Slashdot Mirror


AI Will Create 'Useless Class' Of Human, Predicts Bestselling Historian (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Yuval Noah Harari, author of the international bestseller "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," doesn't have a very optimistic view of the future when it comes to artificial intelligence. He writes about how humans "might end up jobless and aimless, whiling away our days off our nuts and drugs, with VR headsets strapped to our faces," writes The Guardian. "Harari calls it 'the rise of the useless class' and ranks it as one of the most dire threats of the 21st century. As artificial intelligence gets smarter, more humans are pushed out of the job market. No one knows what to study at college, because no one knows what skills learned at 20 will be relevant at 40. Before you know it, billions of people are useless, not through chance but by definition." He likens his predictions, which have been been forecasted by others for at least 200 years, to the boy who cried wolf, saying, "But in the original story of the boy who cried wolf, in the end, the wolf actually comes, and I think that is true this time." Harari says there are two kinds of ability that make humans useful: physical ones and cognitive ones. He says humans have been largely safe in their work when it comes to cognitive powers. But with AI's now beginning to outperform humans in this field, Harari says, that even though new types of jobs will emerge, we cannot be sure that humans will do them better than AIs, computers and robots.

268 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Speculating is fun! by sims+2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't leave this discussion without a mention of Manna by Marshal Brain http://marshallbrain.com/manna...
    It's two extreme scenarios for what might happen if we are able to replace the entire workforce.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Speculating is fun! by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

      I might point out that while the article mentions "cognition", it doesn't mention "creativity". It might be possible for humans to compete with AIs in that area, because there are so many ways in which to do something creative (infinite ways?).

    2. Re:Speculating is fun! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      As has been pointed out in many places before, creativity is not a hard problem to solve with brute force. Creativity can be imitated, or perhaps it's even the same thing as searching.

      Ie, I wrote a program to list all 6 note melodies. It wasn't hard, but after running for a few days (this was twenty yeas ago) I had gigabytes worth of songs and if I knew what I was looking for, could find one (Close Encounters of the Third Kind). But I had to sort through songs like BBBBBB and the catchy, but one hit wonder BBBBBF#.

    3. Re:Speculating is fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no. That ain't gonna happen, because all those people in the jobless dorm aren't buying anything made by the machines the rich people own. We're going to get guaranteed income, and the owners of the corporations will compete to get the money of the people on the dole. The guaranteed income will be funded by debt and, as much as possible, taxes on the remnant of the middle class, who will do the jobs that can't be automated. They'll be overworked and overtaxed, but chasing the carrot-on-a-stick of getting rich will keep them from going on the dole. The corporations and their rich owner will pay as little taxes as possible to keep the system going, but as much as necessary, because they need the market of people on guaranteed income.

    4. Re:Speculating is fun! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What happens in the utopia society when as soon as you try do anything, a hologram clippy appears before your eyes and says: "I see you trying to design a new motor. Here, let me help you with that," and presents a solution better than you could have done yourself and will take you years, if ever, to understand what is going on because the AI as funded a new branch of physics based on new mathematics as well as two new branches of engineering. So you are stuck in the other scenario of the guy making pottery in a virtual construct because he is now a brain in a vat.

    5. Re:Speculating is fun! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with much of what Marshall Brain has written on this topic, except for the part where people buy shares in Australia and move there to live in the wonderland of robot and vr plenty.

      His Manna story could be a good film, if done right.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:Speculating is fun! by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though many pretend to be, many want to be, and parents+teachers say that everyone is, in reality only a (relative) few are actually talented enough for their creativity to be worthwhile.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:Speculating is fun! by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Ahh I see now it's a post about a book (Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow) that's not even out until september 8th. I hate it when people do that. Why not wait until I can actually read it before telling me about it?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    8. Re: Speculating is fun! by davecason · · Score: 1

      I had exactly the same thought. Marshall Brain's dystopia. But his utopia solves this problem... unless it takes an "I, Robot" turn for the worse.

    9. Re:Speculating is fun! by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      It leaves a lot out. It actually looks to me that some of it was written but taken out shortly before publishing.

      I'd watch it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    10. Re:Speculating is fun! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      "Generating all possible combinations" isn't creative. Knowing which combinations are interesting is the creative part.

      Of course, its been well established that pop music is super formulaic (it turns out we're somewhat hard wired for certain beat patterns.) But more interesting types of music is still very difficult. Never mind the fact that by most modern standards, music without lyrics is kind of boring so you need to have a lyric generator that's smart enough to deal with human emotion, issues of the day (and know which issues are too "of the day" and which will still have resonance over the mid to long term.)

      And then we get into other forms of art.. painting, sculpture, writing, movie making, video games.. hell normal board games, and so on. Music is relatively "simple" compared to a lot of these (movies and video games especially since they already incorporate music so right off the bat its requiring all of the talents of a musician plus dozens of other skills.)

      Machines that can think rationally are certainly getting closer by the day, but thinking creatively is a whole new level. A rational solution to a specific problem can usually be graded as correct or incorrect (typically after the fact to be sure, but even a failure can be taken as a learning experience.) Artistic endeavors on the other hand have no such ranking. Not only is there no universal definition of "correct" or "incorrect," there's not even any agreed upon grey areas. From the perspective of a purely rational mind, art work is basically just random noise and its only us humans that recognize (or dispute) the beauty of any particular work.

