to press charges for their bullshit plants spreading. Companies should not be able to patent a GMO.
This is something I think needs to have been better addressed. Because the precedent that got established basically means we get our shit taken for other people being shitty.
Over all answer to your concern. Learn a physical trade. I got into AC Electrical. I live in Florida. No fucks
I watched that same documentary a decade ago too. Patent laws are fucked but as they pertain to healthcare/pharmaceuticals a lot more than GMOs.
The idea is that 40% of the country has a job driving a vehicle while Teslas are driving themselves, You don't move that many people into trades, it's just not possible. Thinking even further into the future, humans will be 3D printing houses and electricians don't exist. Now what? Sure, you can just write this off as "not realistic" or "who cares" but if it's the future our society is bounding towards, it should be a thought experiment to take seriously. This isn't some Matrix-esque dystopian future we are trying to analyze, it's how do you re-imagine/manage an economy where humans aren't just unemployed but unemployable. I have no answers but very receptive to essentially any reasonable input.