CDZ White House (Obama) Proclaims AI Robotics to Take Half of all Jobs

[oldsoul]

No other jobs that require human beings will be created because strong AI robots will be equally able to do them too, dude.

Me thinks you haven't an idea what you are talking about.

Ironic, I was thinking you dont have a clue, lol. You clearly do not grasp the significance of what Strong AI is and will do in replacing degreed jobs, to include engineering jobs of all kinds.

Strong AI is the CAD program to drafting, but for ALL engineering and skilled professions..

We can have people living with a government UBI supplement while they work with their own hands making crafted items that they barter for things that they do not have expertise in.

By your own words you are shown to be incorrect. Besides, how do you know what jobs will/will not be created in the future? Do you have a crystal ball? Maybe a time machine?

Lol, you still dont get it.

Whatever.

Actually, I do get it. Strong AI can, maybe will, replace most jobs now performed by humans, from bussing tables, to driving cars, to designing, building and distributing cars. What I am saying, and apparently YOU don't get, is that ALL of this, including the "...but this is different" argument, has been made before, and every time new jobs that had never been thought of before were created. So, what tells you that the human desire to be productive will not win out in the face of AI?

What YOU are failing to understand is that, history as a guide, I have faith that humans will be innovative and find ways to be productive.
I'll even give you a few possible ideas:

• Art, in all it's forms
• Custom craftsmanship. (one of a kind furniture, mods to mass produced items, truly custom home renovations, etc.)
• Medicine (I seriously doubt people would take kindly to a robot telling them they have terminal cancer)

That's just three off the top of my head, and I'm not even an innovator. Imagine what people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could come up with...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, I do get it. Strong AI can, maybe will, replace most jobs now performed by humans, from bussing tables, to driving cars, to designing, building and distributing cars. What I am saying, and apparently YOU don't get, is that ALL of this, including the "...but this is different" argument, has been made before, and every time new jobs that had never been thought of before were created. So, what tells you that the human desire to be productive will not win out in the face of AI?

Because if a human can do it, a human can also program a Strong AI to do it also. And since the AI will learn from its mistake, share information with similar AI's that do similar things and works/thinks 24/7, it wont take the new computer more than a few weeks to do it better than any human being alive.

See that is the 'gap' between the introduction of new technology and the maximized capitalization of the new industry that technology created. And the gap between those two points in time keeps getting smaller. Gun powder weapons was something only a handful of people knew in Western Europe in the 13th century, but by the American Revolution, every blacksmith could not only make gun powder and so could many other professions, and the blacksmith could make the guns and bullets as well. That took about 500 years to completely capitalize to the point that anyone, virtually could do it. Textile industries and furriers went through a similar but shorter cycle, on and on, till the cycle was only a few decades such as when computers went from big huge roomful machines to something so small you could put it on your lap, literally. Today new technologies are being introduced and they emerge with a maturation of a handful of years. The labor market is literally flooded with programmers of all kinds and the older programmers and marginal laborers are no longer able to find work.

By 2030 none of them will be able to reliably find work unless they get retrained multiple times.

But with Strong AI, the computers will be programmed and learn faster than the students can take the courses and get their degrees.

IF you dont see the difference between that and every other technological cycle that preceded it, I cant help you.

What YOU are failing to understand is that, history as a guide, I have faith that humans will be innovative and find ways to be productive.
I'll even give you a few possible ideas:

• Art, in all it's forms
• Custom craftsmanship. (one of a kind furniture, mods to mass produced items, truly custom home renovations, etc.)
• Medicine (I seriously doubt people would take kindly to a robot telling them they have terminal cancer)

That's just three off the top of my head, and I'm not even an innovator. Imagine what people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could come up with...

People are already getting some medical treatment from robots, dude. With insurance companies low balling their subscribers as much as they do, for example making people use generics instead of name brand medicine, they wont hesitate to require them to robotic doctors prior to going to human doctors.

Money will be so hard to obtain that people will do without it, via barter and self made products that dont cost them money. It will slowly transition in over a couple of decades, but the people selling belts, jewelry, tools and gadgets at gun shows are already illustrating the capability of the home made product. And when there simply isnt enough people making cash to let it circulate as currency should, people will begin to trade it for other home made items and/or common commodities, like detergent and alcohol.

In fact, all this is already happening in the Caribbean, drug networks and the black market.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: If we don't use robots, everyone else will

Unlike fellow billionaire Bill Gates, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross doesn't see a tax as a solution to the threat of job automation.