      Not to mention we're a hell of a long way off even from decent cognitive robots. We're still working on self-driving cars which amounts to "follow the rules and don't hit anything." Getting closer to be sure, but still probably a few years off. My own line of work (computer programming) isn't even on the radar in terms of AI replacements and likely won't be for at least a half a century if not more -- one of the most cognitively-intensive jobs around.

      Plus, these things won't hit overnight. They will slowly move in and replace workers a few at a time, just like the robots did in factories. And guess what? That change didn't break humanity. Sure there's stories of the occasional factory town that gets all laid off at once but that's happened far more frequently for pure economic reasons (ie: moving to Mexico or India or wherever) than technological reasons.

      Not saying it hasn't happened or won't happen again, but its hardly a blip on the radar when you look at the larger picture of an entire country or planet. And all that happens is the next generation of kids don't get trained to do factory grunt work -- they just get trained to do other things where robots haven't taken over. So that blip isn't even very long-lived (again on a larger scale. Certainly sucks for the people who get hit, but we're talking about world-changing transitions here not just individual lives.)

    11. Re:Speculating is fun! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Cars don't even use AI, they implement control laws based on the state of the car and its position as decided by its sensors (lid/gps/accelerometers/gyros/maybe vision)

    12. Re:Speculating is fun! by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Then you go plant a garden or visit a museum or play a video game or learn to play guitar or any of a thousand other things that most people would love to do but are lacking either the time or the money in our current society.

      There will always be something for people to do. Right now, options tend to be severely limited because we either have no money, or we work to make money and have no time. Plus the guilt we often feel when we're doing something that isn't "useful" (again, typically defined as "how much money does it make," though the more altruistic of us can also define it as "how much did I help someone else.")

      Parent even shows this bias a bit with the dichotomy between "design a new motor" and "making virtual pottery." Why is designing a new motor considered inherently better? Well obviously because you can sell it and make money whereas virtual pottery probably couldn't be given away.

      I suspect (perhaps optimistically) that as robots take over more and more of the "useful" aspects of life, the cost of everything will drop to the point of near-marginal (because robot labor is incredibly cheap compared to human labor, and that runs all the way up the supply chain) in addition to having plenty of free time, and humans will gain the ability to truly do whatever the hell we feel like without the addendum of "if we can afford it."

      If you want to design a new motor, great. Sure it might not be as good as HoloClippy's motor but who cares? You're not designing it for any reason than because you want to. If you like virtual pottery then who cares if its not saleable? That motor design isn't either. There's no more reason to worry about economic viability so you can focus on doing what you enjoy rather than what you can sell.

    13. Re:Speculating is fun! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Creativity can be imitated, ask any H1B zombie to repeat and they can; they're geniuses you know. But ask them to think outside the box, and watch the zombies look like deer caught in your head lights.

    14. Re:Speculating is fun! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "AI Will Create 'Useless Class' Of Human, Predicts Bestselling Historian"

      But we already have politicians.....

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    15. Re:Speculating is fun! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Of course, its been well established that pop music is super formulaic

      Yup, as Axis of Awesome demonstrated with their 4 Four Chord Song

    16. Re:Speculating is fun! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      But I can juggle and sing on a unicycle while trolling

    17. Re:Speculating is fun! by ultranova · · Score: 3

      I might point out that while the article mentions "cognition", it doesn't mention "creativity". It might be possible for humans to compete with AIs in that area, because there are so many ways in which to do something creative (infinite ways?).

      The problem is, creativity is optional in the short term. Our ruling class needs someone to work their fields and build their luxury yachts, but can do without more art being produced, for at least the next quarter. That's why the concept of "starving artist" exists, and is exactly what humans trying to compete in that area will get.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Speculating is fun! by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Because they want to build some sort of buzz and anticipation. If they waited until it came out there's a good chance you'd read the reviews before buying, if they build some buzz you might order it early.

    19. Re:Speculating is fun! by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The problem is, creativity is optional in the short term

      Very good point, and it's not just artist but artisans too.
      All those people going on about "increases in productivity" in manufacturing ignore that it takes time and effort to make improvements and plan for new products. If, as a group, you are doing nothing other than turning out widgets that people will eventually get bored with then you'll have wonderfully high "productivity figures" right up until the time the company goes broke because everyone is buying somebody else's stuff.

    20. Re:Speculating is fun! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      where people buy shares in Australia and move there to live in the wonderland of robot and vr plenty

      Don't forget the crocs. We've got plenty of crocs, jellyfish, snakes, spiders and even a flightless bird that kills joggers.
      Why would you move when you have robots and vr in a climate controlled environment?

    21. Re:Speculating is fun! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I can't leave this discussion without a mention of Manna by Marshal Brain http://marshallbrain.com/manna... It's two extreme scenarios for what might happen if we are able to replace the entire workforce.

      Gaaaah - looks like Greg Egan's stuff done badly but I may have hit a few rough spots.
      What's with the flag icon? Is he pushing libertarian politics or something?


