Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 2:02 am Kiran K Karthikeyan, <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds
> than mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.
>
> Kiran
>
> [1]
> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
>
>


This [1] gives me hope.

Kiran

[1] Andrew Yang's Powerpoint Presentation: https://youtu.be/Dyf6cW5DU78

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Deepak Shenoy]

>
> In the absence of a democratized deep learning-driven fund open to consumer
> investors, I think low cost, index funds are still the best option in most
> parts of the world. I've heard it said that this is not the case in India,
> and I don't know enough about the markets in India. We may disagree on the
> value of Indexed funds. But I hope we don't disagree on the low cost part
> (especially when investing for 20-30 year time horizons).
>


Cost can only be justified by superior returns. In most of the developed
world, managers don'tmake enough alpha to justify their existence, and
index funds win. In India, Indexes suck in terms of construction, reach and
capability, and fund managers are able to beat them easily.

The time will come when India will have a decent ETF on NSE 200 or
something, which is broad enough. Then, if the funds underperform that, I
might change my mind :)

Note that India has some of the lowest mutual funds charges in the world.
Even actively managed funds, when used in "direct" mode, charge you about
1% a year or so, with no entry loads. The US Equivalent is between 4% to 6%
for the first year and about 3% thereafter. Indian funds therefore have teh
ability to beat benchmarks better - all they have get is 1% alpha.

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Thaths]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:40 AM Chris Kantarjiev  wrote:

> I have no doubt that there are folks out there who are developing (or
> have developed) machine learning/deep learning models to drive trading -
> no "model" or "gut feelings" involved, but "pure AI" applying past
> market patterns to current and future stocks.
>
> We may never hear about them - because to get large enough to be
> newsworthy, they need to establish a long track record, and to establish
> a long track record, they need to get large enough to attract
> significant funds ...
>
> But it will be interesting to see if we do.
>
>
I posit that the vast majority of silklisters will not, in the near future,
have access to these deep learning-driven hedge funds as a savings vehicle.

In the absence of a democratized deep learning-driven fund open to consumer
investors, I think low cost, index funds are still the best option in most
parts of the world. I've heard it said that this is not the case in India,
and I don't know enough about the markets in India. We may disagree on the
value of Indexed funds. But I hope we don't disagree on the low cost part
(especially when investing for 20-30 year time horizons).

Thaths

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Chris Kantarjiev]

On 3/28/17 10:00 AM, silklist-requ...@lists.hserus.net wrote:

I like the last line here:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-solution-but-the-problem


​Tying this thread with a previous one on retirement financial planning, by
silklister Josey John:​

http://factordaily.com/ai-big-data-machine-learning-funds-fintech/


I have no doubt that there are folks out there who are developing (or 
have developed) machine learning/deep learning models to drive trading - 
no "model" or "gut feelings" involved, but "pure AI" applying past 
market patterns to current and future stocks.


We may never hear about them - because to get large enough to be 
newsworthy, they need to establish a long track record, and to establish 
a long track record, they need to get large enough to attract 
significant funds ...


But it will be interesting to see if we do.

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Deepak Shenoy]

>
>
> ​Tying this thread with a previous one on retirement financial planning, by
> silklister Josey John:​
>
> http://factordaily.com/ai-big-data-machine-learning-funds-fintech/
>
> ​I'd be interested in thoughts from folks like Shyam Sunder and Deepak
> Shenoy (and others too, of course)​
>
> ​Udhay​
>


Sorry, saw this late. In that article:
1) medallion is only open to Rentech current and ex employees. They hare 5
and 45 (5% mgmt fee and 45% of profits) and are insanely profitable.
2) Accura's growth of 185% in four years on small caps is not a big deal.
Reliacne Small cap fund - one of the funds that does only small cap
investing - has made a ludicrous 216% in the same time. (
https://www.valueresearchonline.com/funds/fundperformance.asp?schemecode=16182)
So has DSP Micro and Small cap fund, which is also a very famous one in the
space. Effectively, if this fund was AI, it has been beat by two non-algo
fund managers by a fairly large margin.
3) REntech and Accura couldn't be more different. Medallion works on ultra
short term trades for the most part. Their other fund - which is open to
external investors - has lower performance and that might have a few stocks
held. But Accura essentially holds for the longish term and deals with
illiquid stuff.
4) I think much of what Accura does is not AI at all. You just can't get
enough info about smallcaps.
5) Gupta and Nagpal must be from seriously rich families. And they seem to
have 400 cr. iunder "advisory" for this money, and only the rest is in
portfolio management (about 350 cr.)

