No. I was never intending on that either. Servicing automation is going to be the future though. I was just pointing out that it is sad.
Probably one of the safer bets atm and next few decades sure. But even there it will be shortage of jobs I guess.
It should be tried out like any change to the system. In communities/towns/cities. And they are trying it out. And the first results have been favorable.
More importantly and these are smaller steps:
not going to comment on ubi itself, but we better start thinking about things.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
@comp_atkins: Yeah, that and scale of experience. When a fleet of 100 ai controlled cars drive around for an hour, they don't each gain 1 hour of experience. They each gain 100 hours of experience because they upload their data to the cloud and share it.
Once a specific ai is deployed on a large scale it can gain hundreds of years of experience in a matter of months.
Not going to work............
It's great they are testing it out, I think we need to think outside the box to solve current problems and issues we might have in our society.
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
there is both invention and working with established techniques. the latter would obviously be the easiest candidates for automation and in fact already is. there is a LOT of automation in our tools already taking the place of thousands of man-hours of work, particularly on the physical design side of things ( sizing of transistors on the chip, determining where they should be placed optimally, routing wires, etc.. ). while the software isn't a learning dnn or anything like that, it is already vastly better than a person because it can do the job "good enough" for 99% of what it needs to work on in a fraction of the time. you can't design a chip w/ 1B+ transistors without the aid of automation.
also, there are AI systems now that can generate, train, and modify other AI systems to outperform systems designed by humans alone
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/05/using-machine-learning-to-explore.html
You need a certain base amount to survive. Simple fact. 500 dollars would go a long way to doing that. Rent, groceries, utilities, car payments and upkeep...combined with a low-income job, an extra $500 would be incredible.
Furthermore, if it's a straight 500-dollar payment, then it's a straight 500-dollar payment; there won't be any corporate favoritism as with food stamps (i.e. here's your government contract, Kraft, now go make some terrible products for poor people) or other things we've tried in the past.
I think we should raise taxes on corporations 2% to finance this since they are often the ones paying people too little to survive through hard work.
Basically people get paid a stipend per month supposedly to raise them out of poverty. They are experimenting with it in Stockton, CA at this time. 500$ per month to select families.
It's been done elsewhere, but I dont know what the data or results show. I suppose it's like welfare plus. Interesting, but is it tenable and does it work?
Socialist pipe dream that fails humanity on the ground floor.
Mediocrity only benefits the mediocre not the people who have the abilities and strength to become better.
The majority of the world is mediocre, so this would benefit a lot of people who need assistance. You shouldn't have to be incredible smart or talented to live well in the United States. And that's how it used to be; people could work as a mailman and support a stay-at-home wife and two kids, afford house payments, and buy a new car every five years.
Those with the abilities and strengths to become better often simply become better. Nothing will stop that.
Not sure how helping people out somehow cripples people that are destined for bigger and better things.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
are you absolutely positive you got your facts right?
because currently as we speak robotics is seeing an uptick like no other era. more over, AI solutions surprisingly affect all different types of professions including Law and Doctors.
The problem with the 'socialism' claim you made in another post is that the system we are in, and the parts of the system you likely support are what is called corporate socialism. so that appears to work well dont you think?
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
there is both invention and working with established techniques. the latter would obviously be the easiest candidates for automation and in fact already is. there is a LOT of automation in our tools already taking the place of thousands of man-hours of work, particularly on the physical design side of things ( sizing of transistors on the chip, determining where they should be placed optimally, routing wires, etc.. ). while the software isn't a learning dnn or anything like that, it is already vastly better than a person because it can do the job "good enough" for 99% of what it needs to work on in a fraction of the time. you can't design a chip w/ 1B+ transistors without the aid of automation.
also, there are AI systems now that can generate, train, and modify other AI systems to outperform systems designed by humans alone
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/05/using-machine-learning-to-explore.html
That link is to an early stage and nowhere near as advanced as you would make it seem out to be.
And again AI is at a early stage, it will help with menial tasks but there is still humans behind.
You need a certain base amount to survive. Simple fact. 500 dollars would go a long way to doing that. Rent, groceries, utilities, car payments and upkeep...combined with a low-income job, an extra $500 would be incredible.
Furthermore, if it's a straight 500-dollar payment, then it's a straight 500-dollar payment; there won't be any corporate favoritism as with food stamps (i.e. here's your government contract, Kraft, now go make some terrible products for poor people) or other things we've tried in the past.
I think we should raise taxes on corporations 2% to finance this since they are often the ones paying people too little to survive through hard work.