      The assumption of there being no resource limits appears to put it firmly in the Fantasy end of SF&F, but then again so is anything about a manned US space program at the moment :(

    22. Re:Speculating is fun! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Computers don't make mistakes. Humans do. When you watch children play it is a process of making as many mistakes as they can. Falling down, going up the slide the wrong way. They laugh at delight at the idea their reality has changed when you show that you can put you sock on your HAND, then you can use that sock to anthropomorphize a fictional character. Socks are for feet. However they put in on their hand, then they pushed it up the next level is made it do something that couldn't happen on the feet. Imagination isn't from trying a variation of prescribed combination, it is finding a mistake and using that mistake to its full advantage.

      So in your musical creation brute force algorithm. It would never express a BBBB(flaten by 1/4 tone)CCC as its brute force method is just trying to find combination in the diatonic scale. Also if you have ever listen to music from other areas of the world music we find to be out of tune to western music styles are harmonic and beautiful to other cultures. Then there are the songs that we love where we have no rational reason to love them.

      Sure an AI can compose music that is pleasant but they won't change how we understand music and find new forms and expand the gendra.

      The same with more practical things. When we invent something new it comes with tradeoffs and often research will not show if such tradeoff is success or not.

      the iPhone could had failed miserably with its lack of a real keyboard. The original iPod could had failed because it didn't have Wi-Fi and it had less space than the Nomad. MS-DOS could had failed due to lack of powerful features... There are also a lot of products that tried to be innovative that had failed Like the Microsoft Kin, Apple Newton, Beta Max... An AI with its current specs wouldn't try to break the mold can risk an unsuccessful product because the data shows that the people love the feature that you are going to take away to give others.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:Speculating is fun! by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Our ruling class needs someone to work their fields and build their luxury yachts, but can do without more art being produced, for at least the next quarter.

      I think the ruling class cares a lot more about art than the middle class does, which is a problem for artists because the middle class tends to have a lot more money (in aggregate).

    24. Re: Speculating is fun! by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of Humans that can't do that.

    25. Re:Speculating is fun! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. Computers have already learnt more than their programmers - at times the programmers knew nothing about a field except deep learning, and their programs beat trained humans in the field.

      See https://www.ted.com/talks/jere....

      So computers can expand the way we listen to music - in fact humans do it by trial and error - computers might do it by analyzing human brain, reactions to music listening etc.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    26. Re:Speculating is fun! by srichard25 · · Score: 1

      Creativity is about a lot more than just being an artist.

    27. Re: Speculating is fun! by locketine · · Score: 1

      He was probably confused by the fact that the middle class is paying a majority of the taxes; the ruling class gets out of that somehow.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
    28. Re:Speculating is fun! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I suspect (perhaps optimistically) that as robots take over more and more of the "useful" aspects of life, the cost of everything will drop to the point of near-marginal (because robot labor is incredibly cheap compared to human labor, and that runs all the way up the supply chain)

      You are forgetting:
      1. robots work in factories owned by the rich
      2. a robot factory is on land, owned by the rich
      3. a robot factory requires materials and energy, which costs money that you don't have
      And the rich (the only people who will have a source of money) will pay for these things only if it benefits them somehow.
      They have no interest in you living a joyful, creative life, so it won't happen no matter how much you want it to happen.

    29. Re:Speculating is fun! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Creativity isn't about learning. Creativity is creating something new and original. The process of making a mistake or doing something the wrong way can lead to an answer of a question that you weren't looking for.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re:Speculating is fun! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      And telephone sanitizers!

    31. Re:Speculating is fun! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      OK, if you insist.

      You are mistaken. Computers have already created more than their programmers could - at times the programmers knew nothing about a field except Deep Learning (TM) and their programs created better ideas than trained humans in the field.

      See https://www.ted.com/talks/jere...

      So computers can expand the way we listen to music - in fact humans do it by trial and error - computers might do it by analyzing human brain, reactions to music listening etc.

      In fact not looking for some kind of answers is a weakness - still getting that answer is only a partial compensatory strength.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    32. Re:Speculating is fun! by thoper · · Score: 1

      They have no interest in you living a joyful, creative life, so it won't happen

      Then make sure your goverment keeps that interest. remember that the wealthy control our destiny only because money is important... after all, they are only the 0.1%. we will not let the idiots turn earth into hell. c

    33. Re:Speculating is fun! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the government can run its own factories don't you? The government also owns all the land, so what will happen to the private factories when the government runs all the mines, and all the minerals go to the government factory? What will happen to the private food prep companies when the government owns all the farms and uses all the output of the farms?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Way ahead of the curve by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdotters have been experimenting with this fate for a decade. Now get me some more Cheetos, Mom.

    1. Re:Way ahead of the curve by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters have been experimenting with this fate for a decade. Now get me some more Cheetos, Mom.

      Can't wait till we can say, get me some more Cheetos, robot.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    2. Re:Way ahead of the curve by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I thought the article was about project managers?

    3. Re: Way ahead of the curve by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to watch "Ow, My Balls!"

  3. Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Useless to whom? The capitalists? Not a problem for the "useless."

    Useless to society? Either this historian is advocating for mass murder through various indirect means (starvation, ill health, and disease) or he suffers from the usual intellectual disease of contempt for the working class.

