CDZ How Might We Soften The Blow of The Third Industrial Revolution, the Age of Robots?

[320 Years of History]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

 

[westwall]

There will always be high paying jobs for robot repairmen. I retired a robot repairman and never went to college but had military computer, electronics, electrical and mechanical training.

If robots/androids are ever built that can design, build and repair other robots, why wont the robot repair men disappear like the other jobs will?

Indeed not. Robots are limited to their human programming in the least.

You are ignoring very real facts that say otherwise.

 

[westwall]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

That time is coming much sooner than most people think. AI will explode like processing strength exploded. Perhaps even faster. The belief that mankind will always have jobs to do is quaint, but not realistic. The silly statement about belief that the elite need wage slaves is likewise silly. The very real issue is when there is no need for people to do the bulk of the work there are a group of people who will then say to themselves "then why have the people?" That is the concern.

Robots are coming and we will figure out a way to exist with them. Of that I am certain. My concern are those nutjobs who will use their coming as an excuse to get rid of people on an industrial scale.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

That time is coming much sooner than most people think. AI will explode like processing strength exploded. Perhaps even faster. The belief that mankind will always have jobs to do is quaint, but not realistic. The silly statement about belief that the elite need wage slaves is likewise silly. The very real issue is when there is no need for people to do the bulk of the work there are a group of people who will then say to themselves "then why have the people?" That is the concern.

Robots are coming and we will figure out a way to exist with them. Of that I am certain. My concern are those nutjobs who will use their coming as an excuse to get rid of people on an industrial scale.

Yikes, kinda frightening.


I mean on one scale, that sorta was done already though. Back when my grandparents were kids on a farm, they had 5-8 siblings because frankly having kids was cheaper than hiring farm labor, but as technology made for less work on the farm, there was less incentive to have more kids and so today the same farm is ran by a family with 3 or 4 kids, and they don't even work on the farm.

There WILL come a day when most menial jobs are performed by robots that's for sure, and as you note more than likely it will come very quickly once the ball starts rolling.

 

[320 Years of History]

That time is coming much sooner than most people think.

Well, if you were to show something credible that shows:

• when people think it's coming, and
• when it is in fact actually going to come,

...there might be some reason to believe you. Your merely saying so just doesn't cut it.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are ignoring very real facts that say otherwise.

And you're not presenting them along with the cogent argument that they do say as you think they do.

 

[westwall]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

That time is coming much sooner than most people think. AI will explode like processing strength exploded. Perhaps even faster. The belief that mankind will always have jobs to do is quaint, but not realistic. The silly statement about belief that the elite need wage slaves is likewise silly. The very real issue is when there is no need for people to do the bulk of the work there are a group of people who will then say to themselves "then why have the people?" That is the concern.

Robots are coming and we will figure out a way to exist with them. Of that I am certain. My concern are those nutjobs who will use their coming as an excuse to get rid of people on an industrial scale.

Yikes, kinda frightening.


I mean on one scale, that sorta was done already though. Back when my grandparents were kids on a farm, they had 5-8 siblings because frankly having kids was cheaper than hiring farm labor, but as technology made for less work on the farm, there was less incentive to have more kids and so today the same farm is ran by a family with 3 or 4 kids, and they don't even work on the farm.

There WILL come a day when most menial jobs are performed by robots that's for sure, and as you note more than likely it will come very quickly once the ball starts rolling.

The Romans experienced the same quandry. Your history books are not as accurate as you think they are. Steam power has been around since Roman times. In fact, it wasn't Fulton's 1808 steamer that first successfully sailed up a river, it was Vitruvius who figured that out. By the third century AD Rome had everything needed to industrialize. They chose to outlaw the technology for anything but entertainment purposes because they realized it would be the end of their slave based economy.

They ran from technology. We no longer have that option.

 

[westwall]

That time is coming much sooner than most people think.

Well, if you were to show something credible that shows:

• when people think it's coming, and
• when it is in fact actually going to come,

...there might be some reason to believe you. Your merely saying so just doesn't cut it.

I find it amusing that you with your 320 years of history name, are so wrapped around your particular axle that you can't see the parallels. Too funny.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Might there come a day when everyone just sends their robot to "the office?" and if so, will there further along be a day when stupid liberals start screaming that robots have rights?