Yes of course fund managers can be replaced by an algo...I have personally
built stuff like this :) WE deployed stuff that I think continues to make
money...on Indian markets. Most of the forex trading that happens worldwide
is between computers. I can guarantee that most trades will be
algo-executed at some point in the future.

I also think that fund management will be an excellent money making
opportunity because of the ludicrous amount of information that's not easy
for computers to figure out - and they'll never figure it out, IMHO.
Markets have forever been inefficient and while they are, there will be
ways to beat them consistently.

But this Accura thing is not anywhere close to this kind of algo, IMHO.
There's more to this story but you can't refute what the founders say,
though I think their "success" is not phenomenal and isn't reallly related
to AI. I think they're very smart folks.

Cheers,
Deepak

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Udhay Shankar N  wrote:

> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-
> to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-
> machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
>
>
> I like the last line here:
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-solution-but-the-problem
>

​Tying this thread with a previous one on retirement financial planning, by
silklister Josey John:​

http://factordaily.com/ai-big-data-machine-learning-funds-fintech/

​I'd be interested in thoughts from folks like Shyam Sunder and Deepak
Shenoy (and others too, of course)​

​Udhay​

-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan
 wrote:

> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9


I like the last line here:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-solution-but-the-problem

"We won’t have any answers until we acknowledge that work now means
everything to us – and that hereafter it can’t."

-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Dave Long]

You're welcome.



Mahalo.
-Dave

(my thanks weren't late; I just "tried wait")

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Charles Haynes]

You misspelled makaʻāinana (ʻokina not ` backtick, and you missed a kahakō)

You're welcome.
-- Charles (haole not makaʻāinana)

On Mon, 2 May 2016 at 23:22 Dave Long  wrote:

> > http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/4/the-history-of-mana-how-an-
> > austronesian-concept-became-a-video-game-mechanic
>
> Nice.  I must admit my knowledge is also based more on Michener (and
> travel) than much research, but...
>
> Mana: we can't point to it, or measure it, or count it[0], but
> believe us, if you have it, you'll succeed, and if you fail,
> obviously you either never had it or failed to use it properly[1]...
>
> -Dave
>
> [0] unless, that is, we're charging you per seat ...
> [1] what?  didn't you remember to sacrifice a maka`ainana under the
> corner office?
>
>
>

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Dave Long]

http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/4/the-history-of-mana-how-an- 
austronesian-concept-became-a-video-game-mechanic


Nice.  I must admit my knowledge is also based more on Michener (and  
travel) than much research, but...


Mana: we can't point to it, or measure it, or count it[0], but  
believe us, if you have it, you'll succeed, and if you fail,  
obviously you either never had it or failed to use it properly[1]...


-Dave

[0] unless, that is, we're charging you per seat ...
[1] what?  didn't you remember to sacrifice a maka`ainana under the  
corner office?

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[ckelty ckelty]

The anthropologist cringes.

see here for a great article on this very issue:

http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/4/the-history-of-mana-how-an-austronesian-concept-became-a-video-game-mechanic

ck



> On Apr 28, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM Vinay Rao  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> The concept of a Universal Comfortable Life (as an inference from Universal
>> Basic Income) is interesting. I'm reminded after long, of this - now old -
>> initially dystopian, and then hopeful story from Marshall Brain.
>> http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
> 
> 
> Any silklister in Infosys top management who can confirm if the article
> shared by Vinay is the inspiration for the name Infosys picked?
> 
> http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate/infosys-launches-artificial-intelligence-platform-mana/52036896
> 
> 
> Kiran
> -- 
> Regards,
> Kiran

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Thaths  wrote:
> "Software services major Infosys has launched an artificial intelligence
> platform 'Mana' that will help clients drive automation and innovation."
>
> WTF does that even mean?!

Tovarisch, please report for reeducation.

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Mohit]

> On 29-Apr-2016, at 16:00, Thaths  wrote:
> 
> "Software services major Infosys has launched an artificial intelligence
> platform 'Mana' that will help clients drive automation and innovation."
> 
> WTF does that even mean?!

Don't you know? Everything a software services major does helps clients drive 
innovation somehow. When they add people, lay off people, launch platforms, 
rebrand themselves, build new campus, buy another firm

And have you noticed: 
they don't start a new line of business, they launch platforms 
They don't help make changes, they drive innovation 
They don't lay off, they rightsize 
They don't start another building, they unveil a campus

"They" in this case are every single big business in the English speaking world!

Sorry for the rants!