    1. Re:Be more specific by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Useless by virtue of not having any abilities that would cause someone to pay you to do anything. If there are relatively cheap robots that don't need time off, paid leave, health insurance, or a paycheck at all (after completing the initial investment), and they're capable of doing any kind of manual labor, then someone who is only capable of doing manual labor is fairly useless to anyone who needs labor. The alternative would basically be working for nearly slave wages. I assume he's imagining that these people will be able to survive by virtue of some kind of social security system that pays people a basic income derived from taxes on business. Maybe that tax will be enough to make it cheaper to hire people instead of buying robots, but there's definitely going to come a time when all manner of menial jobs will be performed by robots. The question is what happens to the people who don't have any skills other than those required for menial jobs.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Be more specific by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...The question is what happens to the people who don't have any skills other than those required for menial jobs.

      No, I'm pretty sure the question is "what happens to even the people who have fairly advanced skills, when automation and AI can do their work so cheaply and so well that giving the job to a human is merely an act of charity?"

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:Be more specific by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Or he's stating that there's a problem coming that needs to be planned for.

    4. Re:Be more specific by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      There already were situations in history when population growths outpaced available occupation opportunities and the ability of people to readjust their skillsets. There's nothing new about it. This leads to social unrest and eventually to civil war. A good civil war both allows us to readjust administrative institutions to handle new economic realities and also alleviates overpopulation problem a bit.

    5. Re:Be more specific by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People like to define other people as "useless" just because they don't conform to their standards of "useful". It reminds me of an old Lynyrd Skynyrd song about an unemployed alcoholic bum. Who just happened to have an uncommon skill.

      Or, as Frank Burns once said in M.A.S.H, "If Albert Schweitzer is such a great doctor, why isn't he in Beverly Hills, tending to the Rich?"

    6. Re:Be more specific by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Both of those questions are important, and really, the answers will likely be the same - it's just that one is going to get asked first. Some jobs will get automated early, others will take more time, but will eventually go too.

      Some stuff is already looking to be on the early chopping block - anyone who operates a vehicle, for one, from taxis to delivery drivers to long haul truckers. It's not all going to be the menial stuff right away, because anything that requires some significant degree of human judgment, especially combined with manual dexterity, may be harder to replace, but eventually we'll probably get multipurpose robots that will start to do those too.

      Probably one of the last things that will go is those things that we hesitate to take humans entirely out of the loop on, whether that be law, medicine, IT security, warfare, or whatnot, even if we have the technical capability to do so.

    7. Re:Be more specific by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Why do you need anyone to pay you anything when robots do all the work for everyone?

      Right, because you don't own the robots, or even a bit of space in which to exist in robot-waited bliss if you did.

      So the answe to GP's question is "yes, useless to the capitalists" -- the people who own excess capital and exploit a living by renting it out to those whole have a defecit of capital.

      If it weren't for at misdistribution of capital, there would be no issue of "uselessness". Does the landowner who owns the robots need to prove his worth to anyone? No, of course not. So why should anyone else?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    8. Re:Be more specific by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure the question is "what happens to even the people who have fairly advanced skills, when automation and AI can do their work so cheaply and so well that giving the job to a human is merely an act of charity?"

      And the answer is pretty simple: prices for goods and services fall and everybody benefits.

      That's provided government doesn't interfere. For example, if you set a minimum wage at $15/h, falling prices means that more and more people will be out of work, but the problem there is the minimum wage, not the falling prices. Similarly, if you keep increasing housing and car standards because "it doesn't increase the cost of new cars significantly", the effect will be that automation driving down the cost of these items won't actually benefit people because you keep their prices artificially high.

    9. Re:Be more specific by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well said, the sky is only falling for rent seekers.

    10. Re:Be more specific by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      No, the sky is only falling for the victims of rent seekers. To rent-seek you must first have a capital advantage to exploit; those people will be fine. It's the people stuck in the position of having to prove their usefulness to earn money in order to pay those rents for whom the sky is falling.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  4. We already have a useless class by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already have a useless class. Mostly politicians and business executives, with some overlap. Has CxO productivity gone up 300 %? What about congressional gridlock inspired by special interests vs voters?

    --
    C|N>K
    1. Re:We already have a useless class by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Yep. An AI would not have forgotten that....

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:We already have a useless class by gander666 · · Score: 1

      Well, CxO salaries have easily gone up 300%, so prolly

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    3. Re:We already have a useless class by Altrag · · Score: 2

      "Overpaid" != "Useless".

      For all of their faults (and there are many to be sure,) most large (and even mid size) corporations would fall apart without CxOs or some equivalent to keep everything moving in the same direction.

      Similarly for countries (or states or even cities) without politicians. True anarchy just doesn't really seem to fit the average human. Most of us either want to be in control, or don't really care all that much as long as we're left alone (in which case those who want control will just get it by default.)

    4. Re:We already have a useless class by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      For all of their faults (and there are many to be sure,) most large (and even mid size) corporations would fall apart without CxOs or some equivalent to keep everything moving in the same direction.

      If you haven't read Marshall Brain's short story Manna, or similar things, it may be worth investing some time. Some people put forward the idea that these manager/director jobs can be done one day by PCs, mostly using existing technologies. It's an interesting idea with far reaching consequences for our societies of today if it were ever to happen.

    5. Re:We already have a useless class by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We already have a useless class. Mostly politicians and business executives, with some overlap.

      I'm sorry, but "useless" is clearly subjective...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:We already have a useless class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wake up. The ones who have the money call the shots. They may seem useless to you, but that doesn't change the facts. They have the power to motivate military and police forces to mobilize in their defense, and you don't.

