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

[Picaro]

If we take away all the burger flipping jobs where are those people going to work?

When a person can no longer afford to buy a product because they have no job and no income where does that leave the economy?

*****SMILE*****

natural selection is harsh.

Yes, it is, and the most feral and stupid have higher survival rates than intellectual types who have it soft now and think they're not just as disposable as anybody else. Most of the 'social Darwinists' will be the first to go.

 

[Picaro]

natural selection is harsh.

You'd rather they all be on a government dole?

"Idle hands are the devil’s workshop; idle lips are his mouthpiece."
Proverbs 16:27

I think we've had quite enough of the idle hands BS.

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.

I think it will be Utopia once we shake out the wrinkles.

Why would you think that? Most will be reduced to trying to survive off of back yard gardens and the like, which is not likely; try hand hoeing a couple of acres some time. lol

Hate to break it to you guys, but the top 1%ers aren't going to be sharing anything with the rest of the unwashed masses; they are mostly sociopaths and very very acquisitive and selfish; like Jay Gould said once," I can hire half to working class to kill the other half." If they can't do it locally, it's easy enough to import hired killers from South America, Africa, China, etc., most of whom hate Americans already and aren't really hindered by things like morals or principles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots Just Like Humans

 

[usmbguest5318]

“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.

In light of that statement in the report, don't you think you've sensationalized your headline a bit much?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Don't these people ever read science fiction

AI is something to be wary of

Remember SKYNET?

 

[JimBowie1958]

“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.

In light of that statement in the report, don't you think you've sensationalized your headline a bit much?

That was the title of the article and I try to not change that so that others who might want to post the same article can see I already posted it.

Besides that, they are wrong. I think that unless something is done to prevent it, Strong AI Androids will take over 85% of the jobs available by 2030. Robots will be counselors, doctors, policemen, firemen, teachers, lawyers, brick layers, plummers, live in nurses and your yard man too and more.

The damned things are estimated to cost only about $2000, adjusted for inflation maybe $3000.

Why not replace everyone with a robot that has Strong AI and is wirelessly connected to a mainframe?

 

[jasonnfree]

“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.

In light of that statement in the report, don't you think you've sensationalized your headline a bit much?

That was the title of the article and I try to not change that so that others who might want to post the same article can see I already posted it.

Besides that, they are wrong. I think that unless something is done to prevent it, Strong AI Androids will take over 85% of the jobs available by 2030. Robots will be counselors, doctors, policemen, firemen, teachers, lawyers, brick layers, plummers, live in nurses and your yard man too and more.

The damned things are estimated to cost only about $2000, adjusted for inflation maybe $3000.

Why not replace everyone with a robot that has Strong AI and is wirelessly connected to a mainframe?

Still, consumers are needed to buy products, right? There will have to be a balance struck or America's vast unemployed as a result of robotics and automation, won't be able to afford to buy the products the robots make.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Still, consumers are needed to buy products, right? There will have to be a balance struck or America's vast unemployed as a result of robotics and automation, won't be able to afford to buy the products the robots make.

That is why I and many others think that we either have to implement some kind of ban on androids or tax all robots and use that money to pay out a Universal Basic Income so that people can pay their rent and buy groceries as they barter what they can make or services provided for things that they cant make.

Wont it be ironic to find that after all these centuries of invention and economic theory we end back at square one with most people engaged in barter?

 

[usmbguest5318]

That was the title of the article and I try to not change that so that others who might want to post the same article can see I already posted it.

Ah...I see. TY.

Besides that, they are wrong. I think that unless something is done to prevent it, Strong AI Androids will take over 85% of the jobs available by 2030.

Really? You wrote "they" -- the people who wrote this document and the sources referenced in it -- "are wrong," and the sole basis you've given us for what makes them be wrong, is the fact that you think so. It appears you are completely serious in making that assertion.

Insofar as your thinking so is the definitive discriminant, what is the point of this thread? There's obviously no point in anyone -- on the planet -- attempting to answer any questions you have on this matter. I would think you could just point us -- all national leaders, all the scientists and economists, other professionals who've analyzed the matter, etc. -- to your gospel on the topic and the rest of the world would just start doing whatever you instruct. Indeed, there shouldn't be a problem. I would expect you already have identified the solutions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That was the title of the article and I try to not change that so that others who might want to post the same article can see I already posted it.

