Getting back to Tom's original theme about how AI is driving change, let's examine that further, but now integrating in some of the other thoughts in this thread such as: on the hegemonic nature of AI-- proprietary or open source; or the societal impact of AI on the workforce--requisite skills increasing the value of the surviving human work; or on the existential risk of AI to humanity. Certainly, it would be very relevant to also consider AI in the context of technological unemployment. IMHO, this is the immediate existential threat, the threat to human-performed work. Work is the thing that gives most of us something to organize our lives around ... giving us meaning to our existence. This threat is not naive. It is real, palpable, and more fearsome than mortal death or physical extinction.
We talked about the difference between ANI [Artificial Narrow Intelligence] and AGI [Artificial General Inteligence], with the former being the most prevalent--actually, the only type currently achieved. Current factory robots are of the ANI-type and are already replacing human workers by the millions here and abroad. As their cost [ ~ $20,000] continues to decline through manufacturing efficiencies these robots will be able to replace even more workers, simultaneously putting downward pressure on the official, sustainable minimum wage. Even if the average rate of increase in "IQ" of these ANI robots remains at a modest steady pace or accelerates in pace with the supposed law of accelerating returns, then these ANI robots will start to make progress in the higher-paying jobs AND will tend to obviate the often stated political bromide of education as a solution; that is, human progress through a relatively slow educational process will not be able to keep up. Nor will we be "just a media for representing knowledge." Because situation, actionable knowledge will be derived at the edges of the network by way of sousveillance replacing the current news sources and repurposing them for command and control of, well, the situation. "And it is difficult to imagine how such a sluggish government system could keep up with such a rapid rate of change when it can barely do so now. (-quote from the linked article below)" This situation has been anticipated years ago such as in the *Harvard Business Review* article: What Happens to Society When Robots Replace Workers? <https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-happens-to-society-when-robots-replace-workers> (Dec 2014): "Ultimately, we need a new, individualized, cultural, approach to the > meaning of work and the purpose of life. Otherwise, people will find a > solution – human beings always do – but it may not be the one for which we > began this technological revolution." Here's the rub and maybe the signal to keep all this in check: Under such a dystopian scenario--where labor is transformed into capital--our capitalistic system would eventually collapse. Experts say that when unemployment reaches 35%, or thereabouts, the whole economic system collapses into chaos. Essentially there would be no consumers left in our consumer society. Perhaps, the only recourse would be for the capitalists who own the robots [the new workforce] to provide for a universal basic income to the technologically unemployed in order to maintain social order. BUT, without a reason to get up in the morning, I doubt that this could last for long. Dystopian indeed. I know. Under such a scenario, we really won't need those SEO workers because there will be fewer and fewer consumers looking for stuff except for free entertainment. So Facebook should become the new paragon website under most search categories, but Amazon, not so much. The Google search algorithms will need to be recalibrated ... oh, wait a minute... no SEO workers. Facebook will become the new Google. Brave new world. Cheers 🤐 On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > > https://medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a > was interesting, vis a vis what happens when you just give poor people > money. > > -- rec -- > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote: > >> I suspect a universal basic income is a requirement for people to _not_ >> seek an idle life. If people can't count on food, shelter, and health >> care, they probably can't engage in anything in a substantial way. On >> the other hand, saving the people that could do substantial things (and by >> "substantial" I mean artistic or scientific discovery or synthesis), could >> come at a prohibitive cost of saving those that won't. A problem with the >> "day jobber" approach is the narrowing of substantial things to what >> happens to be in the interest of dominant organizations. Even in silicon >> valley, that's a harsh narrowing of the possible. So I would say do it to >> make the world interesting and not just for humanitarian reasons. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? >> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:36 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fascinating article on how AI is driving change in >> SEO, categories of AI and the Law of Accelerating Returns >> >> >> On that note, I found this article interesting: >> >> A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html?_r=0 >> >> One of the interesting dynamics I've noticed is when I argue about the >> basic income with people who have day jobs (mostly venture funded, but some >> megacorps like Intel), they tend to object strongly; and when I have >> similar conversations with people who struggle on a continual basis to find >> and execute _projects_ (mostly DIY people who do a lot of freelance work >> from hardware prototyping to fixing motorcycles), they tend to be for the >> idea (if not the practicals of how to pay for it). >> >> I can't help thinking it has to do with the (somewhat false) dichotomy >> between those who think people are basically good, productive, energetic, >> useful versus those who think (most) people are basically lazy, >> unproductive, parasites. The DIYers surround themselves with similarly >> creative people, whereas the day-job people are either themselves or >> surrounded by, people they feel don't pull their weight. (I know I've >> often felt like a "third wheel" when working on large teams... and I end up >> having to fend for myself and forcibly squeeze some task out so that I can >> be productive. These day-jobbers might feel similarly at various times. >> Or they're simply narcissists and don't recognize the contributions of >> their team members.) >> >> It also seems coincident with "great man" worship... The day-jobbers tend >> to put more stock in famous people (like Musk or Hawking or whoever), >> whereas the DIYers seem to be open to or tolerant of ideas (or even ways of >> life) in which they may initially see zero benefit. >> >> >> On 06/06/2016 11:24 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: >> > >> > Finally, and this is where my anger really boils: they sound to me like >> the worst kind of patronizing, privileged white guys imaginable. There’s no >> sense in their aggrieved messages that billions of people around the globe >> are struggling, and have lives that could be vastly improved with AI. >> Maybe it behooves them to imagine the good AI can do for those people, >> instead of stamping their feet because AI is going to upset their personal >> world. Which it will. It must be very hard to be the smartest guy on the >> block for so long, and then here comes something even smarter. >> >> -- >> ☣ glen >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