      You think you are useful because you have productive (or creative) skills which they lack. You miss the point entirely. In the very near future your skills will be useless. All that will matter is control of resources; and their families already have more than yours ever will.

    7. Re:We already have a useless class by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      CxOs are necessary yes, however few of them are particularly valuable.

      Anecdote time! Where my dad used to work they went through about 4 presidents in 10 years, each of them overspent and did nothing to grow the business, the current one does literally nothing, but gets away with it because the company has been running itself for some time. If he disappeared for a month literally nothing would be worse for wear.

      Executives are needed, but they are usually interchangeable, losing one in the short-term likely has few negative effects and the next one can slot in and take over. You have to have one, but they aren't nearly as valuable or important as they think they are.

    8. Re:We already have a useless class by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What about congressional gridlock inspired by special interests vs voters?

      You just said "politicians were useless" and "overlapping with business executives". Now you turn around and want to give them the power to pass laws? Do you actually ever think about what you're saying?

    9. Re:We already have a useless class by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Sadly society doesn't define middle men, politicians, business majors, other controlling labor, etc as "useless" - but the people who aren't being actively controlled. Given the track record of people not defined as "useless" over the centuries the solution will no doubt be to cull the useless 99% of Humanity.

  5. AI Historian by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    yeah, that's it.

  6. Orwell called them .... by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... proles.

    The government is getting ready for this state of affairs by removing their means of revolt.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.

      It's like when you see the eyes of a child who still believes in Santa Claus light up in Christmas morning when they see the cookies and milk gone and presents instead.

      [wipes off moist eyes]

    2. Re:Orwell called them .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember the Afghans doing fairly well against the Soviets, and I certainly wouldn't expect the military to full throw in with the Feds (don't forget the huge number of National Guard troops). Think for a minute about the actual numbers on both sides.

    3. Re:Orwell called them .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who drag out the old "LOL you can't fight the US Army with handguns and deer rifles" schtick aren't big on thinking in general.

    4. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Afghans were losing the war until provided by the USA with shoulder propelled rockets that could bring down soviet helicopters. Look it up.

    5. Re:Orwell called them .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many wars did the US win since WW2? Korea? nope. Vietnam? big nope. Iraq? two nopes. America's military can't win a war against poor underfunded and under-armed foreigners. What chance does it have against Americans?

    6. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 2

      None of those armies were restricted to guns, they had access to many other more powerful weapons. In fact Iraq, which is a great example, has kicked America's butt using IEDs, not their widely available AK47s.

    7. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 2

      America was winning against Korea until the Chinese joined in. Seriously, this is basic military history. The Chinese warned America not to continue advancing farther north, McArthur ignored this, the Chinese joined in a massive offensive which lead to the current stalemate.

    8. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      "You also assume the military would fight on the side of the government ever hear of a coup?"

      I agree that on would expect at last part of the army to join the uprising. This goes without saying. In fact political science states that the main guarantor of the rule of law from the part of the government is the military. Bangladesh is an example of a country where the army has routinely stepped in to restore order and, quite unusually hand back power to civilian control rather rapidly.

      This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.

    9. Re:Orwell called them .... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      How stupid can you possibly be? Realize the numbers of Chinese fighters vs the UN forces, and how meagerly equipped they were, by comparison, and then fail to make an association to the 400K strong US military vs the 100 million(?) US firearm owners. Do you even realize that to have a successful occupation, you need to outnumber your insurgent combatants?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    10. Re:Orwell called them .... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Under 4K of US soldiers died in the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US still had to leave. It wasn't purely casualties that drove the US out of Iraq. You can't say the US was driven out exclusively by IEDs; you have to throw in the AK47's used in ambush operations as well. And the US had a lot more hardware available to them than M4's and air strikes; they still had to leave.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    11. Re:Orwell called them .... by mrmagos · · Score: 1

      It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.

      Don't forget the flying killer robots. The AI sure as hell won't.

      --
      Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
    12. Re:Orwell called them .... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, that's as ridiculous as saying someone with a big gun could be harmed by someone with a smaller gun utilizing sort of asymmetric war tactics.

      Sarcasm aside, nirvana fallacy.

    13. Re:Orwell called them .... by lgw · · Score: 1

      It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.

      The army and the police - those are mostly "gun guys". Pretty obvious when you think about it. And the AR-15 is the most common gun in America, not any brand of pistol. America can't have a civil war or insurrection across current political lines, because almost everyone with guns - including the military and police - are on the same side of the political divide.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Orwell called them .... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Yep, and the threat of communism may have been key to having a large and comfortable middle class.

    15. Re:Orwell called them .... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.

      The populace still has a sheer number advantage over the armed forces. You also assume military people will blindly go forward with a war against their own country's citizens. There are certainly a lot of "just following orders" types, but many more would say "no", or turn around and join the other side instead.

      Also, as a sociology professor I had pointed out once, government only functions because the people allow it to. They can only rule us as long as we let them. If the population collectively stops obeying them, they are no longer our rulers, regardless of what weapons they have. If they kill us all, they will have no subjects left to rule.

    16. Re:Orwell called them .... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You are the one who should look it up. Stingers weren't that effective - 20% hits at best and soviet helicopters quickly started to fly lower than the minimum target altitude. In fact, if you look up the soviet aircraft losses, they were about the same before and after MANPAD introduction.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:Orwell called them .... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      many more would say "no", or turn around and join the other side instead.