Regards,
Mohit

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Thaths]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:28 PM Kiran K Karthikeyan <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any silklister in Infosys top management who can confirm if the article
> shared by Vinay is the inspiration for the name Infosys picked?
>
>
> http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate/infosys-launches-artificial-intelligence-platform-mana/52036896
>
>

"Software services major Infosys has launched an artificial intelligence
platform 'Mana' that will help clients drive automation and innovation."

WTF does that even mean?!

Thaths

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

mana IS polynesian / hawaiian for just what they described - and the only way I 
know is by reading James Michener’s “Hawaii” so I could well be wrong

> On 29-Apr-2016, at 11:58 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan 
>  wrote:
> 
> Any silklister in Infosys top management who can confirm if the article
> shared by Vinay is the inspiration for the name Infosys picked?
> 
> http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate/infosys-launches-artificial-intelligence-platform-mana/52036896

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM Vinay Rao  wrote:

>
>
> The concept of a Universal Comfortable Life (as an inference from Universal
> Basic Income) is interesting. I'm reminded after long, of this - now old -
> initially dystopian, and then hopeful story from Marshall Brain.
> http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm


Any silklister in Infosys top management who can confirm if the article
shared by Vinay is the inspiration for the name Infosys picked?

http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate/infosys-launches-artificial-intelligence-platform-mana/52036896


Kiran
-- 
Regards,
Kiran

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Salil61]

Ford paid his workers well to prevent attrition and buy loyalty and increase 
turnover. The attrition rates were very high and it was costly to train new 
workers. 

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/TefmTO8qxRHryL23mBhiHI/The-perils-of-Fordism-in-India.html

Salil 



Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Mar 2016, at 22:25, Bruce A. Metcalf  wrote:
> 
> Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:
> 
>> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than
>> mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.
> 
>> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
> 
> It's easy to disregard such fearmongering, which has been going on since the 
> horse was replaced by steam power, and which received a boost when computers 
> proved practical. But such fundamental changes do have a remarkable impact on 
> the nature of work, and we do need to work hard to guide those changes into 
> the most desirable option possible.
> 
> We just have to decide which that is.
> 
> The author's call for Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a wise one, and that 
> would be my judgment even if we had no fear of encroaching automation. 
> Separating work from subsistence would permit a new perspective to develop in 
> society, and one I think would ultimately be of great benefit (after the pain 
> of transition wore off).
> 
> But this would require we develop some means of taxing the use of such 
> automation so that governments have the wherewithal to pay for UBI. If it 
> instead is made to ride on the shoulders of those few with high-paying jobs, 
> the structure becomes unsound rather quickly.
> 
> This suggests that UBI will fare far better in countries like Finland where 
> Big Industry and Big Government aren't sleeping with one another. In the US, 
> which is sliding rapidly into an oligarchy, it's quite possible that the 
> self-serving elite will exempt themselves from taxation, eviscerate the 
> movement toward UBI, and utterly impoverish the bulk of society.
> 
> So, we have several options here:
> 
> 1. Make UBI work. The burden of ensuring that corporations pay sufficient tax 
> to keep their nations populace alive will be great, but it's preferable to 
> option 2. If done carefully, this will cushion the blow by increasing the 
> cost of automation while lowering the salary demands of workers. It may well 
> be that automation (and its associated taxation) will prove to have a higher 
> cost than simply hiring humans.
> 
> This is also important because even a fully automated business needs 
> customers, especially in a consumer-driven economy like most of us occupy. 
> Henry Ford was cited for paying his workers more than the prevailing wage so 
> that they could afford to buy his products. Had he not lead the way to higher 
> industrial wages, his enterprise would have foundered for lack of sales. 
> Automated industry must similarly be concerned that even with their economies 
> they do not price themselves above a falling market.
> 
> 2. Don't make UBI work. The result will be vast discrepancies of wealth, with 
> the same social upheaval that's followed every prior instance of such an 
> arrangement. Yes, you could automate a police force and just keep shooting, 
> but would the surviving elite be able to keep the automated systems working 
> with such a small base?
> 
> This structure could also fail of the elite don't build those "robo-cops". In 
> this scenario, the mobs with pitchforks and torches breach the Bastille, 
> destroy the automation (and those who could fix it), and throw society as a 
> whole into another dark age. Widespread death and a greatly reduced 
> population would result.
> 
> 3. Don't make UBI work, but make it not work slowly, and effect a significant 
> reduction in population. China was on the smart road here for some time, but 
> cultural backlash and the growth of their middle class have obliged them to 
> surrender this battle. It is one worth resuming on all fronts, as nearly 
> every woe this world is prey to can be pinned, at some level, on 
> overpopulation. (See Stanley Schmidt on this topic.)
> 
> So either we engineer a new social balance that maintains most of our 
> population, or we suffer from either a deliberate or consequent decimation 
> ... perhaps to a level that cannot sustain what we now consider civilization.
> 
> Like any other tool, automation of jobs can be used for good or bad purposes. 
> Because it is so far-reaching, the care with which it needs to be 
> implemented, and the complexity of the compensating factors is so great, that 
> many will despair of this civilization working through to the end of it all.
> 
> Me, I'm thinking it's time to start stockpiling pitchforks and torches; you 
> never know when they're going to come in handy!
> 
> Cheers,
> Bruce
> 

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Thaths]

Just came across this:

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/technological-unemployment-and-value-of.html

Haven't read them yet, but seems like a lot of interesting things to read
and ponder.