Basically people get paid a stipend per month supposedly to raise them out of poverty. They are experimenting with it in Stockton, CA at this time. 500$ per month to select families.
It's been done elsewhere, but I dont know what the data or results show. I suppose it's like welfare plus. Interesting, but is it tenable and does it work?
Socialist pipe dream that fails humanity on the ground floor.
Mediocrity only benefits the mediocre not the people who have the abilities and strength to become better.
The majority of the world is mediocre, so this would benefit a lot of people who need assistance. You shouldn't have to be incredible smart or talented to live well in the United States. And that's how it used to be; people could work as a mailman and support a stay-at-home wife and two kids, afford house payments, and buy a new car every five years.
Those with the abilities and strengths to become better often simply become better. Nothing will stop that.
Not sure how helping people out somehow cripples people that are destined for bigger and better things.
America is not mediocre and we should not feed the world´s people and allow for any more incentive for people who do not benefit society as a whole, to come.
Also, you don't have to be incredibly smart or talented to live, all you need is strive for more, and that is another reason for this not to work, some people need hardship to strive and if they suddenly don´t have the incentive to work as hard, well they get stuck in the mediocrity.
And then there is the whole cost part, But if you can get Soros or Bezos to pay for it, then let´s go for it,
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
I believe that has been studied somewhat. It showed that most people would do nothing. Not harm one person to save 5 others or so.
Can't find the study of course Damn it.
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
I believe that has been studied somewhat. It showed that most people would do nothing. Not harm one person to save 5 others or so.
Can't find the study of course Damn it.
Oh, it was more a reference to the AI´s response.
https://qz.com/1204395/self-driving-cars-trolley-problem-philosophers-are-building-ethical-algorithms-to-solve-the-problem/
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
I believe that has been studied somewhat. It showed that most people would do nothing. Not harm one person to save 5 others or so.
Can't find the study of course Damn it.
Oh, it was more a reference to the AI´s response.
https://qz.com/1204395/self-driving-cars-trolley-problem-philosophers-are-building-ethical-algorithms-to-solve-the-problem/
on what you guys are talking about a little intresting side fact.
There currently exists factories that are robotic that create robots
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
It's already here
Fanuc's robots not only build themselves, they also teach themselves.
The future of mankind is where there are no jobs. Everything is done by machines. To that end, some kind of base income is needed. It won't happen in our lifetime, but it will happen eventually.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
there is both invention and working with established techniques. the latter would obviously be the easiest candidates for automation and in fact already is. there is a LOT of automation in our tools already taking the place of thousands of man-hours of work, particularly on the physical design side of things ( sizing of transistors on the chip, determining where they should be placed optimally, routing wires, etc.. ). while the software isn't a learning dnn or anything like that, it is already vastly better than a person because it can do the job "good enough" for 99% of what it needs to work on in a fraction of the time. you can't design a chip w/ 1B+ transistors without the aid of automation.
also, there are AI systems now that can generate, train, and modify other AI systems to outperform systems designed by humans alone
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/05/using-machine-learning-to-explore.html
That link is to an early stage and nowhere near as advanced as you would make it seem out to be.
And again AI is at a early stage, it will help with menial tasks but there is still humans behind.
the point of the article is that the system itself designed the nn architecture rather than a human doing it w/ results at least as good as those designed by experts
"...our approach can design models that achieve accuracies on par with state-of-art models designed by machine learning experts (including some on our own team!)."
"...suggesting that the machine-chosen architecture was able to discover a useful new neural net architecture."
the second part is important. the machine-generated architectures may actually point humans in new directions, again for a very specific task.
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think the idea of Lazyness as a possible good attribute is one that instinctive gets ignored.
sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think the idea of Lazyness as a possible good attribute is one that instinctive gets ignored.
sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something
Are people who play the lottery being productive or are they just too lazy to work?
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think the idea of Lazyness as a possible good attribute is one that instinctive gets ignored.
sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something
Are people who play the lottery being productive or are they just too lazy to work?
the way I see it is this.
If robots and AI can do most of the work for us, why should we go out of our way to try and find something so called 'productive' to do?
work for the random sake of staying busy really isnt good. if it has a positive outcome that is reasonably measured as making life actually better then ok, otherwise why bother?
My value system is a bit different from most people, by that I mean, I dont consider being able to have a granite counter top instead of a plain formica counter top to be a life improvement, nor do I see having a second bedroom to be a life improvement, I do see quality walking shoes however to have value. My point being its not just 'more money means you can buy more stuff which means your life is better'. nope same is true for 'paying for experiences' most of those 'pay for experiences' are bullshit. hell sometimes just a nap in a hammock is the way to go
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think the idea of Lazyness as a possible good attribute is one that instinctive gets ignored.
sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something
Are people who play the lottery being productive or are they just too lazy to work?
the way I see it is this.