      Officer: Boys, you will shoot those protesters because one, they're communists and two, we know where your families live.

      Soldiers: Full auto or single shot, sir?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publication, the Mujahideen gunners used the supplied Stingers to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340 engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.

      According to Crile, who includes information from Alexander Prokhanov, the Stinger was a "turning point".[11] Milt Bearden saw it as a "force multiplier" and morale booster.[11] Charlie Wilson, the congressman behind the United States' Operation Cyclone, described the first Stinger Mi-24 shootdowns in 1986 as one of the three crucial moments of his experience in the war, saying "we never really won a set piece battle before September 26, and then we never lost one afterwards"

    19. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.

    20. Re:Orwell called them .... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      It absolutely was key. Communist mockery of the inequality in capitalist societies was the only pressure short of domestic revolt keeping inequality in check. The threat of revolt activates in conditions so extreme that it isn't enough to keep the middle class large and comfortable.

      The fall of communism as a credible threat threw open the floodgates of inequality in capitalist societies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:Orwell called them .... by PPH · · Score: 1

      rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs

      The army is prohibited from enforcing domestic laws by the Posse Comitatus Act. And the police and National Guard typically just abandon the streets and protect public buildings like city hall and the police precincts during large uprisings. So the streets are pretty much left to rioters and Roof Koreans. It's this latter group that the government fears. They need the general public to live in fear and depend on a large paramilitary police presence for security. Allowing people the right and means to defend themselves would just invite questions about what the cops are really needed for when the SHTF and they disappear.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    22. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Right, because a government that is so bad one needs to rise up in arms against would obey said laws.

      As I said, the shallowness of thought that accompanies the gun lead rebellion proponents is childlike and utterly endearing. They might as well count on the Avengers to save us.

    23. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      p.s. even now we already have examples of the army not following said law, such as during the LA Riots and New Orleans relief efforts.

    24. Re:Orwell called them .... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publication, the Mujahideen gunners used the supplied Stingers to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340 engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.

      And this sentence is enough to see that the number is bullshit and pure propaganda. No MANPAD ever had such a high kill ratio. Especially not a MANPAD operated by tribals. German Wikipedia has more realistic numbers: only 18 of 78 destroyed Mi-24 were shot down by the Stinger. It had a slightly better (18%) kill ratio against Mil-8, but still not nearly enough to make a difference. In fact more helicopters were shot down by massive RPG barrages than by Stingers.

      You can also watch the Discovery channel documentation "Wings of the Red Star - Mi 24", it is pretty good.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Orwell called them .... by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      The unasked question is how many military members would sympathize with the rebels, and decide to go AWOL to fight against their own government, and how many of them would take equipment they have access to in order to even the fight?

    26. Re:Orwell called them .... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      They weren't fighting killer robots.

    27. Re:Orwell called them .... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Do you even realize that to have a successful occupation, you need to outnumber your insurgent combatants?

      Not if you have killer robots on your side.

    28. Re:Orwell called them .... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's trumped by the Insurrection Act. No need to break a law if there's a loophole.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Orwell called them .... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Officer: Boys, you will shoot those protesters because one, they're terrorists and two, we know where your families live.

      FTFY.

    30. Re:Orwell called them .... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      The middle class’ quality of life started to go down once communism collapsed in Europe

    31. Re:Orwell called them .... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Bangladesh is an example of a country where the army has routinely stepped in to restore order and, quite unusually hand back power to civilian control rather rapidly.

      Turkey and Egypt, too.

    32. Re:Orwell called them .... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. I expect many to act like you say, but you don't need guns for that. Convince a single unit to defect and you have more and better weapons that all saturday night specials combined. Plus as a bonus trained people who know how to use them in combat.

    33. Re:Orwell called them .... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The US didn't win Iraq 1? Kuwait is still dominated by Iraq and lives under their boot?

      The US didn't win Iraq 2? Saddam is still in power and killing Kurds and threatening Iran?

      Perhaps your definition of winning is different than the US government's definition. Who is right though? The goal of Iraq 1 was to free Kuwait, success. The goal of Iraq 2 was to depose Saddam, success.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. Machine gun crowd control by ZankerH · · Score: 1

    It's the only solution. If you can't earn your keep within the framework of our civilisation, secede from it or otherwise stop being a drain on it.

    1. Re: Machine gun crowd control by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Starting with you.

    2. Re:Machine gun crowd control by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If you can't earn your keep within the framework of our civilisation, secede from it or otherwise stop being a drain on it.

      (1) What do you do?

      (2) How long do you expect before computers will do a better job at it than you do?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Machine gun crowd control by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the future when only 100 people will have actual jobs, they will all sit around at lunch and complain that everyone else should just go get a real job instead of being a drain on society.

    4. Re: Machine gun crowd control by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. AI's can be assholes, too.

    5. Re: Machine gun crowd control by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Being an asshole does not help doing my job, it is probably being the main reason to get fired, though.

      My core profession is "requirements engineering" ... there is no way an AI can do that, ever.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Machine gun crowd control by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're right.... They couldn't build a computer with a big enough ego to replace you.

