Slashdot Mirror
The Future of AI: a Non-Alarmist Viewpoint
Nerval's Lobster writes: There has been a lot of discussion recently about the dangers posed by building truly intelligent machines. A lot of well-educated and smart people, including Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking, have stated they are fearful about the dangers that sentient Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses to humanity. But maybe it makes more sense to focus on the societal challenges that advances in AI will pose in the near future (Dice link), rather than worrying about what will happen when we eventually solve the titanic problem of building an artificial general intelligence that actually works. Once the self-driving car becomes a reality, for example, thousands of taxi drivers, truck drivers and delivery people will be out of a job practically overnight, as economic competition forces companies to make the switch to self-driving fleets as quickly as possible. Don't worry about a hypothetical SkyNet, in other words; the bigger issue is what a (dumber) AI will do to your profession over the next several years.
AI will obsolete your job before it obsoletes humanity.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
the problem with that is cultural and ideological not a problem with AI, Capitalism *requires* scarcity in order for certain business models to work and this is why AI makes people nervous, It removes scarcity of labor,
We've already seen this with the internet where it provided freedom of information leading to copyright issues begin essentially unenforceable however we now have governments en-mass attempting to put the jack back in the box with draconian despotic measures threats of cultural apocalypse. Which is a real shame that they lack such imagination.
Historically Feudalism described our societal structure, with the technological limits on transporting people around it was the best we could manage at the time despite how horrible it was. With the increase in movement wealth in the mercantile classes increased and there power came to supplant notions of bloodline/dynasty dominance.
Capitalism is likewise horrible but probably the best we can manage given our current technological limitations. I'm hopeful within my lifetime we will replace it with something better But we do need to change peoples attitude towards work, ownership and entitlement... If we don't then capitalism will invariably collapse into despotism.
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
We end up with is the masses being commoditized out of jobs and the wealthy reaping all of the benefits
What happened to get us all to sell ourselves out so cheaply and willingly accept the idea that a few bastards should end up with the bulk of the nations wealth while our children are faced with a future with no jobs and parents whose retirement funds cannot pay to take care of them?
Dystopia? We are living it and don't even see it
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The article's viewpoint is dangerous. We must solve the Friendliness problem before AGI is developed, or the resulting superintelligence will most likely be unfriendly.
The author also assumes an AI will not be interested in the real world, preferring virtual environments. This ignores the need for a physical computing base, which will entice any superintelligence to convert all matter on Earth (and then, the universe) to computronium. If the AI is not perfectly friendly, humans are unlikely to survive that conversion.
This is just a painful transition. Once all the unnecessary people died and failed to reproduce, there will the leisure society we are all dreaming about.
The real problem is that the leisure society we all dream about isn't compatible with 7+ billion people. Why? Because the earth is too small to account for all resources exploitation necessary to perform these luxury automations.
So it's either that: we continue world population growth in an industrial age, or we have a massive reduction in world population to sustain the leisure age. While everyone agrees to "have the machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time", you have to accept that the price to pay is birth control (voluntary, regulated or forced by unemployment and starvation).
Video of some good progressive thrash music
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
Still riding a horse, sweeping the floors and hand washing are you? Do you think your ancestors would've been able to watch as much television as you if it had existed? Did they take holidays? Most of them would have worked before and after school - and between semesters. If you think the jobs of today are as physically hard on the body as the jobs of the not so distant past you should spend a little time researching the bones of your ancestors. Even your teeth have it easier now.
Modern life is largely leisure time - the forty hour week and retirement are relatively recent changes.
While I share Stephen Hawkings concerns about the danger of AI for the most part my concern comes from the huge disparity between those that understand the technology and those that deploy and employ it - much like the infernal combustion engine.
That said - few civilizations spent as little time gathering food and working to provide shelter as the Hawaiians did at the time Cook first visited, and none do now. But that overlooks other factors - like decreased rates of death during childbirth, potatoes, grains, penicillin, blood transfusions, books, higher education, and holidays in Portugal.
As for the dystopian nightmare - I don't want it, and I fiercely oppose it, but if I was given a choice between living now and living during the Holy Roman Empire the decision is a no brainer. The middle-class is also a relatively recent phenomena, a direct result of technology. It's easy to be a Luddite, but it's hard to make the reality of manual labor attractive. Most of the cab drivers I talk to would prefer a "better job" (that's why so many did their MSCEs). Likewise the truck drivers. Much of this "debate" smacks of knee-jerk unrealistic conservatism that romanticizes the past (like the bullshit of Walden Pond). Little different to the introduction of steam engines, trains, automobiles, electricity, cinemas, radio, television, and video. They all "posed" threats of mass unemployment that failed to deliver. The only real difference economically between pre-industrialisation and the present is the growth of the middle class and the transition from lord of the manor/slave owner and guild member, to factory owner, distributor and retailer. Different dogs, same leg action doesn't quite cover it considering the vast increase in knowledge available to those that seek it.
Put the smartest people on Earth in a room, with access to all the world's current knowledge, for 20,000 years. When those people emerge from that room, what would they be able to teach humanity?
Skeletons can't teach, nor do they emerge from rooms.
But 200 years ago, if you did NOT have a job, you could go farm and support yourself.
No. To farm, you need land. 200 years ago, if you did not have a job, you sold yourself as an indentured servant.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dystopia? We are living it and don't even see it.
The problem is powerful tools in stupid hands. Or greedy hands - greedy being a subset of stupid.
If we'd take a measured approach to tech advancement - which might even mean an accelerated approach - we'd all be living in a utopia already.
The US has no or only very little means of wealth distribution, which is why life can suck so hard over there. But even a bum doesn't have to starve in the US and child labour and epidemics are basically history there too - so I'd say all in all that we're headed in the right direction in that dept.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
From a long-term view (decades), no we didn't get massive unemployment.
From a short-term view (years), yes we did. The early phases of the industrial revolution saw very high unemployment. And with no welfare systems back then, quite a few of those people starved to death or turned to crime. The majority were badly mistreated by those who owned the early factories because there were no other jobs around. The agricultural revolution had a similar history.
So if/when an AI takes over your job, your choices are likely to be:
a) Starve
b) Crime
c) Crappy job
d) Try and retrain to a new field before that gets taken over by AIs as well.
e) Hope society gets rebuilt on less capitalistic lines and you can enjoy a life of leisure.
I'm sure it'll all sort itself out within a generation. Doesn't really help that generation though.
- Blah blah blah, missing scientist. Blah blah blah, atomic bomb. -