If robots and AI can do most of the work for us, why should we go out of our way to try and find something so called 'productive' to do?
work for the random sake of staying busy really isnt good. if it has a positive outcome that is reasonably measured as making life actually better then ok, otherwise why bother?
My value system is a bit different from most people, by that I mean, I dont consider being able to have a granite counter top instead of a plain formica counter top to be a life improvement, nor do I see having a second bedroom to be a life improvement, I do see quality walking shoes however to have value. My point being its not just 'more money means you can buy more stuff which means your life is better'. nope same is true for 'paying for experiences' most of those 'pay for experiences' are bullshit. hell sometimes just a nap in a hammock is the way to go
Oh, I agree. I guess it boils down to perspective. A person relaxing can be seen as taking a break or being lazy. I know, because I use to be in that dilemma at work until I realized that if you're not working to be productive, you need to stop.
And when I started taking off days, I found myself being productive during the rest of the week and not being constantly tired and pissed off at everyone.
Socialism doesn't work.
Give me atleast 10 valid reasons, each paired with scholarly research
I honestly support this with the advent of AI and robots. I work i the psychology field so I wonder how my job would be effected, their are a lot of behavioral specialists being brought into the AI field.....interesting times to be alive gentlemen.
Socialism doesn't work.
Give me atleast 10 valid reasons, each paired with scholarly research
Multiple failed economies and states. The current ones are switching over to a hybrid system. This isn't college, you don't need a paper to see shit doesn't work in the real world.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
It's already here
Fanuc's robots not only build themselves, they also teach themselves.
The future of mankind is where there are no jobs. Everything is done by machines. To that end, some kind of base income is needed. It won't happen in our lifetime, but it will happen eventually.
That future is not one you or i or even our kids grandkids will even see.
And that plant is menial tasks as I said.
But have them perform actual jobs where people have to think, well as I said not in our lifetime.
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
When I was born JFK was alive and the President. I am an executive in a Fortune 1000 business with multiple advanced degrees. I have approx. 8,000 people that work for me. I am very familiar with technology and the pace of change.
Dr. Watson is already employed. Google is your friend.
Ever been to a shipping port? Virtually everything is automated and what used to employ many people no longer does. Same thing is going to happen with transportation.
You haven't thought about this so you go to private light duty vehicles....driving to work....which is obviously a more complex situation that requires not just the cars and s/w but mass deployment of 5G networks.
That isn't where this is going to dominate first. Trains, subways, light rail, dedicated bus routes, private fleets on private property. I took the fully automated train from the airport to downtown Copenhagen last year. There are close to a million driving jobs in N America on private property that never leave the fence line. That is where it will start. I should know since my own company will be eliminating driving positions in the next decade.
It will happen in most people's lifetime that post on this board.
Also if you want to bet, bear in mind your total net worth is likely equivalent to pocket change for me. But pls, do continue to tell me where business is going. I know it is going to eliminate human mental labour just like physical labour first chance it gets.
I think Namibia tried it with a couple of its own towns a couple of years ago and it helped lower child malnutrition, crime, and it contradicted the claim that it would lead to laziness. UBI has worked but how certain countries have implemented it, didn't work.
When you think about it, people already get money for education (financial aid), food (food stamps), subsidies and so on. It's just that those programs are restricted, bureaucratic, or just not effective. The UBI, if implemented correctly, is just less restrictive and people get spend how they see fit. That and if you think people will stop working because of UBI, you're a fool. People get welfare and subsidies and still work.
Never realized Milton Freidman supports the idea or at least a negative income tax.
It's a long way to go though. Good concept but it won't see much support.
I think the idea of Lazyness as a possible good attribute is one that instinctive gets ignored.
sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something
Are people who play the lottery being productive or are they just too lazy to work?
Pretty sure a lot of that money goes to schools, so productive.
It is inevitable for the reasons others have given.
Also, it has been a number of years since 'Humans need not apply' was created and we see evidence of the predicted developments around us now. While we often over estimate the speed of technology change, we also greatly underestimate the degree and pervasiveness of the change.
For instance, IBM Dr. Watson is already employed in a number of fields. It will soon exceed human ability to diagnose cancer. This is because it has read every paper, scientific study, etc. written about the subject. It already crushes human pharmacists because it understands the drug interactions of every drug with every other drug. It goes on. Watson is not theory anymore. It already has jobs...that once were done by humans.
