Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?) (power, advance, physics)
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.
The entire nature of the economy is going to change and will be better. The problem is not going to be after the change but the transition. The next 30 years are going to be interesting.
The cost of this will be paid by individuals who get squeezed out. I've mentioned to my son, who wants to take accounting, that unless he's going to go all the way to the top in the subject, its not going to offer much in employment. Already what they used to use bookkeepers for is not software. And you have the examples of factories where most of the work is robots or the warehouses where virtually all moving of goods is done by them, with an inventory of current stocks always available. The only people employed and ten to twenty who package the stuff for delivery.
I know some are greatly emanoroud of technology, and see the great leaps as amazing and wonderful, but in the end real people will suffer and we'll move toward the society portrayed in Blade Runner, where the talented and useful have abandoned the rest and moved on and the rest form a permenant underclass.
This has happened before, and the results were not good. That should stand as a warning. Either we find ways to let in everyone or we should not be bowing down to supertechnology. In the end what matters is human beings and what it does to them.
It is IMO greatly possible for this to happen (are we not there already?) but I think and hope that real super technology will change the way we live, drastically, the next coming decades.
For example, it you can have food, water, internet, and shelter, how can a Bladerunner society exist?
Those societies (as for the those in the history) was based on scarcity and an elite that controlled the rare 'items'. If we can get past that, we might, at worst, have an elite controlling some new scarce thing like say fame but not food and shelter.
I'd like to know some of the ideas for how to address this loss of jobs. Do we need some sort of "paradigm shift" in our thinking about the nature of economics? Or are there some simpler solutions being proposed? I'm just curious about the range of idea that are being proposed. Do any of you happen to know of some ideas, or links, or specific people who have been researching this?
One thought: Maybe we could use the human proclivity for being addicted to video games, social media (or, more generally, "earning points"? in some abstract way) to basically make a "game" of providing benefits to society. In other words, maybe video-game skill could somehow be translated into socially beneficial services? (There is a TED video about "the game layer over the world" that sorta talks about this: Seth Priebatsch: The game layer on top of the world | Talk Video | TED.com
As automation (robots/software) is replacing more and more humans, the cost of the "work" added to a product diminishes.
So does the profit as other companies will do the same and, in a classic capitalistic way, fight by lowering prices.
This is clearly unsustainable as the revenues closes in on zero and some people think it (capitalistic market driven economy) will be replaced (not everywhere but greatly) with some sort of collaborative model.
This already exists in the digital world (we share a lot) but would also become the de-facto standard in energy and transportations and maybe other areas.
I lately read "The second Machine age" (good read) and "Zero marginal cost society" (I highly recommend this one) and they both deal with this.
For the game part, you might want to check out Gamification, a process similar (I think) to what you describe.
I saw a statistic that said to get the same workforce participation rate you would have to go back to 1978. On the show they were not sure why but I can tell you the reason is technological unemployment. I like the theory of basic pay for all I just need to see how it would actually work as it will increase. The industry I am in will see it mostly automated by 2020, my job is safe for the for a long time to come, but it will change everything and fast.
Funny they all predict things but then they are unsure of why/how they get to the data.
For basic income and such, yeah I too wonders how ever it wouldn't just make inflation (I guess that was what you meant).
For my job, I'm kind of okay (computers), with my luck everyone else will be automated away and on holiday long before me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
When people think of fling cars they think of defying gravity ones and those are a long way off and since its not a form of information technology its impossible to know when.
I thought it was for the 2020
I know it isn't completely automatic and the summoning won't be allowed in non private space but man, it's quite cool already and I mean,
they will most probably work on it to be completely auto-nomous
Fair enough. This is a complicated topic and I am always trying to find better ways to explain what is coming.
I am not asking for more explanation of what your predictions are, rather how you know that they will be likely correct. The issue is that a large number of your claims have not been justified. You seem to either just quote Kurzweil as a bare assertion or choose your parameters so as to support your desired conclusion.
What you do not seem to get is that just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you said. It means I do not see what justification you have for believing it, apart from "Kurzweil said so therefore it must be true" and "technology will continue to advance exponentially", which I have explained multiple times are incomplete arguments at best and wishful thinking at worst.
You have yet to find support for your position that passes the criteria I laid out in post #1703.
All has to do with the impact of computers advancing exponentially. That is why we went from smart phones to wearable tech today and will have nanotechnology and will be merging with it by 2025. Now if you argue that we will not have nanotechnology by 2025 then time is on my side as I will be proven right.
All has to do with the impact of computers advancing exponentially. That is why we went from smart phones to wearable tech today and will have nanotechnology and will be merging with it by 2025. Now if you argue that we will not have nanotechnology by 2025 then time is on my side as I will be proven right.
I've had enough of this bare assertion of yours. Give a good argument or you lose.
You've already given up on your Moore's Law claim earlier, and I know you think you don't want to debate or win a debate. But the fact is, if you cannot back up your claims, you're just spouting hot air and no rational person who hasn't joined the Singularitarianism cult has any reason to take it seriously.
Have fun entertaining yourself with your fellow Singulies, but the rest of the world will continue business as usual.
I've had enough of this bare assertion of yours. Give a good argument or you lose.
You've already given up on your Moore's Law claim earlier, and I know you think you don't want to debate or win a debate. But the fact is, if you cannot back up your claims, you're just spouting hot air and no rational person who hasn't joined the Singularitarianism cult has any reason to take it seriously.
I posted this link before, but it might be relevant again. For a fairly in-depth analysis of the sigularity concept, I believe that this article will provide the types of arguments you are looking for: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis
Beware that it is long and almost insanely meticulous in defense of every detail, but if you wade through it and still think there is nothing defensible about the singularity concept, then I'd enjoy hearing your responses to Chalmers specific claims. (BTW: Chalmers tends to be more flexible with the timeframes - thinking it might be more like a 100 years than 30, but he defends the basic ideas with considerable rigor.)
I've had enough of this bare assertion of yours. Give a good argument or you lose.
You've already given up on your Moore's Law claim earlier, and I know you think you don't want to debate or win a debate. But the fact is, if you cannot back up your claims, you're just spouting hot air and no rational person who hasn't joined the Singularitarianism cult has any reason to take it seriously.
Have fun entertaining yourself with your fellow Singulies, but the rest of the world will continue business as usual.
> I've had enough of this bare assertion of yours. Give a good argument or you lose.
That's contradictory, if you have enough then let it be. If not, well don't.
I'm interested in what you think "we" (or anyone) should prove, because IMO it would be an incredible feat if anyone could give hard proof of anything in the future so please tell.
For the rest of your post, it looks like you stopped trying being logical and started to be more personal, whatever you think is right, name-calling doesn't have its place here.
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.