Ah...I see. TY.

Besides that, they are wrong. I think that unless something is done to prevent it, Strong AI Androids will take over 85% of the jobs available by 2030.

Really? You wrote "they" -- the people who wrote this document and the sources referenced in it -- "are wrong," and the sole basis you've given us for what makes them be wrong, is the fact that you think so. It appears you are completely serious in making that assertion.

Insofar as your thinking so is the definitive discriminant, what is the point of this thread? There's obviously no point in anyone -- on the planet -- attempting to answer any questions you have on this matter. I would think you could just point us -- all national leaders, all the scientists and economists, other professionals who've analyzed the matter, etc. -- to your gospel on the topic and the rest of the world would just start doing whatever you instruct. Indeed, there shouldn't be a problem. I would expect you already have identified the solutions.

I think the White House experts are wrong about it being in that range of job loss. I doubt that the journalist that wrote the article has much of an opinion other than to echo the report.

I dont have a gospel on what to do. Some things seem apparent as far as what to do, but that is too far from the actual event itself. What we need to do is encourage separate states to dosomething to adjust to the Robotics Revolution, see what works best then implement it on a national scale.

Having said that, I do think the final adjustments will be in some combination of a UBI, Robot Tax, job mongering policies, and finally an economic system where people are generally autonomous and engage in barter.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think the White House experts are wrong about it being in that range of job loss.

Based on what? That's one of the points I was getting at with my earlier sarcastic retort. The range was 9% to 47% (? -- IIRC..too lazy to scroll up). That range is more than one-third of the whole range of possible rates of job loss. I didn't check the study's noted margin or error and confidence levels associated with that range, but it's size alone requires one to have a strong basis for arguing it's amiss...And you've shared none other than what must merely be your gut feeling, and that's based on your experiences and knowledge as a physicist rather than an economist.

Obviously, you can have your gut feeling, but I'm struggling to see what be the point of your offering it as the basis for refuting the analysis and predictions of professional economists. Do you see specific issues with the approach the WH researchers used? Do you take exception with one or more of the reference sources noted in the study? Is there some aspect of physics you know of that the researchers do not and that they didn't consider in producing their report? Do you think the range is mistaken based just on your gut feeling to that end? If your answer is "yes," well, okay...at least I understand what underpins your denial of the report authors' accuracy.

I doubt that the journalist that wrote the article has much of an opinion other than to echo the report.

It is a "hard" news piece rather than an editorial that the journalist wrote; thus I don't know whether she has an opinion on the matter.

I dont have a gospel on what to do.

Okay.

Some things seem apparent as far as what to do, but that is too far from the actual event itself.

I don't follow you. "That" what?

What we need to do is encourage separate states to dosomething to adjust to the Robotics Revolution, see what works best then implement it on a national scale.

Seeing as we're headed into uncharted water, the approach you suggest seems like a reasonable way to explore the various solution options that might be proposed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the White House experts are wrong about it being in that range of job loss.

Based on what? That's one of the points I was getting at with my earlier sarcastic retort. The range was 9% to 47% (? -- IIRC..too lazy to scroll up). That range is more than one-third of the whole range of possible rates of job loss. I didn't check the study's noted margin or error and confidence levels associated with that range, but it's size alone requires one to have a strong basis for arguing it's amiss...And you've shared none other than what must merely be your gut feeling, and that's based on your experiences and knowledge as a physicist rather than an economist.

The White House report, which I looked up and read, was looking mostly at unskilled jobs like simple labor, IIRC, but Strong AI will not only be capable of doing just about every job out there, but it will be capable of being deployed onto androids that are connected wirelessly and that group to a main frame that can crunch the numbers to just about any problem and store the decisions as a huge repository.

If you add in all the skilled jobs and degreed jobs that dont require a ton of human interaction, you are talking about 85% of the job market, I do believe.