Humans won't repair or service robots.....other robots/AI will do that. And it doesn't require every job to be lost to make a huge societal impact. This is coming in your lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but how much are you willing to put on the line? because no place on earth will see any of the above in even the next generations lifetime.
And as to "self-driving" cars well sure it has come some way but it has still not managed to remove the human interaction nor the need for a human, which Uber clearly showed with their test., not to mention the "idiot" who killed himself because he assumed what you did and never paid attention to the road.
And then there is the whole ethical question, IE the whole "would you push one person in front of the train to save 1000."
But keep believing, after all, people still believe in god and fairy tales.
When I was born JFK was alive and the President. I am an executive in a Fortune 1000 business with multiple advanced degrees. I have approx. 8,000 people that work for me. I am very familiar with technology and the pace of change.
Dr. Watson is already employed. Google is your friend.
Ever been to a shipping port? Virtually everything is automated and what used to employ many people no longer does. Same thing is going to happen with transportation.
You haven't thought about this so you go to private light duty vehicles....driving to work....which is obviously a more complex situation that requires not just the cars and s/w but mass deployment of 5G networks.
That isn't where this is going to dominate first. Trains, subways, light rail, dedicated bus routes, private fleets on private property. I took the fully automated train from the airport to downtown Copenhagen last year. There are close to a million driving jobs in N America on private property that never leave the fence line. That is where it will start. I should know since my own company will be eliminating driving positions in the next decade.
It will happen in most people's lifetime that post on this board.
Also if you want to bet, bear in mind your total net worth is likely equivalent to pocket change for me. But pls, do continue to tell me where business is going. I know it is going to eliminate human mental labour just like physical labour first chance it gets.
Nice troll post.
But obvious trolling is just well, obvious.
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
So far I do not see a lot of promise in the American educational system, to make it plausible that we will adapt.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
So you replaced menial jobs with AI, that is kinda good news, except the plants are in a 3rd world nation where education is a town in Russia.
But just to be clear I do not doubt the menial jobs are going away.
@Jacanuk: Are you saying I wasn't born when JFK was alive? Cause I discussed that with AFBrat years ago on this board. Are you saying I haven't posted on this board many times on business, economics and the like? Because many people going back to the Coolbeans time used to thank me for my insights. Are you saying that I haven't posted extensively on all things energy, transportation, and to some degree technology for years?
I post here almost entirely because occasionally a reader gets something. It's giving back. And sadly I am a middle aged video game fan where my hobby is not exactly something I can share with my work peers or friends.
I'll check to see if the image of the first game I ever played is still loaded on my profile.
Edit: Must be gone since the site changeover. But it was a glorious green screen shot of Star Trek played on mini computers in the 70s where you play as E for Enterprise and K is for Klingons and stars are **** symbols. I really am that old :)
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
So far I do not see a lot of promise in the American educational system, to make it plausible that we will adapt.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
So you replaced menial jobs with AI, that is kinda good news, except the plants are in a 3rd world nation where education is a town in Russia.
But just to be clear I do not doubt the menial jobs are going away.
LOL, I love how you dismiss a borderline six figure job, of which the focus is continual improvement of plant operations through analysis and design, a menial job.
Are you just going to lump everything that can be automated into the category of "menial jobs?"
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
So far I do not see a lot of promise in the American educational system, to make it plausible that we will adapt.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
So you replaced menial jobs with AI, that is kinda good news, except the plants are in a 3rd world nation where education is a town in Russia.
But just to be clear I do not doubt the menial jobs are going away.
Also, I laugh at this. Analysis is apparently now menial.
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
So far I do not see a lot of promise in the American educational system, to make it plausible that we will adapt.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
So you replaced menial jobs with AI, that is kinda good news, except the plants are in a 3rd world nation where education is a town in Russia.
But just to be clear I do not doubt the menial jobs are going away.
LOL, I love how you dismiss a borderline six figure job, of which the focus is continual improvement of plant operations through analysis and design, a menial job.
Are you just going to lump everything that can be automated into the category of "menial jobs?"
six figure? you mean six figures in reals?
And those jobs couldn´t be too hard since you replaced it with an AI. Not to mention the company placed it in Brazil.
@Jacanuk: Are you saying I wasn't born when JFK was alive? Cause I discussed that with AFBrat years ago on this board. Are you saying I haven't posted on this board many times on business, economics and the like? Because many people going back to the Coolbeans time used to thank me for my insights. Are you saying that I haven't posted extensively on all things energy, transportation, and to some degree technology for years?