"I'm not in favor of trying to hold back technological advance," Ross told CNBC's "Squawk Alley" on Tuesday. "We need technological advance. And if we don't employ robots, the Chinese will, the Vietnamese will, the Europeans will, the Japanese will. Everyone will."

Ross was asked about the idea that income generated by robots should be taxed at similar levels to human income tax — a suggestion Microsoft co-founder Gates made in an interview with Quartz last month.


As a member of the new Republican administration, Ross told CNBC that regulation was not the way to jumpstart America's aspirations to bring back manufacturing jobs. Ross called overregulation the "single most important thing that bars" effective business decisions.​

 

[JimBowie1958]

Forget your GP, robots will 'soon be able to diagnose more accurately than almost any doctor'

Forget your GP, robots will 'soon be able to diagnose more accurately than almost any doctor'

Robots will soon be able to diagnose patients “more accurately and faster” than almost any doctor, says the man behind a controversial NHS scheme which will see chatbots employed to assess 111 calls.​

A private company with a string of health service contracts is to launch a national scheme which allows patients to receive a full diagnosis by smartphone – without ever having to see a GP.

Babylon Health has just begun a pilot scheme which means patients in five boroughs of London are encouraged to consult a chatbot instead of a human being, when they contact the 111 non-emergency line.

Under the system, patients key in their symptoms, with artificial intelligence used to assess the urgency of each case, and determine whether users should be told to go to A&E, a pharmacy or tuck up at home.

Now the company’s chief executive has revealed it is to launch a more sophisticated model which will allow any individual to receive a diagnosis by smartphone.

Dr Ali Parsa, the company’s founder said the system would allow doctors to work in tandem with artificial intelligence – so that medics could focus on treating rather than diagnosing diseases.

The entrepreneur said: “There are 300 million pieces of knowledge that we have collected.

“No human brain can do that. This is the largest amount of primary care clinical semantic knowledge in the would that is held by any computer, as far as we know.”

The model remains in development, but tests so far have shown it is faster and more accurate than the doctors in risk assessing cases, Dr Parsa said.​

 

[sealybobo]

Well, I think they under-estimate the impact of this.

White House: Robots may take half of our jobs, and we should embrace it

But the authors of the report acknowledge that there are countless unknowns, from what the effects could be, to how quickly they’ll arrive.

“Researchers’ estimates on the scale of threatened jobs over the next decade or two range from 9% to 47%,” they write, but add that the economy has always proved to be resilient to take existing rates of change and shrinking of industry in stride.

What’s more, robots can make economies more efficient. The authors cite a 2015 paper that found robots added an average 0.4% to GDP growth in 17 countries between 1993 and 2007.

(“Productivity” can sound arbitrary and dry, but, as the authors write, greater productivity in the economy translates into better living standards.)

Still, the people who will lose out to artificial intelligence are the most vulnerable: those with less education, in lower wage jobs, such as driving and house cleaning.​

The Report is only looking maybe ten years into the future and touts the advantages of higher education and training for the new jobs of the Robotics Revolution, building and maintaining and robot design, but that will be a very short career for most Americans. The jobs of the Robotics Revolution will not make good fodder for careers for the vast majority as Strong AI makes even their jobs automated as well.

We need to think out of the box this generation and take a new approach.

This is why we need to limit immigration. And future American parents need to downsize their families and teach their kids to prepare themselves for the jobs that future human beings do.

The cotton gin is the perfect example. It put a lot of people out of work. Should it not have been invented?

 

[sealybobo]

Except for the jobs necessary to design, build, install, and maintain the robots.

For a short while, then Strong AI robotics will be doing that as well.

Are you a trump supporter already making excuses for the job losses coming?

 

[oldsoul]

Actually, I do get it. Strong AI can, maybe will, replace most jobs now performed by humans, from bussing tables, to driving cars, to designing, building and distributing cars. What I am saying, and apparently YOU don't get, is that ALL of this, including the "...but this is different" argument, has been made before, and every time new jobs that had never been thought of before were created. So, what tells you that the human desire to be productive will not win out in the face of AI?

Because if a human can do it, a human can also program a Strong AI to do it also. And since the AI will learn from its mistake, share information with similar AI's that do similar things and works/thinks 24/7, it wont take the new computer more than a few weeks to do it better than any human being alive.