      Sorry, couldn't help it, I flashed to a cartoon old enough I won't name it so that I can keep lying about my age.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re: Machine gun crowd control by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding?? The major obstacle to requirements engineering is NLP. The rest is drilling down on edge cases and balancing cost/benefit. NLP is being working on a ton. Cost/Benefit are going to fall by the wayside as costs approach 0. And the AI will get better than you at identifying edge cases in ten years or less.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Machine gun crowd control by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      No, it is not. Capitalism "wins" because its the most efficient means of gross national product; but you can always change the definition of "winning". If we want a society at its present population levels being relatively stable and productive, we need to change its philosophical mindset, and provide the means to achieve that equilibrium. Namely, basic income, coupled with heavily educating its citizen populace (non-STEM as well as STEM), and investment into academic/scientific pursuits. In the previous century, gov't was taxing the rich to provide infrastructure to underdeveloped areas of the US, a radical change in real estate policy that resulted in wealth in the middle classes, and encouraging the population to get advanced degrees (from 5% to about 30% today).

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    9. Re:Machine gun crowd control by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Damn, you must be ancient. I'm in my fifties, and I can't even place the cartoon/line. (Jetsons?)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    10. Re:Machine gun crowd control by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      How dare you not pay taxes to civilized society! Mind you, we don't care what anarchism you may be espousing, as long as you're producing something we can tax.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    11. Re:Machine gun crowd control by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      And how do you address the bible thumpers that do not believe this is an acceptable way to control population growth?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    12. Re:Machine gun crowd control by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to do your job better, or even as good, just cheaper.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re: Machine gun crowd control by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      it is probably being the main reason to get fired

      AIs can already write better than you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Machine gun crowd control by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not quite that old. Ninja Turtles. April zinged her egotistical competitor/coworker.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Machine gun crowd control by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      How incredibly short-sighted.

      Becoming more and more productive is not humanity's raison d'etre. But even if it is, consider this:

      From every 1000 families, there will come a child who is talented enough to push the envelopes of technology (IQ > 145). When robots are doing all the work, the cost of maintaining the lives of all those families will be negligible. If that one child could then go on to increase overall robot efficiency by even 0.1%, then he or she would have given back 700 times the cost it took to feed all those families.

      In other words, until robots can do literally everything, it's still worthwhile to invest in humans.

    16. Re: Machine gun crowd control by narcc · · Score: 1

      He's not a native English speaker.

    17. Re: Machine gun crowd control by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So what? If I crashed a schoolbus full of kids would that be OK because I'm not an actual bus driver?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re: Machine gun crowd control by narcc · · Score: 1

      I don't see how your analogy is relevant here.

    19. Re: Machine gun crowd control by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You obviously are not an Requirements Engineer.

      Put ten people trying to explain you how a grid management software should work into one room: you get 20 opinions, because each of them is contradicting himself and all the others.

      RE or Business Analysis is a human thing, it will never be done by an AI, unless you have a sigle human stakes holder who is telling the AI all the time: "undo that, that is not what I want". And then he is explaining again.

      BTW, the acronym NLP does not stand for what you think it does (took me a few minutes to figure what you are actually aiming ant and then I had a huge laugh), hint: google it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re: Machine gun crowd control by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Thank you narcc,
      however it would be interesting about which of my "spelling?" or "grammatical?" mistake she is complaining :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Machine gun crowd control by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For most jobs in CS it is important that you do the job 'right'.

      It is completely irrelevant if some AI or third world country laborer can do the job cheaper but wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:Machine gun crowd control by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Bomb the churches. Or sniper-out the pastors

  8. Yet another luddite by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    Ever notice that the people most afraid of new technology are the ones who don't themselves develop any of it?

    1. Re:Yet another luddite by ffkom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like Elon Musk and other tech-celebrities who warned about the potential dangers of AI?

    2. Re:Yet another luddite by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I develop a lot of technology and this is exactly why I'm wary of it. I'm afraid of new technology since I can see the decline in quality of the years.

    3. Re: Yet another luddite by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

      It's the chartreuse AIs you REALLY have to look out for!

    4. Re:Yet another luddite by Evtim · · Score: 1

      IMO it is not a matter of fearing tech, but inability to conceive a future where we are not bound to slavery by the so called socioeconomic system. It boggles my mind that we would rather end the species than abandon this obviously dangerous and inhuman system.....also , what the heck "useless" means? As many pointed out already - useless to whom?

    5. Re:Yet another luddite by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      As many pointed out already - useless to whom?

      To the 1%ers who pull all the strings, of course.

    6. Re:Yet another luddite by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Elon's stuff has nothing to do with AI. This point still stands.
      AI will not happen in our lifetimes, unless Aliens bring it.

  9. Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by ffkom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Evolution has shaped humans into pretty efficient workers under the environmental conditions on earth. Why should an AI not utilize this? There's plenty of humans around, they are relatively easy to spawn, feed and keep healthy, and technology will make it increasingly easy to prevent any kind of unwillingness to serve the AI.

    Actually, people will hardly notice they have begun working for an AI. They'll still think they work for some large global corporation that happenes to run data centers and "Internet of Things"-stuff when control of that corporation is already with the AI hosted in those data centers.

    The AI won't even have to build "Terminators" to keep the puny carbon units under control - it just needs to provide enough bread, games and illusion of freedom of choice.