I post here almost entirely because occasionally a reader gets something. It's giving back. And sadly I am a middle aged video game fan where my hobby is not exactly something I can share with my work peers or friends.
I'll check to see if the image of the first game I ever played is still loaded on my profile.
Edit: Must be gone since the site changeover. But it was a glorious green screen shot of Star Trek played on mini computers in the 70s where you play as E for Enterprise and K is for Klingons and stars are **** symbols. I really am that old :)
I am saying that you are full of hot air.
And if you really were born in the 50 ´s, I wonder what you are doing on a site like this.
For those concerned about the AI developments, there's a slip side to the situation. We're potentially looking at a significant loss of the world's workforce (about 1/3). That, in a vacuum, will result in a slower growth economy putting pressure on asset returns, inflation, and the solvency of retirement programs. The addition of AI "workers" could increase that growth via additional productivity gains thereby alleviating many of those pressures, although it would also likely require a significant change in taxation and expenditures (for instance, taxes like FICA taxes will likely need to shift to encompass capital gains rather than just capped labor gains).
Increased productivity is a great thing! We shouldn't fear it as it has the capability to make everyone's life better. Literally everyone's.
Unless, of course, we fail to adapt and leave a portion of the population behind.
So far I do not see a lot of promise in the American educational system, to make it plausible that we will adapt.
@Jacanuk: We replaced our plant logistics managers in Brazil with a central AI and a few dozen IoT sensors. Those managers' jobs were to analyze how production is done at the plant and come up with ways to do it more efficiently.
The program went swimmingly, and we're now rolling it out worldwide. The rest of SA is next, then NA, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
So you replaced menial jobs with AI, that is kinda good news, except the plants are in a 3rd world nation where education is a town in Russia.
But just to be clear I do not doubt the menial jobs are going away.
LOL, I love how you dismiss a borderline six figure job, of which the focus is continual improvement of plant operations through analysis and design, a menial job.
Are you just going to lump everything that can be automated into the category of "menial jobs?"
six figure? you mean six figures in reals?
And those jobs couldn´t be too hard since you replaced it with an AI. Not to mention the company placed it in Brazil.
dude.. just accept you were wrong. it's ok.
it's how we learn.
brain jobs that are highly regulated such as legal services, doctors can be replaced with AI.
in fact, doctors already can be automated completely. all the do is read the chart from the tests and then tell you what is what from information that is in medical documentations. that can be programmed.
@tryit: If they didn't serve as an artificial gateway to prescription medication and specialists, general practitioners would have been automated by a web app and a handful of sensors already.
yes...
which is why when it comes to AI the jobs at risk are not related to amount of education. it all depends mostly only how well the tasks can be defined.
so I would think creative jobs are less at risk but in general everyone is
@Jacanuk: In dollars, of course.
What does the location in Brazil have to do with anything?
Hmm, ok
And Brazil is not exactly a rich country, so companies move there to save wages and save $$$ on all the annoying regulations in a more modern country.
also, on the AI side. i think people are getting confused on things.
current AI is a specialized tool that is good at performing very specific task. to claim that jobs are safe because there is no such thing as an effective general purpose AI is a misunderstanding in my opinion.
as an example, i design computer chips for a living. if a ai system is to replace my job, all it needs to do is be cheaper and at least as good as i am at doing that specific job. it doesn't need to know how to drive a car or make a lunch or raise a child or figure out personal finances or any of the 30,000 other things i need to do to be an effective human being. it just needs to be good at that singular task.
a fully general purpose AI that can easily learn and do those 30,000 different tasks, while an interesting idea and perhaps decades away ( if that ), is not what will eliminate those jobs. 30,000 individual AIs that have been trained to do those very specific tasks better and cheaper than humans may.
Do you "invent" computer chips or do you simply go by an already established set format?
AI may replace the menial jobs, but the AI is at least 100-200 years away from even being a point where it´s also able to expand beyond its programming or be "better" than humans.
Humans create AI, AI do not create itself nor does it have the ability to do anything without someone telling it to, Same goes for the jobs. Which also has a cost factor, why spend millions on an advanced computer system when you can get 100 Chinese kids or 100 Mexicans for a 1/1000000000th of the cost.
Man you are way off, its coming in our life times, assuming you aren't 65 or so. It will be governed into existence.
My eldest wants to be a veterinarian, and it pains me to know that in the 20 - 25 years that will take to be of age to have earned that discipline, that job will likely be done by a robot.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment