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.
I can give you many examples where information technology is dropping in price as its the rule not the exception. That will not only continue but accelerate in the next decade.
I know my TV will not only drop on price but be obsolete in a short time. That will accelerate as well with new technologies coming out in the next 10 years.
But television is not a necessity. If you get into the necessities, you'll find a different story. Rents have been sky-rocketing the last two years. They have here, as I know, and New York Times had an article indicating that this is true all over the country. Food prices are rising. Utilities the same. Insurance premiums, also. Postage keeps going up, penny by penny. Telephone. Funny how my phone bill goes up a penny or three at a time, every few months. Like they think I won't notice. Never real dollars but It goes up. It has risen from $23 to $40 in five years. And that's just a basic land line with no added frills. Shoes? A good, well fitting, built-to-last pair will cost over $100, maybe $200. Cars have become a luxury while public transportation keeps getting cut back because people who do own cars vote "no" on any bond issue to increase bus service. Then, there's the cost of gas. Air conditioning? A lot of people can't afford a fan, let alone AC. We object to them hanging out in shopping malls but that's the only way they have to keep cool in summer.
Get into the basic necessities and see what you see. We can do without the idiot box but we have to eat and pay rent and utilities, if nothing else. The trouble with the "haves" is that they only look at what they have and what goodie is coming next.
Sorry. I'm getting carried away here. Not meaning to be a scold. I am fortunate to have what I need but I can't forget those who haven't. Been there, done that. I'm afraid I don't get enthused by anyone's $2,000 mind-numbing tv set. Give us some real numbers.
When I read on the news some billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are donating their money to charity and to help solve problems like malaria and other illnesses in poor countries. Then I have to stop believing what they're doing with the money is really charitable in the grand scheme of things.
If someone rich billionaire really wants to help society, they could work on AI to influence society provided that people and politics can be shaped by it. It's either a society dictated by mega corps with Skynet like AI machines or a government utilizing AI to automate society and provide resources to the citizens and promote science and technology to further advance our race.
I'm more inclined to believe that AI will be created and enabled big business to become a mega corp entity that owns and runs everything in our world.
Jobs? Really? Why would anyone even need a job if AI and bots provide everything? If AI will be greater than the combined knowledge of all people, there wouldn't be a need for people to learn anything or work, which you predict the world will be changed forever by 2030.
Going back to what I actually asked, and what jtur asked as well, which was in response to your predictions about competitiveness which you keep sidestepping. You've said yourself that not everyone will choose to have brain implants that are hooked up to an AI system. You've also said that governments or anyone else should not force anyone to merge with technology. The word technology is an extremely broad term, but in this case, it's understood that you mean it in the sense technology as it pertains to humans with brain implants that are linked up to an AI information network.
So regarding the competition aspect, a competition involves winners and losers. In this case, it involves people who choose to "merge with technology" and people who choose not to. My question to you was essentially would those who choose to merge be better and superior to those who choose not to merge?
Trying to use an example of a college degree is not an answer to the question. You've indicated that people can choose to merge or not. So what happens to those who do not merge? Now you're saying, "...it will be possible for everyone to merge with the technology if they choose too. Now I understand that not everyone will want to merge with the technology but honestly I think it will be increasingly hard for people who choose not too."
Ultimately, at least according to your view, if it would be increasingly hard for people to choose not to merge, then essentially it boils down to the system that either actively or passively forces people to merge whether they want to or not. That starts opening a big can of worms that encourages segregation, violates human rights and promotes social equality. A big step backwards that further divides humanity rather than uniting it. I suspect you feel those who merge will be better and superior to those who choose not to merge, and that those who don't merge will be destined to face extinction. According to what you previously said, "AI will be one reason humans will have to change because we will not be able to survive if we do not."
And those who decide to merge will be able to blissfully chant, "All hail the Master AI System with whom we have gratefully merged with! Long live the new flesh!"
I'm not against advancing technology. It can be pretty convenient. But I think the way you describe many of your speculative views aren't always very well thought out.
But television is not a necessity. If you get into the necessities, you'll find a different story. Rents have been sky-rocketing the last two years. They have here, as I know, and New York Times had an article indicating that this is true all over the country. Food prices are rising. Utilities the same. Insurance premiums, also. Postage keeps going up, penny by penny. Telephone. Funny how my phone bill goes up a penny or three at a time, every few months. Like they think I won't notice. Never real dollars but It goes up. It has risen from $23 to $40 in five years. And that's just a basic land line with no added frills. Shoes? A good, well fitting, built-to-last pair will cost over $100, maybe $200. Cars have become a luxury while public transportation keeps getting cut back because people who do own cars vote "no" on any bond issue to increase bus service. Then, there's the cost of gas. Air conditioning? A lot of people can't afford a fan, let alone AC. We object to them hanging out in shopping malls but that's the only way they have to keep cool in summer.
Get into the basic necessities and see what you see. We can do without the idiot box but we have to eat and pay rent and utilities, if nothing else. The trouble with the "haves" is that they only look at what they have and what goodie is coming next.
Sorry. I'm getting carried away here. Not meaning to be a scold. I am fortunate to have what I need but I can't forget those who haven't. Been there, done that. I'm afraid I don't get enthused by anyone's $2,000 mind-numbing tv set. Give us some real numbers.
Most of the things you just described are not a form of information technology and thus can not be predicted and will go up (inflation). Plus it does depend where you live. Here in Pueblo prices have not gone up that much. Then again we are one of the most affordable cities to live in the nation.
One exception is energy. While lately the cost has been going up the long term trends on solar is prices are dropping and fast. In fact I read that by 2035 we will have near free energy. Sounds crazy but its all based on how solar is a form of information technology and is advancing exponentially. This is all things that Hawkings does not take into account. Sure life will not be perfect, it never is or will be, but it is getting better.
Jobs? Really? Why would anyone even need a job if AI and bots provide everything? If AI will be greater than the combined knowledge of all people, there wouldn't be a need for people to learn anything or work, which you predict the world will be changed forever by 2030.
Going back to what I actually asked, and what jtur asked as well, which was in response to your predictions about competitiveness which you keep sidestepping. You've said yourself that not everyone will choose to have brain implants that are hooked up to an AI system. You've also said that governments or anyone else should not force anyone to merge with technology. The word technology is an extremely broad term, but in this case, it's understood that you mean it in the sense technology as it pertains to humans with brain implants that are linked up to an AI information network.
So regarding the competition aspect, a competition involves winners and losers. In this case, it involves people who choose to "merge with technology" and people who choose not to. My question to you was essentially would those who choose to merge be better and superior to those who choose not to merge?
Trying to use an example of a college degree is not an answer to the question. You've indicated that people can choose to merge or not. So what happens to those who do not merge? Now you're saying, "...it will be possible for everyone to merge with the technology if they choose too. Now I understand that not everyone will want to merge with the technology but honestly I think it will be increasingly hard for people who choose not too."
Ultimately, at least according to your view, if it would be increasingly hard for people to choose not to merge, then essentially it boils down to the system that either actively or passively forces people to merge whether they want to or not. That starts opening a big can of worms that encourages segregation, violates human rights and promotes social equality. A big step backwards that further divides humanity rather than uniting it. I suspect you feel those who merge will be better and superior to those who choose not to merge, and that those who don't merge will be destined to face extinction. According to what you previously said, "AI will be one reason humans will have to change because we will not be able to survive if we do not."
And those who decide to merge will be able to blissfully chant, "All hail the Master AI System with whom we have gratefully merged with! Long live the new flesh!"
I'm not against advancing technology. It can be pretty convenient. But I think the way you describe many of your speculative views aren't always very well thought out.
I would never say that people who choose to merge with the technology are better then people who do not. Now they will be more intelligent and have access to more knowledge and will be able to keep up with how fast technology will be advancing by then.
From reading your post I thought of the Amish and maybe they are a better example. They choose to live without modern technology and from what little I have seen about them they seem to be happy. Maybe in the future you will have pockets of people who choose to form communities and live their lives without merging with technology or having AI. However this is where we start to get into the social sciences and is something that can not be predicted.
AI is going to be thinking for itself no further human input will be needed, it may start off with some defined directives but when it thinks its course of action is superior to its original programming is where it starts getting interesting..
You are RIGHT and WRONG in a way.
AI wont need human input. But there will not be any "Humans" anymore. It will be a total and seamless merger between Humans and AI --> say a Humanity 2.0
I would urge you to read Ray Kruzweil's writings on this subject - he is quite clear about the possible course of humanity, just before and right after singularity.
Nearly free energy by 2035? Not unless Huey Long returns to fight the oil barrens. In fact, those oil and gas barrons may be the ones controlling Al. They have the money to do it and they aren't yielding without a fight.
You guys need to read more Sci-fi to imagine how artificial intelligence can take over . i have no doubt that sometime in the near future (couple of hundred years)technology combined with AI will render humans irrelevant.