See that is the 'gap' between the introduction of new technology and the maximized capitalization of the new industry that technology created. And the gap between those two points in time keeps getting smaller. Gun powder weapons was something only a handful of people knew in Western Europe in the 13th century, but by the American Revolution, every blacksmith could not only make gun powder and so could many other professions, and the blacksmith could make the guns and bullets as well. That took about 500 years to completely capitalize to the point that anyone, virtually could do it. Textile industries and furriers went through a similar but shorter cycle, on and on, till the cycle was only a few decades such as when computers went from big huge roomful machines to something so small you could put it on your lap, literally. Today new technologies are being introduced and they emerge with a maturation of a handful of years. The labor market is literally flooded with programmers of all kinds and the older programmers and marginal laborers are no longer able to find work.

By 2030 none of them will be able to reliably find work unless they get retrained multiple times.

But with Strong AI, the computers will be programmed and learn faster than the students can take the courses and get their degrees.

IF you dont see the difference between that and every other technological cycle that preceded it, I cant help you.

What YOU are failing to understand is that, history as a guide, I have faith that humans will be innovative and find ways to be productive.
I'll even give you a few possible ideas:

• Art, in all it's forms
• Custom craftsmanship. (one of a kind furniture, mods to mass produced items, truly custom home renovations, etc.)
• Medicine (I seriously doubt people would take kindly to a robot telling them they have terminal cancer)

That's just three off the top of my head, and I'm not even an innovator. Imagine what people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could come up with...

People are already getting some medical treatment from robots, dude. With insurance companies low balling their subscribers as much as they do, for example making people use generics instead of name brand medicine, they wont hesitate to require them to robotic doctors prior to going to human doctors.

Money will be so hard to obtain that people will do without it, via barter and self made products that dont cost them money. It will slowly transition in over a couple of decades, but the people selling belts, jewelry, tools and gadgets at gun shows are already illustrating the capability of the home made product. And when there simply isnt enough people making cash to let it circulate as currency should, people will begin to trade it for other home made items and/or common commodities, like detergent and alcohol.

In fact, all this is already happening in the Caribbean, drug networks and the black market.

This is all very interesting, however, you are still leaving the human factor out of your "equation". Humans have, and always will find new and creative ways to make "money", or whatever they need to be able to barter for what they cannot produce. That is all I am saying. I do not deny that your argument has merit, and that strong AI may, in fact, be able to do nearly everything we, as humans, currently do. Nevertheless, machines of all kinds have done this before, so I ask again, what is it that causes you to believe this will stop? What leads you to the conclusion that humans will innovate ourselves out of work? This just does not make sense to me. What has changed, or will change, about the human condition that we will accept doing nothing for ourselves and let machines do everything, including innovate?

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is all very interesting, however, you are still leaving the human factor out of your "equation". Humans have, and always will find new and creative ways to make "money", or whatever they need to be able to barter for what they cannot produce. That is all I am saying. I do not deny that your argument has merit, and that strong AI may, in fact, be able to do nearly everything we, as humans, currently do. Nevertheless, machines of all kinds have done this before, so I ask again, what is it that causes you to believe this will stop? What leads you to the conclusion that humans will innovate ourselves out of work? This just does not make sense to me. What has changed, or will change, about the human condition that we will accept doing nothing for ourselves and let machines do everything, including innovate?

What is different this time is that this new tech will produce products that can make, maintain and install themselves.

That is a first time sort of thing.

 

[oldsoul]

This is all very interesting, however, you are still leaving the human factor out of your "equation". Humans have, and always will find new and creative ways to make "money", or whatever they need to be able to barter for what they cannot produce. That is all I am saying. I do not deny that your argument has merit, and that strong AI may, in fact, be able to do nearly everything we, as humans, currently do. Nevertheless, machines of all kinds have done this before, so I ask again, what is it that causes you to believe this will stop? What leads you to the conclusion that humans will innovate ourselves out of work? This just does not make sense to me. What has changed, or will change, about the human condition that we will accept doing nothing for ourselves and let machines do everything, including innovate?

What is different this time is that this new tech will produce products that can make, maintain and install themselves.

That is a first time sort of thing.

Ok, and does that somehow change human nature?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ok, and does that somehow change human nature?

Yes, by changing the environment that human beings have to exist in.

 

[oldsoul]

Ok, and does that somehow change human nature?

Yes, by changing the environment that human beings have to exist in.

So, if I understand you correctly, the mere facts that strong AI could replicate itself, and improve upon itself, changes human nature. What evidence do you have of this correlation?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, if I understand you correctly, the mere facts that strong AI could replicate itself, and improve upon itself, changes human nature. What evidence do you have of this correlation?

No, you do not understand me correctly.

It is the combination of Strong AI on android chassis that possess advanced manipulative appendages derived from advanced prosthetics that will make that advanced android capable of building, installing, and maintaining itself and do every other thing that a human can do and all for the purchase of around $2000.

A modern machine slave for $2000 that never sleeps, gets sick, doesnt have to be paid any more, never goes on vacation, and will ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING DONE PERFECTLY AND NEVER COMPLAINS EVER.

 

[oldsoul]

So, if I understand you correctly, the mere facts that strong AI could replicate itself, and improve upon itself, changes human nature. What evidence do you have of this correlation?

No, you do not understand me correctly.

It is the combination of Strong AI on android chassis that possess advanced manipulative appendages derived from advanced prosthetics that will make that advanced android capable of building, installing, and maintaining itself and do every other thing that a human can do and all for the purchase of around $2000.

A modern machine slave for $2000 that never sleeps, gets sick, doesnt have to be paid any more, never goes on vacation, and will ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING DONE PERFECTLY AND NEVER COMPLAINS EVER.

I understand what you are saying about the technology. Do you understand that what I am asking about is how that fundamentally changes the human urge to be productive?

You have suggested that humans will no longer be productive, relying instead on robots and AI. What tells you that this will be the case? History shows us that this is simply not a foregone conclusion, so what evidence do you have that would suggest this is going to change do to AI?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I understand what you are saying about the technology. Do you understand that what I am asking about is how that fundamentally changes the human urge to be productive?

You have suggested that humans will no longer be productive, relying instead on robots and AI. What tells you that this will be the case? History shows us that this is simply not a foregone conclusion, so what evidence do you have that would suggest this is going to change do to AI?

Yes, humans will still be productive, but not on the cash economy, but on a barter economy instead.

And it will change due to AI because of the combination of AI and prostheticaly advanced android chassis that will house them, their communication among themselves in real instantaneous time and this will make human labor obsolete.

This change in the work environment will push human labor into a barter system, at best, if there is a cash stipend to the broad public that will enable them to continue to act as a consumer economy.

Another solution might be to limit by law how many androids any corporation or person can own and then compel corporations to rent the robots from citizens.

What exactly must be done to adjust to the future obsolescence of human labor I don t know, but I am 99% certain human labor of all varieties is going to become obsolete.

 

[Asclepias]

Who Moved My Cheese?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is why capitalism as you liberterians want it won't work anymore...

We need to become a society that uses these robots to feed our population and make it work for us....A basic living income needs to be set up for all that can't get jobs within the new economy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is why capitalism as you liberterians want it won't work anymore...
We need to become a society that uses these robots to feed our population and make it work for us....A basic living income needs to be set up for all that can't get jobs within the new economy.

Matthew, who are the libertarians you are referring to here?

 

[oldsoul]

I understand what you are saying about the technology. Do you understand that what I am asking about is how that fundamentally changes the human urge to be productive?

You have suggested that humans will no longer be productive, relying instead on robots and AI. What tells you that this will be the case? History shows us that this is simply not a foregone conclusion, so what evidence do you have that would suggest this is going to change do to AI?

Yes, humans will still be productive, but not on the cash economy, but on a barter economy instead.

And it will change due to AI because of the combination of AI and prostheticaly advanced android chassis that will house them, their communication among themselves in real instantaneous time and this will make human labor obsolete.

This change in the work environment will push human labor into a barter system, at best, if there is a cash stipend to the broad public that will enable them to continue to act as a consumer economy.

Another solution might be to limit by law how many androids any corporation or person can own and then compel corporations to rent the robots from citizens.

What exactly must be done to adjust to the future obsolescence of human labor I don t know, but I am 99% certain human labor of all varieties is going to become obsolete.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I do not see that actually coming to pass. I just don't see how people will stand for it.
BTW, as a Machinist (?), if I remember correctly, I do understand why you would be quite wary of automation, and AI, as your field will likely be one of the first to go.

 

[Correll]

This is why capitalism as you liberterians want it won't work anymore...

We need to become a society that uses these robots to feed our population and make it work for us....A basic living income needs to be set up for all that can't get jobs within the new economy.

The point raised about the human need to be productive is true.

How do you deal with the negative social effects of that being taken away from people?

 

[Correll]

This is why capitalism as you liberterians want it won't work anymore...
We need to become a society that uses these robots to feed our population and make it work for us....A basic living income needs to be set up for all that can't get jobs within the new economy.

Matthew, who are the libertarians you are referring to here?

Anyone to the Right of him.

You should be happy he dropped the "Losertarians" nonsense.