I doubt that the journalist that wrote the article has much of an opinion other than to echo the report.

It is a "hard" news piece rather than an editorial that the journalist wrote; thus I don't know whether she has an opinion on the matter.

Well, that line between opinion and "hard journalism" is getting thinner every day it seems.

Some things seem apparent as far as what to do, but that is too far from the actual event itself.

I don't follow you. "That" what?

The things that seem apparent to me. These things are obviously flawed as they are surmising about problems that are not here yet, so we have to await the arrival of the problem to know how to address it specifically, but we can at least discuss it and start putting some evolving sets of facts into perspective.

What we need to do is encourage separate states to dosomething to adjust to the Robotics Revolution, see what works best then implement it on a national scale.

Seeing as we're headed into uncharted water, the approach you suggest seems like a reasonable way to explore the various solution options that might be proposed.

Yes, that is one of the blessings the Founding Fathers left us with; 50 different petri dishes to figure out what works.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, that line between opinion and "hard journalism" is getting thinner every day it seems.

Off Topic:
I don't want to derail the thread with this...I want to say that my own gut sense based personal observation is that the line is unchanged and rather it is the relative proportion of editorial to "hard news" pieces that has changed.

The White House report, which I looked up and read, was looking mostly at unskilled jobs like simple labor, IIRC, but Strong AI will not only be capable of doing just about every job out there, but it will be capable of being deployed onto androids that are connected wirelessly and that group to a main frame that can crunch the numbers to just about any problem and store the decisions as a huge repository.

If you add in all the skilled jobs and degreed jobs that dont require a ton of human interaction, you are talking about 85% of the job market, I do believe.

If one adds to the unskilled job roles those that are skilled/degreed, one necessarily is addressing an impact scope that transcends the one the WH report sought to address.

One can thus expand the scope under consideration, but doing so doesn't invalidate the WH report. That they didn't have as broad a scope as you would have liked them to have doesn't make their report wrong for the scope it has, yet you've asserted the WH report is wrong. Did the report (I haven't read all of it yet) misrepresent it's scope or the scope associated with the 9% - 47% range we've been discussing? If so, then I might -- if/when I finish reading the report -- share your view that they are wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One can thus expand the scope under consideration, but doing so doesn't invalidate the WH report. That they didn't have as broad a scope as you would have liked them to have doesn't make their report wrong for the scope it has, yet you've asserted the WH report is wrong. Did the report (I haven't read all of it yet) misrepresent it's scope or the scope associated with the 9% - 47% range we've been discussing? If so, then I might -- if/when I finish reading the report -- share your view that they are wrong.

I did not mean to say that they were wrong, but that they only looked at the closest wave of impact from Robotics. I am sure that they are probably very close in regards to the sectors of the economy that they studied.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One can thus expand the scope under consideration, but doing so doesn't invalidate the WH report. That they didn't have as broad a scope as you would have liked them to have doesn't make their report wrong for the scope it has, yet you've asserted the WH report is wrong. Did the report (I haven't read all of it yet) misrepresent it's scope or the scope associated with the 9% - 47% range we've been discussing? If so, then I might -- if/when I finish reading the report -- share your view that they are wrong.

I did not mean to say that they were wrong, but that they only looked at the closest wave of impact from Robotics. I am sure that they are probably very close in regards to the sectors of the economy that they studied.

Gotcha. TY for the clarification.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I am sure that they are probably very close in regards to the sectors of the economy that they studied.

Yes, I too am inclined to agree the WH report is pretty accurate, at least as accurate as one can be said to be when predicting with a range of nearly 40%. LOL

If I were of a mind to gripe about the WH report, my complaint would be that the range of impact it predicts is so large as to be of little use, aside from acting as a portent that militates for one's building skills that are (1) in demand and (2) difficult for a machine to duplicate. Among potential readers of the report, I suspect that the impact range is large enough that some low skilled readers of it (not that I think many low skilled people will dispose themselves to actually read it) may think the odds to heavily stacked against them that they fail to take the report's implications to heart and act upon them. Among high skilled readers, I suspect a fair number of them may naively think themselves immune to the AI onslaught and thus to their detriment take no action. As a guide thoughtful readers can use to make reasoned inferences that in turn inform "life level" decisions they make, it's a decent document.

