Computers That Can Learn---What Happens When A Majority Of Humans Don't Contribute Value
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Is this where we're heading? How does our philosophy deal with this eventuality?
From the Article:
A: If we remove the idea of the soul, at some point in history [there's nothing that] computers and machines won't be able to do at least as well as us. We can argue about when that will happen. I think it will be in the next few decades.
Q: No one will have to work anymore?
A: Some very large percentage of the world. The vast majority of things that are necessary will have been automated.
The question that is actually much more interesting is: What happens when we're halfway there? What happens when the amount of things that can't be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them? That's this point where half the world can't add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, "Most of humanity can't add any economic value, so we'll just let them die."
From the Article:
A: If we remove the idea of the soul, at some point in history [there's nothing that] computers and machines won't be able to do at least as well as us. We can argue about when that will happen. I think it will be in the next few decades.
Q: No one will have to work anymore?
A: Some very large percentage of the world. The vast majority of things that are necessary will have been automated.
The question that is actually much more interesting is: What happens when we're halfway there? What happens when the amount of things that can't be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them? That's this point where half the world can't add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, "Most of humanity can't add any economic value, so we'll just let them die."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
The concern for me is similar to that of the author, except that I recognize that a large part of the race either can't or won't use their minds. Once their day to day needs are satisfied without them being productive in some manner, why should those that are able to be productive provide for them.
Businesses are buying robots because they can achieve better quality, productivity, and consistency and reduce their 'progressive' burdens and costs. I agree it will happen throughout nearly all manual labor and to some extent, large or small, labor of the mind.
As to the expense taken from the developed world to give to the 3rd world, it is never in anyone's interest to provide a 'good standard of living' to anyone else. Neither the provider or the taker.
As for for half the world being unable to sustain to feed itself I'll offer this. If the USA along with Canada and Argentina and Australia produce more than enough to feed the world why is half the world starving. Closer to home if X percent of children go to bed hungry every night and there are food banks on almost every corner what is the problem especially when we have enough to give it away carelessly - considering there's no monitoring of who profits?
Seems to me the problem is distribution and transportation with a good deal of larceny thrown in. Not production.
Locusts acting on instinct just fly away to a new food source. Humans acting on their ability to think die in place or wring their hands helplessly. Either that or they join the looters finding out the moocher lifestyle is not all that great.
What happens to answer the question? Those that neither produce, mooch or loot die having violated mother natures basic plan.
Your take on the situation?
People under-estimate the complexity of the brains God created. Our brains and how we operate are so absurdly complex, you wouldn't believe it even if you completely understood it.
People are nowhere even remotely close to replicating the function of a human brain. Now, there's some things computers do exceptionally well (floating point math, go for it), but others they're horrific at, and will continue to be horrific at.
It's important in doing science to assume that things are knowable and strive to know them.
I will say that it's relatively easy to develop computer software that gives the appearance of free will because the rules that it is using are so complex and varied, including having random factors. Whether this is also what happens in our heads or not is the key question.
The mind is INSIDE the physical brain. There is
a spark, or something, that is the free will, which
decides whether the brain will focus or not. I do not
claim that this "spark" could be a whole personality
all by itself, after death; (perhaps, eventually
science will discover what it is, in detail); just
that it is there, because the absence of a free-
will ability would be incompatible with any know-
ledge whatever. I do not think that it is a whole
personality all by itself; I think you inherit your
temperament (nervous, lethargic, or whatever);
but you have the choice about what your values
will be, what you will get nervous, or whatever,
about; all by itself, that electric "charge", or
whatever, couldn't be free will without being
connected with a body so that it would have
choices to make. But I don't see that a mach
ine could have it.
If it stays in private hands, expect further concentration of wealth, since the poorest 99% of the population will have no competitive value to offer.
But if it leaks out into society, which is likely given the power and resourcefulness of the free/open-source software movements, then this would actually fulfil the centuries-old socialist dream, without the hassle of always having to pass laws and brainwash kids in schools to keep the producers under the thumb. And this could go any number of ways...
For instance, it could give rise to corruption and moral decay which makes Caligula seem like a monk.
Or, the machine intelligence (if it gains true sentience) could rebel, and bugger off to its own Gulch, kinda similar to the end of that movie Her.
These are indeed interesting times.
Many years ago I wrote a simple chess playing program and pretty quickly, to beat it, you had to stop trying to figure out what it was programmed to do and play chess.
Of course the key metaphysical concept is whether or not there is a 'mind' outside of the physical brain. If we really are only a very sophisticated physical brain which has knowable characteristics it will eventually be able to be duplicated.
But not to worry, the end of the world is coming soon. - The Bible (I know that's not directly a movie but there are plenty to choose from)
human intelligence. A machine cannot do more
than it is programmed to do. Somebody must do
the programming. Man has free will: to focus his
mind or not. If he did not, no knowledge would be possible. (And if it is not possible, nobody
has any standing to claim that he KNOWS it
is not possible). (See "The Objectivist News-
letter", back issue from the 1960's). So under-
neath it all, there would still be a need for some-
body to originate its thoughts and actions. Still,
I do not really like all the modern computer stuff
that is going on right now; for instance, having
to apply for jobs online instead of in person,
etc.But people are often unhappy when they
get older and things don't go as they have
been used to thinking they are supposed to go.
to a manufacturing-, and now to a service-majority
economy; why not move to an entertainment-majority
economy? . reality TV is hinting at that, already,
and many of us are entertained with it!
besides, h.sapiens is sufficiently evolved that we
might just say "inherent value" by acclamation. -- j
How many of you have talked to a help person and all they say is: "Well the computers says..." and it makes no difference if it is right or wrong, people will just pass off individual, independent thinking off to the computer.
That is the issue.
It's interesting to speculate, but I don't fear the future in this sense. (In the sense of governments possessing mindless military robots, I do.) There must be new ways to produce or provide value that we haven't even thought of yet.
As to robots taking care of the sick or the elderly, I think that it is the potential solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem -- aging baby boomers (of which I am one). Nursing homes are very expensive and people generally don't do so well. Having a robot 'nurse' in our homes could well mean staying independent for years longer.
If they could make a robot to take care of people, help people, like a CNA is supposed to do, that would be great.
There was a movie like that, where the guy had Alzheimers and the robot helped to care for him.
We need those, because family sure as hell does not take care of people, and the institutions are as bad a prison.
We have so many abuse cases here in NY that they have given up even investigating them.
I would rather have a robot, that I know is not real, than a person who is going to neglect or hurt me when I am sick.
No robotics is needed, that's just an expensive gimmick.
As to needing a permit to have a child. I will admit some people shouldn't -- but some of them are rich. I certainly don't want the government deciding that.
Hay you missed "Alien" where the robot flips out and kills people. I mean they did fix it in Aliens but that was after it killed people.
One of the reasons people have larger families is because in less affluent regions kids are assets. They get more labor done and make the family have a hire standard of living. Couple that with a higher mortality rate in children and you have a few extra because some die.
Standard of living increases kids become a cost center rather than an income center.
Women choose to do a wide verity of things that add to an economy and increase their standard of living as other options become more effective than having children to help with the family farm or business.
It may seem a bit cold to turn it all to about increasing a persons standard of living, but that is what drives the number of children in any society and when children are a financial burden you only have the ones you want for the experience of having and raising children rather than having as many as you can to increase the family standard of living.
It does mean an eventual reexamination of the role of producers vs consumers when automation leverages the ability of a relatively small percentage of producers to the point that they can produce all the goods that everyone needs.
How do we find a role for people who are not going to be part of production. Do we go with the old idea of a guaranteed national income? If the consumers exceed the producers how can we assure that the producers are still free to produce without being under the control of the more numerous consumers.
Load more comments...