If humans can be rendered irrelevant, than how were we relevant to begin with?
Considering I never met you, I'm probably pretty irrelevant to you. At the same time, I'm extremely relevant to myself and the people close to me.
The existence of an AI will change nothing from that perspective.
As for production/service related aspect. I'm ok with that. If we reach a point where no humans have to do any work, that kind of sounds utopian isn't it? That would reduce all costs to $0 since everything is now being done by machines with no effort required on our end.
The truth, if something like that AI ever does come to be, it will simply mean the end of capitalism and communism(or something similar in theory) will take over. Money would be irrelevant. It'll be one miserable transition though.
55-inch Samsungs are easy to efficiently mass-produced -- they do not exhaust raw materials to any significant degree, although you might wish to explore where the cheap gold and platinum are going to come from for the circuitry in several billion of them. Your singularity might seem a little more elusive when faced with the task of producing "cheap" wholesome food and safe shelter for eight billion people and transporting those finished resources to them.
You are truly discounting the effects of a paradigm shift.
Old B&W Tvs used to be assembled by hand, now the Samsungs are being produced automatically by robotic arms.
Similarly, houses used to be made of wood cut using very tedious and expensive techniques - that made house building expensive and slow. Now, you can build sky-scrapers with machines and man-made material much more efficiently.
So what will the next paradigm be that may allows cheap (nearly free) production of houses? How about 3D printed houses? Where do you think that technology will take us?
Giant 3D printer creates 10 full-sized houses in a DAY: Bungalows built from layers of waste materials cost less than £3,000 each.
Houses were built using a mixture of waste material pumped into layers .
Each house is thought to cost less than $5,000 (£3,000) to construct, meaning affordable housing could be built faster.
Four huge printers measuring 105ft long, 33ft wide and 22ft tall were used to make the bungalows
Technique could one day be used to build complex villas and skyscrapers.
There are so many gaping holes in your theory. Your own example destroys you argument and shows convincingly why it is impossible. The reason there is economy of scale reducing the cost of your Samsung, is because there is a willing and capable marketplace lining up to pay for them. If no corporate profit was to be realized by making two billion of them and selling them, why would Samsung shareholders tolerate their manufacture? What is the incentive to drive your singularity to completion, if not profits on the part of the few who invest their wealth in it?
You have it all wrong again.
Like my example above about the 3D printed houses. Is this technology coming from current house builders that use wood or concrete? No. It is coming from a complete new industry.
New battery technology for cars is not coming from oil companies. It is coming from new technology companies like Tesla. Tesla doesn't care about big oil profits. It cares about it's own. And in the process, it is revolutionizing how we drive!
Google Cars would be a similar example. For all you know, Google is going to compress the auto-driving machine and sell it for $50 in a few years. You think Google cares about GM and Ford?
Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence at all that in a mere 16 years, there will be a sudden reversal in the profit motive that has driven every inch of our industrial and technological development of several centuries. And without that shift, you have nothing but same-old-same-old, corporate shareholders investing in only that which will yield a handsome profit for the few who own the capital. How do you see all that wealth magically being arrayed in uniform distribution within the reach of everyone, without either a profit motive or an autocracy to drive it? Not 55-inch Samsungs, but food and shelter and transport and education.
I think I have adressed this already. People who run companies like Google, Tesla, SpaceX do not have the "same old" corporate shareholder mentality. Ask yourself, why is Elon Musk of SpaceX spending his millions to explore space?
Quote:
What exactly is the motive for the already-rich to create a singularity in which everyone else will be rich, instead of themselves? And if a promise of wealth and power does not drive capital to this end, what will? Most importantly, if all this is to come about 16 years, what is your own personal goal, since there will be no "have-nots", and therefore no "have" status to compete for. How will competition work 16 years from now? What do you have to do to be a winner, if everybody is a winner? A medal for every child doesn't work anymore when they are grownups.
Then, why did Google open and fund a Singularity university? Why is SpaceX exploring space?
AI wont need human input. But there will not be any "Humans" anymore. It will be a total and seamless merger between Humans and AI --> say a Humanity 2.0
Not as long as I am alive. I refuse to become one of the Borg, as it were.
I wonder if AI can be programmed to feel physical pain and emotions such as empathy. Perhaps such things would help prolong the process of an AI takeover. Maybe.
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.
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.
i have no doubt that sometime in the near future (couple of hundred years)technology combined with AI will render humans irrelevant.
