http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2016/02/what-will-humans-do.html
What Will Humans Do? *The Guardian* asks "Would you bet against sex robots? AI 'could leave half of world unemployed' <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/13/artificial-intelligence-ai-unemployment-jobs-moshe-vardi> ": Machines could put more than half the world’s population out of a job in the next 30 years, according to a computer scientist who said on Saturday that artificial intelligence’s threat to the economy should not be understated. Expert Moshe Vardi told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): "We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task. "I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon us: if machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what will humans do?" Given the article's salacious headline, one can well imagine what the humans would be doing. While half the humans are kept busy servicing the sex robots, economists will be fully employed reassuring the other half that *supply creates its own demand*,* technology creates more jobs than it destroy*s and *there is not a fixed amount of work to be done*. The amount of work to be done is admittedly not fixed but supply *does not* "create its own demand." Say's Law is neither Say's nor is it a law. Meanwhile, there is only so much cheap and cheerful energy to go around and a certain quantity of atmosphere to accumulate carbon dioxide in. Fifteen years before Jean-Baptiste Say's birth, in *Reflections on the Expediency of a Law for the Naturalization of Foreign Protestants, *Josiah Tucker, Rector of St. Stephen's in Bristol and Chaplain to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Bristol, asked: Whether Sir *Josiah Child* did not call it a VULGAR ERROR to say, *We have more Hands than we can employ?* Whether he was a Judge of Trade*?* And Whether it is not an infallible Maxim, That one Man's Labour creates Employment for another*?*" The relentless questioning of the "Important Queries occasioned by The Rejection of the late Naturalization Bill," in Tucker's *Reflections,* made the tract unusual but not unique in eighteenth century writings on political economy. In 1736, George Berkeley published the 895-question tract, *The Querist*. The significance of this interrogative genre was noted in an intriguing analysis by George Caffentzis, "Querying the Querist," in his *Exciting the Industry of Mankind: George Berkeley’s Philosophy of Money.* Caffentzis points out that Berkeley was a master of *elenchus*, which he practiced daily. In a footnote, Caffentzis cites Peter Walmsley's discussion of *elenchus* in Berkeley's work. Walmsley offers the following explanation of the exercise: For the ancients, elenchus was primarily an exercise for students in logic and definition. Its technique was developed in the teaching practices of Socrates and the sophists, and its rules were later laid down by Aristotle at the Academy. These are, briefly, as follows. One student, who accepts the role of answerer, states a thesis. Another then attempts to refute this thesis, not by direct argument or evidence, but by asking a series of simple questions. To each question the answerer may only reply 'yes' or 'no'. The questioner's aim is to force the answerer to contradict his initial statement. This idiosyncratic form of debate entails several constraints. The initial thesis must be of a form that permits analysis: a maxim or a definition rather than a plain statement of fact. … Similarly, the progress of elenctic dialogue depends on the answerer's ability to resist the temptation to qualify his answers. In the *Protagoras*, for example, Socrates strives in vain to convince the sophist that short answers are called for. Finally, it is essential to successful elenchus that the answerer speak his mind. Plato shows how the dispute can become mired when an evasive answerer, such as Euthydemus, pretends to hold ridiculous but consistent views, rather than admit self-contradiction. In the eyes of Plato and Aristotle such dishonest thinkers played not elenchus, but eristic, which term seemed to designate nothing but the disputants' failure to commit themselves to the pursuit of truth. Is there a fixed Amount of Work to be done? Does Technology create more Jobs than it destroys? Does Supply create its own Demand? Is it not an infallible Maxim, That one Man's Labour creates Employment for another*? *The surprising answer to these questions -- or about them -- is that they are not stand-alone questions with stand-alone, indubitable answers. They function as elements in a *sequence* of questions, the purpose of which is to encourage the *questioning* of popular prejudices, not to impose the dogma of received wisdom. The answers to the various questions are not uniformly positive or negative. Thus the phrasing, "is it not *an infallible Maxim*," can only be approached with suspicion. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > FT, February 14, 2016 12:55 pm > AI and robots threaten to unleash mass unemployment, scientists warn > Clive Cookson in Washington > > Scientists have warned that rapid strides in the development of > artificial intelligence and robotics threatens the prospect of mass > unemployment, affecting everyone from drivers to sex workers. > Intelligent machines will soon replace human workers in all sectors of > the economy, senior computer scientists told the American Association > for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington at the weekend. > > “We are approaching the time when machines will be able to outperform > humans at almost any task,” said Moshe Vardi, computer science professor > at Rice University in Texas. “Society needs to confront this question > before it is upon us: if machines are capable of doing almost any work > humans can do, what will humans do? > > “A typical answer is that we will be free to pursue leisure activities,” > Prof Vardi said. “[But] I do not find the prospect of leisure-only life > appealing. I believe that work is essential to human wellbeing.” > > “AI is moving rapidly from academic research into the real world,” said > Bart Selman, professor of computer science at Cornell University. > “Computers are starting to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ as humans do . . . Systems > can start to move and operate among us autonomously.” He said companies > such as Google, Facebook, IBM and Microsoft were scaling up investments > in AI systems to billions of dollars a year. > > Professors Vardi and Selman said governments — and society as a whole — > were not facing up to the acceleration of AI and robotics research. Prof > Selman helped draft an open letter issued last year by the Future of > Life Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, urging policymakers to > explore the risks associated with increasingly intelligent machines. > Among the 10,000 or so signatories to the letter is Elon Musk, the tech > entrepreneur whose company Tesla Motors has a large AI research > programme aimed at developing self-driving cars. > > Mr Musk will fund research at Cornell University “on keeping AI > beneficial to humans”, said Prof Selman. The project will predict > whether and, if so when, “super-intelligence” — all-round superiority of > machine to human intelligence — might be achieved. > > According to Prof Selman, one of the fastest advancing areas of AI is > machine vision, and particularly facial recognition. “Facebook can > recognise faces better than any of us,” he said. Machine vision is key > to the self-driving vehicles that scientists predict will take over our > roads in the next 25 years. Prof Vardi said automated driving would cut > accidents by 90 per cent or more, compared with vehicles driven by > error-prone people. > > “With so many lives saved and injuries prevented, it would be hard > morally for anyone to argue against it,” he said. Yet around 10 per cent > of all US jobs involve driving a vehicle, he added, “and most of those > will disappear”. > > Prof Vardi said it would be hard to think of any jobs that would not be > vulnerable to robotics and AI — even sex workers. “Are you going to bet > against sex robots?” he asked. “I’m not.” > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