 

[Fishlore]

If we take away all the burger flipping jobs where are those people going to work?

When a person can no longer afford to buy a product because they have no job and no income where does that leave the economy?

*****SMILE*****

Those are the big questions and so far, no answers. For the past 10,000 years or so, the economy in every society has depended on the wealth produced by the application of labor to capital investment (land, tools etc.). Human wages have been factored as a proportional division of that jointly produced wealth, the rest being ROI in the form of profit.

Technology in the past few decades has shifted the labor/capital mix to extremes never seen before. The amount of human labor needed to produce almost everything is shrinking like the polar ice cap.

And don't kid yourself: the amount of new job openings in the robotics industry is tiny in comparison to the amount of human labor displaced. This isn't your great-graddaddy's Industrial Revolution.

What to do? For starters, all wealth produced must be taxed equally. When we say that corporate taxes are cut, we are saying that robot taxes are lower than human taxes and robots are taking the jobs.

Second, jobs will have to created on the basis of our need for what is produced, not the profit that is produced. We need many jobs in human services (including the military) although these jobs produce little or no wealth.

Changes a-comin'!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Defining Intelligence | Edge.org

 

[JimBowie1958]

Defining Intelligence | Edge.org

Quote:

What is the nature of the problem and can we solve it? I would like to be able to solve it. The alternative to solving the control problem is to either put the brakes on AI or prevent the development of certain types of systems altogether if we don’t know how to control them. That would be extremely difficult because there’s this huge pressure. We all want more intelligent systems; they have huge economic value.

Bill Gates said that solving machine-learning problems would be worth ten Microsofts. At that time, that would have come out to about $4 trillion, which is a decent incentive for people to move technology forward. How can we make AI more capable, and if we do, what can we do to make sure that the outcome is beneficial? Those are the questions that I ask myself.​

It would seem that the Technological Singularity is what is being discussed, and I think it is important to buffer all Strong AI systems with human middle ware. Humans have to be the go-between with the Strong AI mainframes and the smaller systems that run machines and Robots. There also needs to be Big Red Emergency Off Switches on all vital components so we can not only pull the plug but pull them in different ways with multiple targets, lol.

The first thing I did that, if you like, was considered to be a big deal outside of one branch of the machine-learning community was the work on bounded rationality. Intelligence is, in my view, the ability to act successfully. The ability to think correctly or learn quickly has a purpose, which is to enable you to act successfully, to choose actions that are likely to achieve your objectives.

That definition of intelligence has been around in the form of what economists would call rationality, what control theorists would optimal control, what people in operations research would call optimal policies for decision problems. It’s clear that in some sense that’s the right definition for what we want intelligence to be. ​

True intelligence can shift focus from one steam of incoming signals/data to another of its own accord. You or I can sit and shift our focus to the feel of our pants legs against our skin, or the sound of the dryer running or the warm moist air in my computer room or the hum of the PC itself, etc.

A Strong AI program does as it is programmed to do and not to leave those paths and decisions.

It has no Free Will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A Strong AI program does as it is programmed to do and not to leave those paths and decisions.

I think you must use the term "strong AI" (SAI) differently than I do. I use the term to refer to the notion that a "machine's intellectual capability is functionally equal to a human's."

• Strong AI
  
• 2005 -- Human-Level Artificial Intelligence? Be Serious!
• Subjective Reality and Strong Artificial Intelligence

Aspiring to that definitional goal of SAI, how could SAI not make "conscious" choices to abandon one course of action and pursue another. Indeed, SAI, like humans, would sure have to learn to try things and scrap or modify them if they aren't yielding the desired outcomes.

Until complete omniscience is achieved, even SAI will eventually reach a point where it's in "uncharted waters" and it will have to go with the most likely best choice, which still may not be the actual best choice. I know it's hard for us to conceive that point of "where no SAI has gone before," but it's there somewhere. I suspect where it is has to do with humanity as humans are quite unpredictable and can't be relied upon to behave in a given way.