 

[sakinago]

Another option, which is my own personal idea (as far as I know I haven't heard anyone else suggest this) is to require that all robotics or automation, etc., be owned privately by individual citizens to be rented or hired by companies. To protect the individual from the monopoly of labor.

For instance, the warehouse robot that loads trucks up with their goods is owned by private citizen John smith, who gets paid by warehouse incorporated to use that robot. The self driving truck that just got loaded by the robot is owned by private citizen Jane doe, who gets paid by transportion industries LLC to use that truck. And the person who buys the goods that the truck dropped off at the store and uses the self checkout line, well that self checkout machine is owned by Jonny Rogers who lives down the street, where Walmart pays him to use that machine. Jonny Rogers is quite elderly and needs help with his daily functions from healthcare bot, who is owned by suzie q.

Let me know what you think

It sounds interesting but also relies on the government to enforce the law. Current black market labor practices might suggest that the corporations would circumvent the law you propose as well.

Of course there will be those who try to circumvent laws, that's pretty much any law in history. I don't think that's a good reason not to do the law. If you find more fault with this idea, please let me know, I am honestly curious

 

[westwall]

Might there come a day when everyone just sends their robot to "the office?" and if so, will there further along be a day when stupid liberals start screaming that robots have rights?

Why have an "office"? Do you understand yet how shallow your thinking is? You can't see the forest because of the trees in your way.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Might there come a day when everyone just sends their robot to "the office?" and if so, will there further along be a day when stupid liberals start screaming that robots have rights?

Why have an "office"? Do you understand yet how shallow your thinking is? You can't see the forest because of the trees in your way.

I was making a light hearted joke.

 

[FA_Q2]

That time is coming much sooner than most people think.

Well, if you were to show something credible that shows:

• when people think it's coming, and
• when it is in fact actually going to come,

...there might be some reason to believe you. Your merely saying so just doesn't cut it.

You are asking hard data on the future growth of technology. That is a rather silly request.

One thing I can say is that virtually every time someone has uttered something cannot be or will not be done they are proven wrong. Computers will get there and considering mores 'law' it will be faster than we think.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are asking hard data on the future growth of technology. That is a rather silly request.

In part yes, in part no:

• Yes: something that directly identifies when "most people" think "that time" is going to come as per Westwall's remarks in post #83. I personally haven't the first idea what "most people think," but presumably Westwall does. I've merely asked that he share with us the hard data that allows him to know what "most people think" re: when "that time" will arrive.
• No: I realize nobody can give hard data that can in turn be used to build a deductive argument about when "that time" will arrive. What one can provide, however, is a well developed inductive argument about when "that time" will arrive. I have seen others' decently developed (i.e., "general public grade" rather than "scholar/expert grade") arguments on the matter.

Additionally, Westwall fails in any of his posts -- not one of which presents a case of any sort -- he also fails to address, or even mention, forget about explaining to any cogent degree, any of the of the relevant factors that play into the matter of humanity's reaching the point whereby we become subordinated to what might be called AI masters. Westwall provides utterly nothing, just plain old nothing other than his "say so" to make his point. (Sound like a popular candidate in the 2016 cycle?) Furthermore, the OP does not so either.

But one might ask what might constitute a "decently developed" argument on the matter? Well, Luke Muehlhauser's essay on the topic (and the referenced "scholar/expert grade" content associated with it) is one such example. It's one that better supports my temporal remarks -- foreseeable future being within the span of a living adult's career -- than it does those of folks who argue that "strong AI" will emerge sooner than that. (I'm not about to present examples that bolster empty remarks such as the one Westwall deigned to offer in response to my earlier comments.

• Did Westwall bother to refer (even obliquely) to so much as one of those surveys, never mind whether s/he bothered to catch the sampling bias associated with them, in claiming the time is sooner than most people think when we'll be at the point of having reached human-equivalent AI? No!
• Did Westwall address the challenges of trend extrapolation? No!
• Did Westwall address disruptions? No!
• Did he so much as hint at any of those things? No!

Another solid discussion on the matter is "Feasibility of Whole Brain Emulation" (WBE) by Anders Sandberg. Solid as it is, Mr. Sandberg refrains from providing specific points in time for the advent WBE.

In "When Will AI Be Created," Muehlhauser notes:

Given these considerations, I think the most appropriate stance on the question “When will AI be created?” is something like this: We can’t be confident AI will come in the next 30 years, and we can’t be confident it’ll take more than 100 years, and anyone who is confident of either claim is pretending to know too much."​

That comment precisely notes the way in which I see not only Westwall's comments, but also those of the "gloom and doom for workers" crowd who've bothered (ignorantly and guided by nothing other than their own fears and anecdotal observations based on the remarks most of those folks have presented) to take on the subject in this thread. So, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, though non-AI experts cannot reasonably expect to know just when "strong AI" will supplant human endeavor, one can examine where AI is right now and make rational decisions about how to shape/direct their own career so they are insulated from it as much as possible.

The suggestions I offered earlier are some of the ways one might do that, and that is exactly what the title question asked for, only to receive in reply empty postulates of amounting to nothing other than "no, you're wrong." Again, I ask, says who, why so, and how so?

Lastly, one might wonder why I have any awareness of the state and quality of forecasting re: the supremacy of AI over human labor and thought and what are the foreseeable implications of "strong AI," WBE, etc. coming about. The answer is because it's part of my job to know, not every stinking technical detail (that's the job of other folks in my firm), but the general state of things. As a management consultant who manages enterprise transformation projects for multinational corporations, I often get asked and have to provide some sort of business case for why my clients should spend ten to 100+ millions of dollars on a project that includes technology implementations. Without exception, the matter of technology obsolescence must be addressed in making that case.

Quite simply, no company that envisions itself as remaining profitable and a going concern 30 years from now is willing to spend that kind of money on a project that will take five years to complete, only to find out that in ten or 15 years, they'll have to replace the tech component with something else. The ROI simply is insufficient for them to do that if they can instead employ a variety of mitigation approaches to hold them over for the next decade while allowing them to prepare for the likely realities appearing at or around the end of it.

 

[sakinago]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?

Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs

Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly. A universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?

 

[JimBowie1958]

While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?

Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs

Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly.

Perfect post.

A Universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?

The remaining corporations that make the products and huge profits on a 99% automated work force that will cost them NOTHING, they can and MUST redistribute some of their WINDFALL profits to keep society feeling secure and to help them remain loosely attached to a cash based economy. There are many good reasons to help these people continue being irregular cash consumers while most of their own economy goes into a barter system.

1. The consumer market allows for the government to tabulate and track the population. This is a good thing that allows us to know who needs help who can provide the help.

2. This economic competition is how we observe where the economy is shifting and what parts of it are more productive and in demand.

3. People will need to have a market to meet their short term shortfall in their own production for their own needs until they have the ability to more fully meet those needs themselves. Some demand will always be there.

The Universal Basic Income will replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare efforts of various kinds. A small tax to pay for this stability on the corporations windfall is not unreasonable.

 

[sakinago]

While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?

Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs

Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly.

Perfect post.

A Universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?

The remaining corporations that make the products and huge profits on a 99% automated work force that will cost them NOTHING, they can and MUST redistribute some of their WINDFALL profits to keep society feeling secure and to help them remain loosely attached to a cash based economy. There are many good reasons to help these people continue being irregular cash consumers while most of their own economy goes into a barter system.

1. The consumer market allows for the government to tabulate and track the population. This is a good thing that allows us to know who needs help who can provide the help.

2. This economic competition is how we observe where the economy is shifting and what parts of it are more productive and in demand.

3. People will need to have a market to meet their short term shortfall in their own production for their own needs until they have the ability to more fully meet those needs themselves. Some demand will always be there.

The Universal Basic Income will replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare efforts of various kinds. A small tax to pay for this stability on the corporations windfall is not unreasonable.

A universal basic income could be a solution, but I do not think its a good one. The income gap will greatly widen. The number of wealthy will shrink, the number of poor will greatly rise. The middle class will be almost as non existent as it was in the dark ages. We will look a lot like the Soviet Union did, where all but a select few had a low standard of living. Did many of them have enough to get by, sure, but the contrast to an American standard of living was quite great. There would be not much of a ladder to move up in society, since there would be no way to afford robotics, infastructure, etc. that would be required to start a company and make it on your own. Even if you were able to afford that, the competition coming from the larger companies would quickly put you out of business. For many there would be no need of a secondary education since your chances of getting one of the few remaining jobs would be low, and since your getting an income anyway, why bother? I just don't see how you would be able to climb back up the ladder after you loose your job to a robot.

Again I propose you make it so only individual citizens can own robotics, to be rented out by business who need them. Sure there will be business who try to skirt the law, we have had that for a long long time. But that is why the rule of law is important, to keep business honest. This provides citizens the ladder out of poverty. Instead of working hard and extra hours at the company to get that promotion, you work at owning more and more robotics to make more money, which allows you to own more robotics.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?

Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs

Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly. A universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?

Red:
TY for recognizing that and saying as much.

Blue:
Well seeking a career vocation rather than a career profession is part of the problem.

• I don't know of anyone who goes to college/grad school for the purpose of acquiring the skills for a vocation, except perhaps clergy, and specifically Jesuit priests for I don't know that any other clerics are required without exception to have at least a master's degree in something.
• I don't know anyone who was/is a high performer (3.7 or higher GPA) in college and who, assuming they didn't "screw up" somehow, is having the problems you've noted.
• I do know of plenty of mediocre performers who have the challenges you noted.

The key point, however, is that it's clear most vocational careers will be replaced in the not too far off future by technology, robots and software will eventually will do that to some aspects of some professions. The professions that AI won't be able to do that to are those that design and innovate new robots and software based upon one's having noticed a need for "something new/different" as goes the technology itself. Other professions that AI/robots won't be able to replace are those that call for an understanding of human nature, that understanding being used to make judgment calls that derive from and depend upon more than pure logic, in order to perform them.

Put another way, fields that require strong analytical and idea development skills not executional ability are the ones that are not at risk of becoming, at least in the near term, obsolete due to AI/robotics. Those careers require higher education, but they also pay very well. Just ask any successful attorney, investment banker, product designer, advertising manager, B2B account/sales manager, artist (static or performing), etc. In short jobs that call for one work with/on things and provide solutions driven by examining them, that is, by examining the physical world, and applying a rote mode of problem solving can and will be made obsolete by technology. For example, I can't say when, but the time will come (probably no time soon) when some types of surgery, for example, will not need a human surgeon; however, it'll be a very long time before machines of any sort will be able to analyze what's wrong with a patient and determine that surgery is needed.

Green:
??? If a robot can perform the task and some do so now, it's all but certain that in the foreseeable future that task will be demanded in roughly the same proportion and that robots will most likely perform it. It is only the tasks that robots cannot or won't in the foreseeable future efficiently perform that will be in demand. For example, take the customer facing jobs in retail stores -- food or garments, for example. The only reason those tasks aren't "robotized" now is because the labor cost is so low. If/when the labor cost becomes high enough, it'll become economically more efficient/beneficial for the business owner to replace labor with capital. Recognizing that really obvious reality of economics is among the "writings on the wall" of which I've referred to over and over in this forum.

Note:
Above I've vastly simplified the calculus behind economic substitution of capital for labor. Folks who want to get a better understanding of the concept, the math that shows when a business owner would make the move to replace their workers with machines can be found in the following reference documents as well as in the one noted at the link in the preceding paragraph (The one linked above is from the 1960s and its conclusions now comprise a meaningful share of the instruction/content B-School and economics students must master. Thus one can see the economic realities aren't poorly understood or even unknown, only ignored or poorly applied by folks who don't know of them or understand them).

• Capital-Labor Substitution, Structural Change and Growth
  
• The Substitution of Labor, Skill, and Capital: Its Implications for Trade and Employment
  
• The Substitution of ICT Capital for Routine Labor: Transitional Dynamics and Long-Run Implications
  
• Labor demand theory
  
• An Assessment of CES and Cobb-Douglas Production Functions

Lastly, thank you, sakinago, for taking the cues, moving beyond the purely "knee jerk" level of banter, and introducing a line of economic discussion -- substitution and elasticity -- commensurate with the topic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know anyone who was/is a high performer (3.7 or higher GPA) in college and who, assuming they didn't "screw up" somehow, is having the problems you've noted.

I do, I know foive such people, one graduated first in her class for the Computer Science department with honors, obviously, and another double major Aeronautics and Mechanical Engineering who also graduated with honors and both of them could not find a job for a full two years after graduating college. The others also all had trouble getting jobs and took about a year or so. I know other engineers who have had great careers and have a damned time getting employed, but they are still under 40, lucky them. I have given up my job search and consider my Software Engineering career to be dead. I am starting my own business now doing something that cant be off-shored to India.

 

[sakinago]

You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.

Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that, in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.

That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.

Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:

The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.

The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."

Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:

• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.
• How close are we to creating artificial intelligence? | Aeon Essays
  
• Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own?

There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.

While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?

Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs

Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly. A universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?

Red:
TY for recognizing that and saying as much.

Blue:
Well seeking a career vocation rather than a career profession is part of the problem.

• I don't know of anyone who goes to college/grad school for the purpose of acquiring the skills for a vocation, except perhaps clergy, and specifically Jesuit priests for I don't know that any other clerics are required without exception to have at least a master's degree in something.
• I don't know anyone who was/is a high performer (3.7 or higher GPA) in college and who, assuming they didn't "screw up" somehow, is having the problems you've noted.
• I do know of plenty of mediocre performers who have the challenges you noted.

The key point, however, is that it's clear most vocational careers will be replaced in the not too far off future by technology, robots and software will eventually will do that to some aspects of some professions. The professions that AI won't be able to do that to are those that design and innovate new robots and software based upon one's having noticed a need for "something new/different" as goes the technology itself. Other professions that AI/robots won't be able to replace are those that call for an understanding of human nature, that understanding being used to make judgment calls that derive from and depend upon more than pure logic, in order to perform them.

Put another way, fields that require strong analytical and idea development skills not executional ability are the ones that are not at risk of becoming, at least in the near term, obsolete due to AI/robotics. Those careers require higher education, but they also pay very well. Just ask any successful attorney, investment banker, product designer, advertising manager, B2B account/sales manager, artist (static or performing), etc. In short jobs that call for one work with/on things and provide solutions driven by examining them, that is, by examining the physical world, and applying a rote mode of problem solving can and will be made obsolete by technology. For example, I can't say when, but the time will come (probably no time soon) when some types of surgery, for example, will not need a human surgeon; however, it'll be a very long time before machines of any sort will be able to analyze what's wrong with a patient and determine that surgery is needed.

Green:
??? If a robot can perform the task and some do so now, it's all but certain that in the foreseeable future that task will be demanded in roughly the same proportion and that robots will most likely perform it. It is only the tasks that robots cannot or won't in the foreseeable future efficiently perform that will be in demand. For example, take the customer facing jobs in retail stores -- food or garments, for example. The only reason those tasks aren't "robotized" now is because the labor cost is so low. If/when the labor cost becomes high enough, it'll become economically more efficient/beneficial for the business owner to replace labor with capital. Recognizing that really obvious reality of economics is among the "writings on the wall" of which I've referred to over and over in this forum.

Note:
Above I've vastly simplified the calculus behind economic substitution of capital for labor. Folks who want to get a better understanding of the concept, the math that shows when a business owner would make the move to replace their workers with machines can be found in the following reference documents as well as in the one noted at the link in the preceding paragraph (The one linked above is from the 1960s and its conclusions now comprise a meaningful share of the instruction/content B-School and economics students must master. Thus one can see the economic realities aren't poorly understood or even unknown, only ignored or poorly applied by folks who don't know of them or understand them).

• Capital-Labor Substitution, Structural Change and Growth
  
• The Substitution of Labor, Skill, and Capital: Its Implications for Trade and Employment
  
• The Substitution of ICT Capital for Routine Labor: Transitional Dynamics and Long-Run Implications
  
• Labor demand theory
  
• An Assessment of CES and Cobb-Douglas Production Functions

Lastly, thank you, sakinago, for taking the cues, moving beyond the purely "knee jerk" level of banter, and introducing a line of economic discussion -- substitution and elasticity -- commensurate with the topic.

Good links. And by vocation, I did not mean it in the way of what's considered a vocational study like a mechanic, or hairdresser, I mean it in the way of career, profession, or calling.

And this is a side note but I think robots performing surgery might come quicker than you think. At least for the simpler surgeries. Think about how accurate facial recognition technologies are at deciphering and sorting through the subtleties of the human face. Surely that can be applied to a robots ability to determine the difference between the duodenum, ilium, and jejunum, finding the particular affected area, say diverticulitis, and removing it. That is of course if people get over distrust of having a robot operate on them. But the age of robotics is going to change a lot of things. It's very hard to predict.

But back to the topic. The problem is, the kids today studying for college, are generally not studying subjects that will be useful in the age of robotics. Same with what our kids are learning in k-12. Instead of teaching Spanish (which we have phones that can translate for us now a days, not saying a second language isnt a useful skill) but why are we not teaching them computer code, HTML, and programming. These are quickly becoming the most dominate languages in the world. This generation is going to have a hard time adjusting to what's coming.