S.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:33 AM Kiran K Karthikeyan <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than
> mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.
>
> Kiran
>
> [1]
>
> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
>
> --
> Regards,
> Kiran
>

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM Vinay Rao  wrote:

> Few of many 'Future of Work' articles that is centred around creating a
> universal basic income. Considering that 70% [Unsure of source, but I have
> read this somewhere] of 'workforce' anywhere are 'disengaged' (bored, for
> one. Tired, for another) or 'actively disengaged' (walk in to a government
> office :)), maybe it is time bots and smart contracts put them out of their
> disengagement misery.
>
> Is it erroneous to think that people cannot be 're-purposed' to life and
>  perform in the modus of their time, to participate in their contemporary
> world, having been released from antiquated tasks, and monotony and the
> meaningless? Once we're removed from mundanities, will the future of work
> be derived from our barely tapped wells of creativity?


You are assuming that the machines will take longer to learn to perform
these tasks so that humans can tap into such creative avenues and create
something of value. I don't think we can assume that given the article.


> At the same time we
> would still need super-specialist developers to create and maintain the
> (march to) technological singularity, and several more to regulate and
> sustain life in the eco/bio/sphere.
>

Before the machines go rogue (singularity), I think what concerns me more
is humans who control the machines going/allowed to go rogue and acting
purely in their self interest. I think this is more likely than the
machines going rogue.


> The concept of a Universal Comfortable Life (as an inference from Universal
> Basic Income) is interesting. I'm reminded after long, of this - now old -
> initially dystopian, and then hopeful story from Marshall Brain.
> http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm


Good read. I don't remember it being covered, but you don't get to save
your credits I'm guessing and everything that can be bought costs less than
1000 credits per week or in total. You also don't get to give credits to
anybody else, on interest or otherwise.

Whether this is a model for Universal Comfortable Life I'm not so sure.
What do you tell the guy who wants to ride on the space elevator all day
alone?

Kiran
-- 
Regards,
Kiran

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Vinay Rao]

Few of many 'Future of Work' articles that is centred around creating a
universal basic income. Considering that 70% [Unsure of source, but I have
read this somewhere] of 'workforce' anywhere are 'disengaged' (bored, for
one. Tired, for another) or 'actively disengaged' (walk in to a government
office :)), maybe it is time bots and smart contracts put them out of their
disengagement misery.

Is it erroneous to think that people cannot be 're-purposed' to life and
 perform in the modus of their time, to participate in their contemporary
world, having been released from antiquated tasks, and monotony and the
meaningless? Once we're removed from mundanities, will the future of work
be derived from our barely tapped wells of creativity? At the same time we
would still need super-specialist developers to create and maintain the
(march to) technological singularity, and several more to regulate and
sustain life in the eco/bio/sphere.

The concept of a Universal Comfortable Life (as an inference from Universal
Basic Income) is interesting. I'm reminded after long, of this - now old -
initially dystopian, and then hopeful story from Marshall Brain.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm





:: Vinay Rao

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than
> mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.
>
> Kiran
>
> [1]
>
> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
>
> --
> Regards,
> Kiran
>

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:55 AM Bruce A. Metcalf 
wrote:


> 1. Make UBI work. The burden of ensuring that corporations pay
> sufficient tax to keep their nations populace alive will be great, but
> it's preferable to option 2. If done carefully, this will cushion the
> blow by increasing the cost of automation while lowering the salary
> demands of workers. It may well be that automation (and its associated
> taxation) will prove to have a higher cost than simply hiring humans.
>
> This is also important because even a fully automated business needs
> customers, especially in a consumer-driven economy like most of us
> occupy. Henry Ford was cited for paying his workers more than the
> prevailing wage so that they could afford to buy his products. Had he
> not lead the way to higher industrial wages, his enterprise would have
> foundered for lack of sales. Automated industry must similarly be
> concerned that even with their economies they do not price themselves
> above a falling market.
>

Assuming there is a straightforward way of figuring out the number of
humans needed to perform the same work at comparable quality and speed,
taxing your way out of this is an obvious solution. Might work for large
developed economies, but developing economies like India would find it
difficult to counter more advanced high quality products from developed
nations.

Wealth and income disparity in India is sustained primarily because of lack
of basic education in the masses, but I don't expect the next generation to
suffer the same handicap. So yes, pitchforks, lots of them.

Perhaps space colonisation might allow something similar to the social
stratification we have today because a lot of them might die on the trip
and sending the precious minds that can maintain such systems over the long
trip given the odds of survival might not make much sense. Perhaps getting
used to zero G and being able to subsist on freeze dried foods might be a
good skill to have - but mostly for the next generation. Those in their 20s
to 40s now are probably screwed, yours truly included.

Kiran
-- 
Regards,
Kiran

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:02 AM Kiran K Karthikeyan <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds
> than mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.
>
> Kiran
>
> [1]
> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9
>
>

If we do beat this, an article I read a while back might point towards what
our future could look like.

https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50#.lj3cdvr20


Kiran
-- 
Regards,
Kiran

Re: [silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Bruce A. Metcalf]

Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:


Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than
mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.



https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9


It's easy to disregard such fearmongering, which has been going on since 
the horse was replaced by steam power, and which received a boost when 
computers proved practical. But such fundamental changes do have a 
remarkable impact on the nature of work, and we do need to work hard to 
guide those changes into the most desirable option possible.


We just have to decide which that is.

The author's call for Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a wise one, and 
that would be my judgment even if we had no fear of encroaching 
automation. Separating work from subsistence would permit a new 
perspective to develop in society, and one I think would ultimately be 
of great benefit (after the pain of transition wore off).


But this would require we develop some means of taxing the use of such 
automation so that governments have the wherewithal to pay for UBI. If 
it instead is made to ride on the shoulders of those few with 
high-paying jobs, the structure becomes unsound rather quickly.


This suggests that UBI will fare far better in countries like Finland 
where Big Industry and Big Government aren't sleeping with one another. 
In the US, which is sliding rapidly into an oligarchy, it's quite 
possible that the self-serving elite will exempt themselves from 
taxation, eviscerate the movement toward UBI, and utterly impoverish the 
bulk of society.


So, we have several options here:

1. Make UBI work. The burden of ensuring that corporations pay 
sufficient tax to keep their nations populace alive will be great, but 
it's preferable to option 2. If done carefully, this will cushion the 
blow by increasing the cost of automation while lowering the salary 
demands of workers. It may well be that automation (and its associated 
taxation) will prove to have a higher cost than simply hiring humans.


This is also important because even a fully automated business needs 
customers, especially in a consumer-driven economy like most of us 
occupy. Henry Ford was cited for paying his workers more than the 
prevailing wage so that they could afford to buy his products. Had he 
not lead the way to higher industrial wages, his enterprise would have 
foundered for lack of sales. Automated industry must similarly be 
concerned that even with their economies they do not price themselves 
above a falling market.


2. Don't make UBI work. The result will be vast discrepancies of wealth, 
with the same social upheaval that's followed every prior instance of 
such an arrangement. Yes, you could automate a police force and just 
keep shooting, but would the surviving elite be able to keep the 
automated systems working with such a small base?


This structure could also fail of the elite don't build those 
"robo-cops". In this scenario, the mobs with pitchforks and torches 
breach the Bastille, destroy the automation (and those who could fix 
it), and throw society as a whole into another dark age. Widespread 
death and a greatly reduced population would result.


3. Don't make UBI work, but make it not work slowly, and effect a 
significant reduction in population. China was on the smart road here 
for some time, but cultural backlash and the growth of their middle 
class have obliged them to surrender this battle. It is one worth 
resuming on all fronts, as nearly every woe this world is prey to can be 
pinned, at some level, on overpopulation. (See Stanley Schmidt on this 
topic.)


So either we engineer a new social balance that maintains most of our 
population, or we suffer from either a deliberate or consequent 
decimation ... perhaps to a level that cannot sustain what we now 
consider civilization.


Like any other tool, automation of jobs can be used for good or bad 
purposes. Because it is so far-reaching, the care with which it needs to 
be implemented, and the complexity of the compensating factors is so 
great, that many will despair of this civilization working through to 
the end of it all.


Me, I'm thinking it's time to start stockpiling pitchforks and torches; 
you never know when they're going to come in handy!


Cheers,
Bruce

[silk] The Need for Guaranteed Basic Income or why Kiran is worried sick

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than
mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night.

Kiran

[1]
https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9

-- 
Regards,
Kiran