U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-24-2015, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Moku Nui, Hawaii
9,316 posts, read 17,956,414 times
Reputation: 7980

Advertisements

It's more or less inevitable that AI will outpace humans. Humans can't evolve fast enough and artificial intelligence can be updated i.e. "evolved" while in use. Stephen Hawkings mentioned something about humans inability to evolve fast enough although I can't remember the details at this moment.

With robots doing all the work and with enough resources to go around, the sticking point would be how to equitably distribute the output from the robots. Look around yourself at the amount of sheer wealth and possessions you have and consider what the normal level of possessions would have been five hundred years ago. In the 1500's more than one or two changes of clothing would have been out of reach of most of humanity. What about in the 1600's? 1700's? Okay, make it a mere 100 years ago, in 1915. That would have been more or less one or two generations from the start of the industrial revolution but folks still had a whole lot less of just sheer possessions than they do now but a lot more possessions than several generations before them did. They had more mostly because a lot of the production was automated. So now, about a hundred years later, the automated process has been extremely advanced, so will everyone now have abundance?

If the folks with the robots are going to get lots of money, they have to somehow get money to the people who are going to consume the output from the robots. Will everyone get a certain monthly stipend just for being human?

As for the infertility aspect, anyone read Dan Brown's "Inferno"? That solves the over population problem rather nicely. Does anyone remember when overpopulation used to be the "climate change"? Used to be that what was going to destroy the earth.

I also read somewhere that McD's was considering replacing most of their workforce with robots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2015, 03:32 AM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 2,947,722 times
Reputation: 8439
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotzcatz View Post
It's more or less inevitable that AI will outpace humans. Humans can't evolve fast enough and artificial intelligence can be updated i.e. "evolved" while in use. Stephen Hawkings mentioned something about humans inability to evolve fast enough although I can't remember the details at this moment.
You can't remember the details at this moment? If you were a robot, you could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:07 AM
 
Location: NYC
11,824 posts, read 7,699,774 times
Reputation: 12814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
This will displace an enormous amount of jobs, and, quite frankly, create sustained unemployment levels not seen in decades. But it will occur, as there simply is no logical reason not to utilize every tool to improve efficiency and, with it, operating profits.

We were covered well in prior periods of rapid change as wants created more jobs than technology wiped out, but the wants that do not exist yet can likely be produced, via technology, barely creating a ripple of new jobs, while automation will yes, wipe out most of our top quantity types of 2015's jobs.
What will you do or the govt do when the pitchforks show up? Technology can wipe out outdated jobs but what will society do to keep people busy?

The rich depend on people working for them, they must keep creating jobs. When they stop creating jobs, people will come for them.

Which is why the govt will become the largest employer in this country and anyone not working for the govt will pay an even larger share of the tax burden in time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Yes, moral judgement is key here. For example, I would want a sentient being with emotions to make the decision to take a human life NOT a machine.
So I guess judge's jobs will be safe for awhile.

Quote:
That's the future. We expand into space. And the automation will need human oversight. The human oversight will have to be local due to the speed of light. Plus humans will be present because they will be populating the solar system. Terraforming Mars, Terraforming Venus (or possibly just living in the clouds of venus, which have earth air pressure and temperature, and Earth's atmosphere is buoyant there), living in the Jovian and Saturnian moons, etc.
That would be cool, but unfortunately it isn't going to happen soon. There are some new scientific breakthroughs that would be necessary, mainly a way to get mass off the planet for a reasonably low energy cost or anti-gravity. It's easy for people to just say they exist in sci-fi, but in reality they may never happen.

Plus we'd already need a very mature and developed robotic culture on earth first, so we will face the issues associated with that long before we go off planet. I also don't believe that the robots will need very much human oversight (if any) by that time. If the people ruling the planet needed more humans then, they'd just grow genetically enhanced and modified ones in labs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotzcatz View Post
If the folks with the robots are going to get lots of money, they have to somehow get money to the people who are going to consume the output from the robots. Will everyone get a certain monthly stipend just for being human?
I don't know if you read my OP, but I covered that issue. In a nutshell, consumer-capitalism will be dead at that point and there will no longer be a reason for the wealthy to care about consumer buying power. From their standpoint anything the "useless" humans get will be a waste of resources. Unless our democratic institutions are strong enough to prevent it, we will face a declining living standard and a reduced population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
The rich depend on people working for them, they must keep creating jobs.
It will no longer be true. Again, I covered that in the OP. It's actually the reason I brought up this topic in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
Will the war be fought by robots? Robots, controlled by the wealthy elite, at war with desperate humans who have nothing but their own numbers and primitive weapons? What if the robots win? Is that how the population is likely to be reduced to the level considered optimal for the wealthy elite? 99% of the human race will die in a war against robots, the robots will win, and their wealthy masters will then consider most of the problems of the world solved? No more overpopulation, no more global warming caused by too many people and their factories and vehicles polluting too much, no more overcrowded roads and malls, no more polluted rivers, lakes, and oceans, no more massive deforestation, none of those problems, but just paradise on Earth for the survivors, the wealthy elite?
I believe they will do whatever is necessary to prevent the destructiveness and danger of war. A more efficient way to reduce population would be a targeted virus that the favored few are inoculated against. But even that would be too dangerous I feel.

More likely we simply transition to living very differently on our low stipend. They don't really need us dead, they just don't want to waste too many resources on us. We may live in small dwellings (pods?) where we are hooked up to virtual reality equipment, and that is how we will experience existence and communicate and interact with others. We are already well on our way, just with smart phone, the internet, and Oculus Rift. If a way is developed to get full sensory feedback then I believe most people will *prefer* that existence to anything else available to them.

The amount of resources a person would consume and the amount of waste and pollution they'd create would be a tiny fraction of what is typical now. With the incentive to procreate and raise children absent, the population would reduce to whatever the leaders wished within a few generations, and in the meantime it would not cost that much to keep the useless humans alive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,051 posts, read 11,460,740 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
No, the speed of Intel chips has levelled off since 2003:

The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software
The next generation of computers will not use a CPU at all. Instead it will use active memory, where computations, connections and storage are handled together.

The current issue of SciAm has an article on this. It is well enough advanced that it has reached the popular science stage. The reason so many scientists are talking about AI is that it is finally coming into reach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,051 posts, read 11,460,740 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Off hand,

jobs that cannot be roboticized: plumber, electrician, handyman, taxi driver, most kinds of repair work.

jobs that will lead to reduced human participation: order taker, food server, house painter, lawn mower

jobs that will enhance human productivity even more: architect, stockbroker, politician, schoolteacher

There are probably many more that you folks can come up with ...
It would be much easier to automate a stock broker than a house painter. As for architects, computers started cutting the legs out from under that profession a generation ago. Autocad, anyone? There are no rooms full of draftsmen re-drawing plans any more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: NYC
11,824 posts, read 7,699,774 times
Reputation: 12814
There's too much exaggeration and theories that have not align with realities yet. The reason why people have jobs today because we create dependencies that allow people to hold their jobs.

Why do we have managers? Aren't they the easiest to automate? They are nothing but reminders, alarm clocks, time keepers, and task managers.

The reason why managers still have jobs because they have more leverage in the food chain than others even though they can be easily discarded.

That's why the whole notion that robotics or automation is only theories. I have seen large groups of people being displaced by automation then another large group of people hired just to maintain the automation.

What's the net gain/loss?

We have not seen software that can self-healing, make all decisions big and small and self-evolving yet. I don't think the programmers are ready to take their jobs away yet.

There is not one small demographics that can handle all the work, there is one small group that holds all the money and does not perform any work they reap the benefits of monetary policies not from automations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top