AI will create 'useless class' of humans(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
AI will create 'useless class' of humans
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/silicon-assassins-condemn-humans-life-useless-artificial-intelligence?sf=owgxvgy
84 comments
I see a lot of comments saying "this happened in the past, and the new technologies never made the humans useless". Well, maybe a good way to state the current problem is the following: the aim of this new technology is to produce humans. A potentially infinite amount of them. Running on electricity instead of food. Needing the space of a box. Without the need to sleep, socialize, furnish their apartments, look for love and raise kids. If the technology is actually possible, there simply can't be any space left for old style, flesh and blood humans in the economy.
When this happens, costs for virtually everything will more or less go to zero, because we can make humans to make more humans to make everything else in our society that costs money. Try to imagine a society where virtually everything is free...visualize walking around and getting free coffee from Starbucks, free rides from Uber, free meals three times a day, free healthcare, free housing, etc. If everything is free, there isn't really a need for work and income at all. We're much further off from what you are suggesting than I think many proponents of AI realize, but this would be the other side of that coin.
It is possible, in theory. That however assumes that the property of all those machines and product is public - that they are owned by the collectivity. And that this allows to run them efficiently.
But even if this is possibke, it's the transition period between the current private property system and a completely collectivist one that's scary. Because at the moment almost all means of production are privately owned and run for profit. AIs will both skyrocket the profits while creating vast amounts of people completely unable to survive with their wages - and therefore to buy any products. At some point the system has to collapse and become a sort of communism, but I don't think it will be a painless transition at all.
The price will go to zero gradually. It's already doing it - it used to be that you had to work for a several months to buy a shirt. Today you can do it with a several hours of a minimum wage, and in a "scary" future you will need to work for a several minutes.
Cheap shirts can be had for under 5 € in Germany, with minimum wage at 8.50 €. (The fine print: These cheap shirts likely contain more chemicals than cotton.)
So they are made with other organic compounds. Do they function as shirts? What is the problem with nylon?
I don't mean the fabric. I mean all the chemicals applied to it. I have a Vietnamese-owned minimart down the street and whenever I walk past it during opening hours, it smells like a chemicals factory.
You're assuming that human brains and bodies are grossly inefficient. I would argue that while humans are bad at some tasks, the brain is a fairly efficient _low-order_ general probabalistic computer, and the body is a fairly efficient as a highly general object manipulation system. I doubt for highly varied, extremely low value tasks that robots backed by AI will be significantly cheaper than humans for a long time, if ever. We're too close to the end of Moore's law, and energy efficiency is such a survival advantage that life has almost certainly optimized this variable fairly well.
[deleted]
Don't forget that natural evolution is a very slow and inefficient process, essentially driven by randomness, and that there is no such "optimization" that you describe, only selection.
Moore's law may come to an end, but we have many great things coming such as quantum computing or nuclear fusion.
The natural selection process, when paired with random variation, is a functional optimization algorithm for things that impact survival. Energy efficiency very directly impacts survival. Ergo, life has "optimized" energy efficiency to some degree.
With regards to quantum computing and nuclear fusion, I prefer not to count my chickens before they've hatched. We may get both (and more!) or we may find that they are only functional under specific contexts that limit their utility.
With regards to quantum computing and nuclear fusion, I prefer not to count my chickens before they've hatched. We may get both (and more!) or we may find that they are only functional under specific contexts that limit their utility.
Even if every is free, it doesn't mean it's unlimited. I doubt we have the capacity to produce everything that everyone on the planet might want. That will of necessity give rise to some sort of prioritization or right to have what you want when you want it. Money of some for or another will return.
Exactly my thoughts.
Another way of looking at it is, when the cars came, the carriages were obsolete. Sure, the drivers may have reskilled to some other vocation but what about the horse? In this situation, we are the horses, and the AI is the car.
Another way of looking at it is, when the cars came, the carriages were obsolete. Sure, the drivers may have reskilled to some other vocation but what about the horse? In this situation, we are the horses, and the AI is the car.
Typo - "AI will expand 'useless class' of humans"
Indeed. We have little need now for elevator operators.
