|
I would love to see somebody actually do an even cursory survey of the evidence that we're within a generation of achieving a global post-scarcity society through automation. Ideally with slightly more specificity than a handwave toward an article on automation in a first world car factory.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
I don't know about post scarcity, but any knowledge work that one could make a flow chart to describe all the processes for is probably hosed in the same way any repeatable predictable physical motion on a line was. There have been a couple studies and articles in the past few years looking widely at the economy and they are pretty bleak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
A lot of the hype around AI and such right now is based solely around artificial neural networks which, while good, are not currently equivalent to actual neurons in your brain - at least not how they're set up right now. You're better off thinking of them as as a very elaborate series of matrix transformations, combined with some optimization algorithms to find the best matrix transforms for a given task (given a fitness criteria). They're all linear as hell. So you can, for example, easily transform a set of pictures into some categorization schema, or recognize features, or recognize correlations people would never see. But that's it, there's no awareness or anything approaching that, no strategy making, no goal orientation, and no pattern recognition without using a ton of training data first. I don't doubt that there's large parts of some people's jobs that can just get taken out, and in a lot of cases you don't need any of that to do something useful. i.e. since you can control the environment of a warehouse in fine detail, you don't need the robots to have awareness, they just have to recognize markers or whatever and go from there. But you're mad if you think this is anything close to skynet or whatever, it's not. The guy hanging off the back of a garbage truck and throwing trash into the back is doing something that nothing on any current AI, or anything on the horizon, can actually do. The #1 issue is the oncoming crisis of overproduction/under-consumption from stagnant/retreating wages, not from labor being rendered superfluous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
This op ed seems on topic: The Real Threat of Artificial Intelligence https://nyti.ms/2t36pRc
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:A lot of the hype around AI and such right now is based solely around artificial neural networks which, while good, are not currently equivalent to actual neurons in your brain - at least not how they're set up right now. You're better off thinking of them as as a very elaborate series of matrix transformations, combined with some optimization algorithms to find the best matrix transforms for a given task (given a fitness criteria). They're all linear as hell. the issue with AI isn't going to be that it takes over, it'll be more of a "Brazil" situation where people mindlessly follow flawed algorithms in a sort of modern day phrenology with math
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You're better off thinking of them as as a very elaborate series of matrix transformations, combined with some optimization algorithms to find the best matrix transforms for a given task (given a fitness criteria). They're all linear as hell. Yes a lot of it is linear programming. When they say algorithm a lot of the time that just means really complicated algebra solved by iteration and matrices. But combined with systems dynamics (which is differential equations based) and big data (to inform the algorithms) that's when things get interesting. Traditional industrial automation, like automation for a power plant, that's mostly systems. But it was widely applied (eg Rand, probably the best example) to business eventually. Well that's going to happen with this new clustering of math/engineering allowing automation. It's going to play out over decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:the issue with AI isn't going to be that it takes over, it'll be more of a "Brazil" situation where people mindlessly follow flawed algorithms in a sort of modern day phrenology with math I fight this all the time, armed with decades old equations simplified for drunks with only a high school education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So you are going for the terminator argument then. The thing about talking about the future is that the argument 'that would be futuristic' is rather weak. If an AI can beat humans at both chess and Go, and drive a car, it can presumably beat a human in a firefight, even ignoring it's inherent advantage in being made of metal. And if that can be done, it can very likely be done in a form factor suitable for mass production at a cost considerably less than 16 years of food and education. It's hard to see all the world's militaries refraining from producing a war-winning weapon; successful treaty bans generally only apply to weapons that are more or less a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
They'll adhere to them even in the face of proof the computer is wrong. Chief, your loading computer is using maximum free surface moments for ballast tanks that are empty. Empty tanks don't have a free surface moment because they are empty! No but the loading computer is class approved I'll get in trouble with the office. Chief your stability books are class approved and they are the documents your flag certificates reference and require you to use, you should clearly be following them for your stability if it differs from the computer. But the computer, I send the report to the office (filled with people who know nothing about stability) every day. When you get out to sea measure your rolling period to estimate your GM. That will show you the computer is wrong. That's your distopia. Blindly trusting automated knowledge work forever even in the face of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
radmonger posted:The thing about talking about the future is that the argument 'that would be futuristic' is rather weak. The first two would be applicable if AIs could kill humans by thinking at them, and the latter would be applicable if all the other drivers on the road were actively attempting to kill you with their cars. Simple strategy games and heavily rule-based forms of transport are not comparable to fighting a war where the enemy probably won't have clear lane markings or adhere to a simple set of rules. Like yes hypothetically you could create a thing that can deal with those problems but they're substantially harder than even the most advanced computer control we currently have, if you have to invent general artificial intelligence to produce something capable of functioning as a murderbot better than a trained human, you've probably got way more problems to deal with other than the fact that you could potentially build murderbots. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I don't know about post scarcity, but any knowledge work that one could make a flow chart to describe all the processes for is probably hosed in the same way any repeatable predictable physical motion on a line was. There have been a couple studies and articles in the past few years looking widely at the economy and they are pretty bleak. The technological deskilling of white collar work is going to be economically disruptive and probably politically toxic. I just don't see how it creates a "post work" society when plenty of physical labour and menial tasks will probably remain for humans to perform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The technological deskilling of white collar work is going to be economically disruptive and probably politically toxic. I just don't see how it creates a "post work" society when plenty of physical labour and menial tasks will probably remain for humans to perform. The point where the social order is seriously disrupted isn't anywhere near 100% unemployment, or even 50% unemployment. Greece at its absolute worst never even pushed above 30% unemployment. Go above that and you're looking at countries that are in civil war, that have economies that have literally collapsed, or both. A floor of, say, 20% unemployment outside of a recession would be an apocalyptic disaster for a country like the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I just don't see how it creates a "post work" society when plenty of physical labour and menial tasks will probably remain for humans to perform. I don't think we will get to post work, I do think we'll get to: welp pretty hosed
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
This thread, retail, automation, and the economy thread over lap significantly in a good way for discussion, that is aldo profoundly worrying in substance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So you are going for the terminator argument then. Again, I'm quite sure your glib caricature of technological realism will prove an effective shield for you and yours from the consequences of your utter redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
OMFG FURRY posted:no matter what happens, you'd have to give people something they can collect and crow about to their neighbors about how much more and better things they have. the idea that an enlightened society would pop from the aether simply because you don't need people to work anymore is laughable. we've been greedy and prideful assholes since the dawn of time, its how our ancestors survived, that isn't going to disappear overnight. maybe buttcoins or puka shells
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Collecting and crowing didn't pop out of the ether, either (heh). In case you didn't notice, there are industries and infrastructures dedicated to promoting them. Yes, you see, it's those industries that emerged out of the aether. Monkeys haven't always wanted more bananas than they have: marketing did that. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The point where the social order is seriously disrupted isn't anywhere near 100% unemployment, or even 50% unemployment. Greece at its absolute worst never even pushed above 30% unemployment. Go above that and you're looking at countries that are in civil war, that have economies that have literally collapsed, or both. A floor of, say, 20% unemployment outside of a recession would be an apocalyptic disaster for a country like the US. BrandorKP posted:I don't think we will get to post work, I do think we'll get to: welp pretty hosed The most likely outcome of current trends would be that people who own a lot of capital (i.e. own robots) will gain a higher share of societies wealth and the rest of the populace will have to do with a smaller share. This will trigger political conflicts over the distribution of wealth. In fact this process already started decades ago but we can see it ramping up in recent years and it looks like it will only get worse in the future. My question is what evidence the OP sees that implies our situation is leading to a "post-work" society within our lifetimes. It's like a weird neoliberal version of the rapture or the singularity or full communism, where we're supposed to base our actions in the present on the belief in some imminent and utopia that will solve all our intractable problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
First of all, it's kind of stupid to respond to a futuristic hypothetical with "well that won't happen for awhile". Like, fine. Scale up the timetable then. Let's talk about what happens 1000 years from now. If it's possible and/or likely to happen eventually it's worth talking about. Second, I think "post work society" is a bit of an oversimplification, maybe? Like, yes, we will probably get to the point where humans are no longer needed to run cash registers or even drive cars, but I think there are jobs like "person who decides who to provide land grants to" that we'll never trust to be automated. So the only jobs we'll eliminate are ones involving unskilled drudgery. I think UBI is the workable fix to this, though, as the alternative is just living with 20% or whatever unemployment. The real concern for me, though, happens long before we get perfect AI that runs everything and does every job. Without significant reforms in how businesses are structured and interact with the rest of society, what we'll inevitably face is the couple trillion-dollar companies that own the robots and hold patents on all the relevant tech and then a good half society with no money combined with a government too emaciated to help them. Taxes on the mega-rich need to rise, loopholes need to close, and robust social safety net programs need to be instated with the resulting revenue to counter this before it hits and the evil version of Elon Musk becomes de facto dictator of Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yes, you see, it's those industries that emerged out of the aether. Monkeys haven't always wanted more bananas than they have: marketing did that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You cannot win an arms race against autosophisticating Capital. It will protect itself with ruthless, inhuman efficiency, and you will starve. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Taxes on the mega-rich need to rise, loopholes need to close, and robust social safety net programs need to be instated with the resulting revenue to counter this before it hits and the evil version of Elon Musk becomes de facto dictator of Earth. Nevvy Z posted:Elysium was real. They are gonna have robot guards and doctors on their moon base while the rest of us madmax it down here. Just watch as they build launch platforms in New Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:What are you even talking about He's saying it's inherent to us as dumb monkeys instead of learned as part of a culture. Personally, I don't have an opinion to which I think it is anymore with regards to excessive greed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Does Capitalism need human input? Guess we'll know soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:First of all, it's kind of stupid to respond to a futuristic hypothetical with "well that won't happen for awhile". Like, fine. Scale up the timetable then. Let's talk about what happens 1000 years from now. If it's possible and/or likely to happen eventually it's worth talking about. It is a pertinent point when the assertion is that the futuristic hypothetical is going to happen imminently and thus is going to happen in the society we currently live in, rather than the society we're going to live in in 1000 years, because it makes the question of what happens rather harder to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:He's saying it's inherent to us as dumb monkeys instead of learned as part of a culture. Personally, I don't have an opinion to which I think it is anymore with regards to excessive greed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Well, I'm prepared to put up my sources that advertisers see it as their job to raise demand, against anyone's sources that demand is driven by "monkey" instincts. I think the assertion is that if all social drivers towards greed were removed, humans would see fit to invent more of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Oyak posted:But if UBI happens and everybody gets, say, $2000 tax free dollars a month, what will stop the price of goods from escalating to the point where $2000 tax free dollars doesn't do any good? Well, for one thing, a UBI that's any good will be indexed to cost-of-living (which means that if prices go up, so does the payout) and paid for by taxation (which means that the higher the UBI goes, the more the price-setters have to pay).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Well, I'm prepared to put up my sources that advertisers see it as their job to raise demand, against anyone's sources that demand is driven by "monkey" instincts. Want is a chemically driven response. It's dopamine. But interpretation of chemical response, the concepts that we use to understand our experience of it is learned and can be shaped by culture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
So if we treat the abstract capital as an agent to reach this post work distopia... The world is one of angels and demons, why is this any different than any other apocalypse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Imagine a world where you could travel and explore without having to worry about getting back to a job that was completely irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So if we treat the abstract capital as an agent to reach this post work distopia... It's not, it's just the one that's actually going to happen. Fried Watermelon posted:Imagine a world where you could travel and explore without having to worry about getting back to a job that was completely irrelevant Drawing an equivalence between imaginable and possible is the cruelest thing we do to our children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Well, I'm prepared to put up my sources that advertisers see it as their job to raise demand, against anyone's sources that demand is driven by "monkey" instincts. There are cases where advertisers have had the job of _reducing_ demand, but people kept the monkey instincts. Smoking hasn't been eradicated in places with marketing bans and lots of public health advertising. But it has been pretty substantially reduced. Post-scarcity, given demand-reducing advertising, is a lot more technologically feasible than post-scarcity _despite_ marketing focused on increasing demand for whatever remains scarcest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It's not, it's just the one that's actually going to happen. Of all the ideas, states, corporations, concepts, and living things that might have agency in this world. I don't believe the money and life drinking vampire will win out in the end. Edit: which is not to say we aren't hosed. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Universal income will just lead to higher rent, and precarity will remain. It will be little more than a state subsidy to landlords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Universal income will just lead to higher rent, and precarity will remain. It will be little more than a state subsidy to landlords. everybody's gotta live somewhere. you could make the same argument about food stamps raising food prices and being a state subsidy to grocers
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Except the supply of housing in an area tends to be much more constrained than the supply of food, so that comparison doesn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
nah, in most of the us the problem with housing is cost not supply. the shortage is affordable housing, not housing in general. both affordability and lack of supply are mitigated by increasing people's ability to purchase housing
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:nah, in most of the us the problem with housing is cost not supply. the shortage is affordable housing, not housing in general. The whole reason the housing is largely so unaffordable is because there's a shortage of it, which lets landlords raise prices. When demand is increasing and supply isn't, what do you think happens? Of course new housing tends to be more expensive (especially when it comes in a big tower), part of that is inherent (new things cost more, duh), part of it is, well, if you can get away with charging more why wouldn't you? A real progressive solution would be increasing allowed density and then having the government itself build a shitton of affordable housing paid for via (progressive income) taxes, but politically that's probably impossible so we get these dumb rules that basically amount to "hey we can just say that developers HAVE to make some affordable housing!" which just means the market-rate housing they create gets even more expensive since that's where the subsidy comes from. quote:both affordability and lack of supply are mitigated by increasing people's ability to purchase housing
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:??? outside of a few urban enclaves which are heavily represented in this forum, there's plenty of housing. just not housing that is located anywhere anyone wants to live, which is why it is affordable. vacancy rates nationally typically remain pretty level Cicero posted:Sounds like someone hasn't been paying attention to local politics in any of the liberal coastal cities. The reason supply isn't increasing to meet demand is largely due to zoning and procedural hurdles that limit it. Even in a major city like Seattle you have a majority of the residential area that bans anything other than detached single-family housing on large lots. if you want to talk about whatever super gentrified gated enclave you live in that's fine but please be explicit because i'm talking about national housing in a thread about national policy
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Universal income will just lead to higher rent, and precarity will remain. It will be little more than a state subsidy to landlords. drat if only there were some kind of... control... that the state could enforce over rents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:57
|
|