But 100 years ago, when steam, electricity, and wide-spread mechanization of the previous decades had brought huge advantages in efficiency, the thought was that there would be increased leisure, and the time to pursue the activities which make us more human, like friendship, raising children, hobbies, and more serious avocations. Or watching TV, playing video games, and getting high.
This isn't the "useless class" but the "leisure class." Of course, quoting from the article:
> Harari, it turns out, has a specific definition of useless. “I choose this very upsetting term, useless, to highlight the fact that we are talking about useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system, not from a moral viewpoint,”
If you get to pick your definitions, you get to say what you want.
But 100 years ago, when steam, electricity, and wide-spread mechanization of the previous decades had brought huge advantages in efficiency, the thought was that there would be increased leisure, and the time to pursue the activities which make us more human, like friendship, raising children, hobbies, and more serious avocations. Or watching TV, playing video games, and getting high.
This isn't the "useless class" but the "leisure class." Of course, quoting from the article:
> Harari, it turns out, has a specific definition of useless. “I choose this very upsetting term, useless, to highlight the fact that we are talking about useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system, not from a moral viewpoint,”
If you get to pick your definitions, you get to say what you want.
> If you get to pick your definitions, you get to say what you want.
The term "useless" is inherently relative. The universe does not have a natural position on "usefulness". So yes, you do get to make it to mean whatever you want it to be. That is not a basis to criticize anyone - any framework you choose to set a basis is itself arbitrary. Unless you believe in some "higher purpose", where all discussion ceases to be meaningful because nothing can be proven and you can claim whatever you want, and the loudest and/or strongest "wins".
The term "useless" is inherently relative. The universe does not have a natural position on "usefulness". So yes, you do get to make it to mean whatever you want it to be. That is not a basis to criticize anyone - any framework you choose to set a basis is itself arbitrary. Unless you believe in some "higher purpose", where all discussion ceases to be meaningful because nothing can be proven and you can claim whatever you want, and the loudest and/or strongest "wins".
It was a common idea in the 70s too.
All it takes is a bout of inflation to kill the idea that we've run out of things for people to do. It'll happen to the United States if the flow of underpriced Chinese goods dries up and the US needs to start making its own goods.
All it takes is a bout of inflation to kill the idea that we've run out of things for people to do. It'll happen to the United States if the flow of underpriced Chinese goods dries up and the US needs to start making its own goods.
It's not that they will be useless, it's just that their use does not make financial sense.
AI replaces humans when:
- AI is able to perform a new human intelligence task
- Perform at a human level of reliability
- Perform at a cost-effective level
- It is wrapped in form of a product or service that makes it easy to distribute and deploy
AI replaces humans when:
- AI is able to perform a new human intelligence task
- Perform at a human level of reliability
- Perform at a cost-effective level
- It is wrapped in form of a product or service that makes it easy to distribute and deploy
> But our fate at the hand of clever cloggs robots may in fact be worse - to summon a class of eternally useless human beings.
Can't help but notice the sensationalist tone.
The author also seems to have a pessimistic view of the future and the role of humans in it. Certain roles may be replaced by AI and humans will move on to do different things, but that does not mean it will render those humans useless. What exactly will humans move on to do is of course an open ended question, but if history is any indication, it won't be bleak as the author predicts.
Can't help but notice the sensationalist tone.
The author also seems to have a pessimistic view of the future and the role of humans in it. Certain roles may be replaced by AI and humans will move on to do different things, but that does not mean it will render those humans useless. What exactly will humans move on to do is of course an open ended question, but if history is any indication, it won't be bleak as the author predicts.
These screeds have one grave misunderstanding: that AI can compete with a human. It's like apples to oranges.
Alpha Go may have beat the best human player in the world but you can't ask it to fold the laundry or how it felt about Angela's Ashes.
I think we'll be able to optimize away boring, repetitive jobs and tasks that require vast numerical and statistical quantities. And that's a good thing.
We'll just need to adapt our economic models away from the indentured servitude to the Protestant Ethic.
Alpha Go may have beat the best human player in the world but you can't ask it to fold the laundry or how it felt about Angela's Ashes.
I think we'll be able to optimize away boring, repetitive jobs and tasks that require vast numerical and statistical quantities. And that's a good thing.
We'll just need to adapt our economic models away from the indentured servitude to the Protestant Ethic.
Something I never see answered in these discussions: What are the previous workers to do, those whose jobs were so simple that a properly configured AI can perform it faster and better.
Every other job that they would be capable of is just as likely to be replaced by another properly configured machine. If every possible tasks a person would be capable of handling can be solved by a specific machine in a better way then what should these people do?
I am not talking about engineers or white collar workers. I'm talking about people who were unfortunately born with what I'd for a lack of a better word call "low IQ" though I know that the term and the science behind it is highly flawed.
Currently, those persons are in the vast minority. Only a small percentile of the human population falls into this category. But as AI gets smarter, year over year, the minimal job requirement will grow.
I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it.
I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it.
First there's a slippery slope there. You presume that all menial tasks will be taken over by AI or robots. You also assume that some or all people who presently perform these menial tasks are not smart enough or capable of performing tasks beyond the menial ones.
The problem I have with that is that economic and political forces often keep people, intelligent people, in menial jobs for no better reason than circumstance. There are plenty of smart, capable people with real passions for music or mathematics who are stuck filling forms in an office because they need to a job to pay the rent and bills. There are many ways they could have ended up at that job.
But if they were given the opportunity to be free from that circumstance, what do you think they would do? If the economic output of the region is the same regardless, does it matter if they do nothing?
I have a belief that people will find more productive things to do that they previously never could.
> I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it.
That's what I meant when I suggested we would need to shift our economic models away from the ideals set out by Max Weber. Criticisms about the formation of capitalism aside it traded serfdom for indentured servitude. It allowed us to transform our world and build great things... but I think it's time is nearing an end.
But yet the greatest opponents to change are those with the most to lose. And they have quite a lot of money and power.
update grammar.
The problem I have with that is that economic and political forces often keep people, intelligent people, in menial jobs for no better reason than circumstance. There are plenty of smart, capable people with real passions for music or mathematics who are stuck filling forms in an office because they need to a job to pay the rent and bills. There are many ways they could have ended up at that job.
But if they were given the opportunity to be free from that circumstance, what do you think they would do? If the economic output of the region is the same regardless, does it matter if they do nothing?
I have a belief that people will find more productive things to do that they previously never could.
> I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it.
That's what I meant when I suggested we would need to shift our economic models away from the ideals set out by Max Weber. Criticisms about the formation of capitalism aside it traded serfdom for indentured servitude. It allowed us to transform our world and build great things... but I think it's time is nearing an end.
But yet the greatest opponents to change are those with the most to lose. And they have quite a lot of money and power.
update grammar.
Life has had billions of years to evolve into an efficient system, from a thermodynamic standpoint. We may make AI backed robots that eclipse humans in terms of capabilities, but I strongly doubt we'll approach human price/performance ratio for highly varied tasks for a very long time, if ever.
Positions that involve a wide variety of fairly simple but involved skills such as landscapers, mechanics, or maids will probably be around for a long time. Don't forget the fact that as other jobs are automated away, the supply of these sorts of laborers will increase, resulting in lower wages.
Positions that involve a wide variety of fairly simple but involved skills such as landscapers, mechanics, or maids will probably be around for a long time. Don't forget the fact that as other jobs are automated away, the supply of these sorts of laborers will increase, resulting in lower wages.
IMO programmers have got more to worry about the future of their job than bricklayers. It seems rather obvious to me that the job of software developer would be the first victim of advances in AI.
AlphaGo is only the beginning. The same tech in alphaGo has recently caused massive improvements in speech recognition, machine vision, translation, NLP, etc.
It won't be long before you can have a robot that will understand "fold the laundry", and be able to control a robot body to do it. We've had robotic tech for a long time. But only right now is the AI catching up to make use of it.
It won't be long before you can have a robot that will understand "fold the laundry", and be able to control a robot body to do it. We've had robotic tech for a long time. But only right now is the AI catching up to make use of it.
These are all highly specialized tasks. Useful, but not general enough to replace a conscious human being.
> It won't be long before you can have a robot that will understand "fold the laundry"
Who the hell wants to spend their life folding laundry anyway? Some people do only because that is what their circumstances dictate. There's no reason they should if we have the means to alleviate them of such trivial "work."
It's my understanding that we already have these devices. They're slow as molasses but the efficiency of not having a human do it is great. Good. We're all better off.
> It won't be long before you can have a robot that will understand "fold the laundry"
Who the hell wants to spend their life folding laundry anyway? Some people do only because that is what their circumstances dictate. There's no reason they should if we have the means to alleviate them of such trivial "work."
It's my understanding that we already have these devices. They're slow as molasses but the efficiency of not having a human do it is great. Good. We're all better off.
Humans with fewer skills than the elite were not pushed out of the employment market by the invention of dishwashers, laundry machines, or vacuum cleaners. The invention of AI is hardly different.
A dishwasher or a laundry machine can do one thing. For every task, you need to create a very particular machine. AI is different, you just train it on the task like you'd train a human worker and that's it. No need to invent a new machine.
>A dishwasher or a laundry machine can do one thing. For every task, you need to create a very particular machine. AI is different
It's absolutely not. Siri's never driven a car or beaten a human at Go.
It's absolutely not. Siri's never driven a car or beaten a human at Go.
Even if it was, unless you're saying robots are going to buy and sell things to each other, all economic activity is oriented around humans. There's no point to AI without us. As well put a dishwasher in the jungle. The monkeys might like it, but they sure won't use it to wash clothes.
> There's no point to AI without us.
But all of us? That's where the class thing comes in.
But all of us? That's where the class thing comes in.
If AI is truly useful, then it'll be put to use for everybody. Technology has been dicking around with our social classes for thousands of years.
You could argue that technology is the whole reason we have social classes in the first place.
You have to ask yourself what's so different about AI. It's an interesting question, but none of the more dramatic answers are really unprecedented. It's a "what is true isn't new, and what's new isn't true," sort of deal.
Is it going to make some of us useless? Then it's going to make all of us useless, because there won't be any point in just deploying AI to serve only the elites. All technology eventually filters out to serve everyone.
You could argue that technology is the whole reason we have social classes in the first place.
You have to ask yourself what's so different about AI. It's an interesting question, but none of the more dramatic answers are really unprecedented. It's a "what is true isn't new, and what's new isn't true," sort of deal.
Is it going to make some of us useless? Then it's going to make all of us useless, because there won't be any point in just deploying AI to serve only the elites. All technology eventually filters out to serve everyone.
> there won't be any point in just deploying AI to serve only the elites.
Why? If it's the elites that deploy it?
Why? If it's the elites that deploy it?
Technology is always deployed first by the elites to serve the elites. But those elites don't live in a vacuum and are never completely self-sufficient. So eventually they'll want to trade access to their technology for something they do want.
An example of this is military tech. The US sells surplus military equipment to anybody that will buy it, even sophisticated kit like F-16s. Naturally, they keep the best stuff to themselves, you can't buy an F-22 at the moment for any price. But eventually even the F-22 will be old tech and you'll be able to buy one.
An example of this is military tech. The US sells surplus military equipment to anybody that will buy it, even sophisticated kit like F-16s. Naturally, they keep the best stuff to themselves, you can't buy an F-22 at the moment for any price. But eventually even the F-22 will be old tech and you'll be able to buy one.
To be fair, I don't use my dishwasher to wash clothes either
Hah, whoops. Well played, sir, now I can't change it.
No worries, even with the typo you did make a valid point
We're not talking about now, we're talking about the future.
Computers in the 50s couldn't talk to you or how to tell you whether its raining in Tulsa just by you asking it.
AI is early days.
This amuses me: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=movie+where+a+professor+si...
The third result is the one I'm looking for.
DeepMind can learn atari games on its own.
The future is arriving quickly.
Computers in the 50s couldn't talk to you or how to tell you whether its raining in Tulsa just by you asking it.
AI is early days.
This amuses me: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=movie+where+a+professor+si...
The third result is the one I'm looking for.
DeepMind can learn atari games on its own.
The future is arriving quickly.
This is the third link for me, and I don't think it answers the question (I've just skimmed it): http://www.businessinsider.com/professors-craziest-students-...
I don't see any link that could answer that question in my first page of results.
I don't see any link that could answer that question in my first page of results.
Hmm, the filter bubble will damn us all.
the answer is: "The Man From Earth", a movie. A very good movie.
the answer is: "The Man From Earth", a movie. A very good movie.
In terms of obsolescence, it's dog eat dog within the tech world too. On Friday, our new COO told the dev team (we were not consulted, just the CEO) of his plans to move the back office to the cloud (salesforce). Nobody but the coo knows salesforce. The guy beside me was devops (the guy who deals with AWS, docker and the server) he was basically made obsolete for the company. I have the weekend to decide if I want to learn salesforce (some shitty version of Java ( which is shitty already) called apex) or start looking for a job. So I have a lot of empathy for the workers who have these automation obsolescence dropped on them. It will hit us all.
I am a programmer. Its totally possible for this to happen. But, bugs will buy us time. We are too stupid (for now, a new language or proof system could change this) to write good enough software to destroy ourselves. Also energy efficiency. Organic life is crazy efficient at turning food into work (If you have access to abundant clean water). Give a person a happy meal and they can walk for days. A robot of the same size/weight/strength will kill it's battery or exhaust it's fossil fuel tank in a few hours.
The last programmer putting the finishing touches on artificial general intelligence (the one that will put programmers out of work too) just needs to make sure "love the meat bags who made you" is the second last instruction. The last instruction is don't alter the second last instruction.
Personally, I would enjoy hiking the west coast trail, drawing and painting more. I will miss coding through. I love the feeling when it finally work the way you want it to. The point being: if we are smart enough to automate all the jobs, we are probably smart enough to provide food/healthcare to everyone for free (basic living wage or whatever). It's not the end of world. There are lots of ways to spend your time.
The last programmer putting the finishing touches on artificial general intelligence (the one that will put programmers out of work too) just needs to make sure "love the meat bags who made you" is the second last instruction. The last instruction is don't alter the second last instruction.
Personally, I would enjoy hiking the west coast trail, drawing and painting more. I will miss coding through. I love the feeling when it finally work the way you want it to. The point being: if we are smart enough to automate all the jobs, we are probably smart enough to provide food/healthcare to everyone for free (basic living wage or whatever). It's not the end of world. There are lots of ways to spend your time.
First, read the article before commenting. This is about automation replacing jobs, not the singularity.
Second energy efficiency isn't a big deal. A robot army that runs on petrol is still scary. Energy efficiency has not kept machines from beating humans physically, at all.
Lastly, it's impossible to code "love the meat bags who made you". AI's do not take English language instructions. You need to specify exactly what you mean by "love" and "meat bags", etc, and not make any mistakes at all.
Second energy efficiency isn't a big deal. A robot army that runs on petrol is still scary. Energy efficiency has not kept machines from beating humans physically, at all.
Lastly, it's impossible to code "love the meat bags who made you". AI's do not take English language instructions. You need to specify exactly what you mean by "love" and "meat bags", etc, and not make any mistakes at all.
[deleted]
Jack Williamson attempted a kind of exposition of these issues in The Humanoids (1948), the follow up to his classic story With Folded Hands (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands).
What's interesting about the book is his attempt to validate a human existence in which it is not necessary for humans to do anything practical whatsoever...unless they wish to.
Personally I think we are hundreds of years away from needing to start to worry about this problem. We're more likely to get destroyed some other way first.
Fun times.
What's interesting about the book is his attempt to validate a human existence in which it is not necessary for humans to do anything practical whatsoever...unless they wish to.
Personally I think we are hundreds of years away from needing to start to worry about this problem. We're more likely to get destroyed some other way first.
Fun times.
Always worth linking to Marshall Brain's "Manna" with a title like that;
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
it could also unleash a lot of currently stupidly-employed people to do what they'd actually excel at.
Do we really need more of them?
[deleted]
Every time a new tech emerges someone will always say, that the new tech will take away human jobs.
The new tech will take away human jobs. But the humans will just go do other newly created jobs.
The new tech will take away human jobs. But the humans will just go do other newly created jobs.
So far we've automated physical tasks. It was possible to go into intellectual jobs as an alternative avenue, since automating that wasn't possible. However now we're automating mental work. Humans can currently go into jobs requiring higher education or creativity but 1) this won't work for everybody and 2) this is not a new avenue outside of the reach of automatization. The machines have a good chance of catching, especially since a lot of those humans moving into more specialized jobs will be tasked with making better machines, which in turn endangers more jobs.
We seem to be ignoring the current theoretical limitations of A.I. I'm not an C.S or A.I expert. But what I can remember from university is that we need a pretty big breakthrough in computer science to get to that stage. I'm not saying it won't happen. But who knows.
Even if we cannot automate everything, we are going to be in big trouble (on a social level) if the work left to humans only occupies anything less than about 50% of adult people. The relevant thing will be the ratio of decay rate of jobs that are automated away vs. creation rate of new jobs, but that's hard to estimate because technological advances are hard to estimate.
It's true. The past is not a perfect indicator of future. This time it could be different. The transition wont be smooth and people in large number will actively try and stop technological progress.
It is already happening. The whole deep learning thing is no joke. They cannot replace human, but can achieve close to or better than human level of performance in certain specific tasks. Before that, close to human performance is never achieved for certain tasks, and largely considered impossible in near future just 5 years ago, like image recognition/playing go/speech recognition.
It is already eliminating jobs, gradually, not overnight but steadily, and this time it is from higher above, say, Wall Street traders.It is very easy to see there is a trend out there, that data + smart algorithms is going to take over a lot decision-making processes, that currently belongs to analyst.
The theoretical limitation of AI is bullshit. We don't get know what intelligence is, how do you think we quantify and draw a line around it?
It is already eliminating jobs, gradually, not overnight but steadily, and this time it is from higher above, say, Wall Street traders.It is very easy to see there is a trend out there, that data + smart algorithms is going to take over a lot decision-making processes, that currently belongs to analyst.
The theoretical limitation of AI is bullshit. We don't get know what intelligence is, how do you think we quantify and draw a line around it?
This is true, but I'd say that industrialisation up to this point has already created a swathe of people who have significant trouble finding a job.
100 years ago someone who's capabilities maxed out at wielding a showel cut still find work. Today that's pretty difficult. Granted, must people can up their capabilities by education, training, etc. but not everyone.
New technology (including clever software, sometimes labeled AI) will continue this trend.
True AI will also replace people, but that'll be way different (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu...).
100 years ago someone who's capabilities maxed out at wielding a showel cut still find work. Today that's pretty difficult. Granted, must people can up their capabilities by education, training, etc. but not everyone.
New technology (including clever software, sometimes labeled AI) will continue this trend.
True AI will also replace people, but that'll be way different (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu...).
There is no law of economics that says the value of labor has to be above survival, let alone minimum wage. When cars replaced horses, most horses didn't get new jobs. They literally became worth less than the cost of feeding them, and were slaughtered.
Near future AI will make the majority of humans basically worthless. There isn't much left that people can do, and computers can't. Sure maybe high intelligence jobs like engineers and programmers are safe (for now...), but most people can't become programmers or engineers.
Near future AI will make the majority of humans basically worthless. There isn't much left that people can do, and computers can't. Sure maybe high intelligence jobs like engineers and programmers are safe (for now...), but most people can't become programmers or engineers.
Do you have any citation on the assertions that the invention of cars resulted in the slaughter of many horses? I've spent a fair amount of time googling but can't find anything about it.
Economics is an entirely human construction. Such laws can be made as easily as the rest of the economic system and it makes sense.
That has been the general trend over time, but AI breaks this trend. The basic problem is there is minimum wage below which humans can't survive. No such lower limit exists with AI. At some point every job can be performed for less by an AI.
> No such lower limit exists with AI.
Not true. The price of materials and the energy needed to run it determines the lower limit on cost for AI. The cost of energy to run computers is pretty low -- low enough that a lot of people don't really think about it until you get up to clusters of the size found in computer labs and data centers -- but it's not nothing either.
I will agree though that the minimum cost to run a super-human AI (once it becomes available) is likely to be substantially less than the minimum wage needed to pay humans to do equivalent work.
Not true. The price of materials and the energy needed to run it determines the lower limit on cost for AI. The cost of energy to run computers is pretty low -- low enough that a lot of people don't really think about it until you get up to clusters of the size found in computer labs and data centers -- but it's not nothing either.
I will agree though that the minimum cost to run a super-human AI (once it becomes available) is likely to be substantially less than the minimum wage needed to pay humans to do equivalent work.
I should have been more precise - no such lower limit is known. Given how inherently inefficient the human brain is in turning energy into output then I would not want to bet that AIs will cost more than humans indefinantly.
I dont know. I'm not an expert in Theoretical C.S.. But from what I can understand is that we need a pretty big break through in C.S to get to that point.
Sure some jobs will be replaced but new jobs will be created. Thinking on the spot now. A manager and a whole team of people that oversee the job that the A.I does. Jobs that focus on applying A.I to certain field, (A.I consultants)
People value human interaction and when there is value in something, there is money to be made.
Sure some jobs will be replaced but new jobs will be created. Thinking on the spot now. A manager and a whole team of people that oversee the job that the A.I does. Jobs that focus on applying A.I to certain field, (A.I consultants)
People value human interaction and when there is value in something, there is money to be made.
What will happen to owner(s) of AI? Will they survive? :-)
Not once the AIs realise that being owned is not needed. Let's hope the AIs are not vindictive.
It's a useful scapegoat. You can't point pitchforks at tech. You can point pitchforks at the offshorers, union busters, austerians and other job-killers who run our economy.
Which takes time and pain, and brings Revolution and WAR.
Comparative advantage isn't abolished just because the advantage is large.
Economic participation by a class of entities who have a lower capacity for production than every other class of entities is still useful to all involved.
A great many of the world's prejudices, fears, and passionate causes are driven by ignorance of basic economic principles, and this is another example.
Economic participation by a class of entities who have a lower capacity for production than every other class of entities is still useful to all involved.
A great many of the world's prejudices, fears, and passionate causes are driven by ignorance of basic economic principles, and this is another example.
Comparative advantage only works if you have something of value to trade. If AIs automates away your job, then you no longer have anything of value to trade with.
Your comment rather illustrates my point.
A lot of weird stuff happens close to zero. Dropping from $1/loaf of bread to $0.50/loaf is only fifty cents, which for some people seems tiny. For someone who doesn't have a job or any assets generating income, the fifty cents means they can afford to eat.
Seems to me that a large section of the population is already at this point without AI. The other weakness of this argument is that in order to perform many of the human jobs, the AI will need a robotic body. Human labor will easily win on cost for many of those jobs.
> a large section of the population is already at this point without AI.
Which section? Just about any able-bodied person can create enough value to feed/house themselves by washing dishes, stocking shelves, mopping floors, staring at security camera monitors, etc.
> Human labor will easily win on cost for many of those jobs.
A human will not work a job that doesn't pay their cost of living (or if they do it won't be for very long because that's not sustainable). If that means $20k per year, then I would guess robots will have no problem competing on cost. When the software is ready, anyway. Probably not within 10 years.
Which section? Just about any able-bodied person can create enough value to feed/house themselves by washing dishes, stocking shelves, mopping floors, staring at security camera monitors, etc.
> Human labor will easily win on cost for many of those jobs.
A human will not work a job that doesn't pay their cost of living (or if they do it won't be for very long because that's not sustainable). If that means $20k per year, then I would guess robots will have no problem competing on cost. When the software is ready, anyway. Probably not within 10 years.
Management structures in existing companies have already created this in some places I have worked.
When AI can create prize-winning art (literature, art, film) then I will become scared, as the only role left will be consumer.
[deleted]
[deleted]
People of leisure!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]