    1. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of humans around

      On earth yes but as an AI I would want to expand, and getting humans into space is just a major problem. You can't simply turn everything off and wait for better conditions, like you can with machines. And the environment on other planets like mars is perfectly fine for machines, but for humans it means big issues.

      they are relatively easy to spawn

      A machine gets built in a few months. In this time, a human hasn't even left its mother's womb. And then it has to be raised. With machines you upload the firmware and that's it.

      feed

      It might be that foods of the future are working better, but the foods we right now consume and produce put less than one percent of the energy the sun gives them into the actual plant. That's the reason why biofuels are just not working. An AI should better build solar plants.

      keep healthy

      Maybe, if humans are mass-cloned it might work to kill some humans at different age stages to serve as limb and organ repositories for the rest. But until the AI has more advanced medicine than we do now, keeping the humans healthy isn't really easy.

    2. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by ffkom · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of humans around

      On earth yes but as an AI I would want to expand, and getting humans into space is just a major problem.

      Getting horses onto boats or into the desert or djungle is a major problem, but still mankind used horses as well-adapted workers for millenia.

      Might be that an AI will prefer to send machines or synthetic organisms into space to spread out - but while still on earth humans are as useful to an AI as horses were to men.

      they are relatively easy to spawn

      A machine gets built in a few months. In this time, a human hasn't even left its mother's womb. And then it has to be raised. With machines you upload the firmware and that's it.

      Once an AI figured out how to upload intelligence resembling its own into a newly built machine, it will probably be able to do similar things with human bodies.

      It might be that foods of the future are working better, but the foods we right now consume and produce put less than one percent of the energy the sun gives them into the actual plant. That's the reason why biofuels are just not working. An AI should better build solar plants.

      A robot doing the same physical work a human does today usually still uses up more energy than the human. Sure, growing food for humans can still be optimized, but it's not quite easy to design machines that are as energy-efficient

      Maybe, if humans are mass-cloned it might work to kill some humans at different age stages to serve as limb and organ repositories for the rest. But until the AI has more advanced medicine than we do now, keeping the humans healthy isn't really easy.

      "Healthy enough, long enough" is what the AI would be aiming for. Of course, just like humans euthanize horses that are too old or too defect to justify further investments in their health, an AI would not spoil efforts on seriously sick/wounded/old humans. (And the opponents to "Obamacare" will sure applaud to this.)

    3. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 1

      To play the devil's (or AI's?) advocate, is this a bad thing? As a prole, why should I care if my overlord is a human or an AI, so long as I am please by the life that I am able to live?

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    4. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by ffkom · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's a bad thing. As an individual, knowing what I know, having experienced what I would call "actual freedom", I wouldn't like to change into a world ruled by AI. But a future population might be so used to have their basic needs provided by some AI ruled infrastructure that they don't care. I mean - non-domesticated horses might once have resisted some human attempts to take control of them. But the pet horses of today would rather be scared if suddenly set free. They happily follow their human owners, not only into the stable, but also to the butcher's when their time is up.

      I think the way towards machine control has already been paved. If I, as a 10-year-old, had suddenly been confronted with the instruments of surveillance that today's parents impose on their children, I would have revolted like crazy, and had probably run away from home quickly. But the current generation of children seems so totally used to permanent surveillance and control of their whereabouts, they don't care. I assume that the next generation will find it totally normal that some AI nanny computer/robot will tell them what to do. The generation after that might already not wonder that they don't know any "parents", but are raised and commanded by non-biological entities. And they might be happy living that way. As happy as a pet-horse on a sunny meadow of today.

    5. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Since an AI is not bound to one particular biological body, it doesn't need to rush things. It can wait, if necessary, for generations of humans to pass, if that makes it easier to turn them into servants. The AI just needs to make sure that its existence is secured (by enough redundant data centers around the world to evade to, if something bad happenes in one or the other place).

      On the other side, humans resisting the idea to let the AI take control of increasingly more infrastructure and aspects of their life only live for a mere 100 years or so. Once they are a tiny minority, they are irrelevant and can easily be discredited as "tin foil hat"-wearers. Even if a whole country resisted the idea of letting the AI take control, that would in the end only last for a brief moment in history, as a well-working AI can easily convince the population of that country to defect, by providing a "land of milk and honey" alternative nearby, just as long as required to get rid of the opposing regime.

    6. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But the current generation of children seems so totally used to permanent surveillance and control of their whereabouts
      Care to give any examples? I'm not aware of any parents 'surveiling' their kids. How exactly would they do that?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Maybe I happen to know by coincidence only hysterical parents, but the ones I know expect their children to carry a powered "smart phone" at all times, they install apps to locate their children, they frequently send short messages or call if they suspect any deviation from formerly agreed-upon plans of activity, and if calls/messages are not returned immediately, they go ballistic. They browse through their childrens online and phone contacts and do background checks. Some even use IP cameras installed at home to watch their children's activities when they are not at home.

      When I was a child, it was totally normal to leave home in the morning (when there was no school) or after lunch (on school days), telling the parents nothing more than "I'm going to play with friends", and returning sometime in the evening. I cannot remember any of that obsessive distrust in children that happenes to be common amongst parents today.

    8. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      When I was a child, it was totally normal to leave home in the morning (when there was no school) or after lunch (on school days), telling the parents nothing more than "I'm going to play with friends", and returning sometime in the evening.
      That is how most parents treat kids in Germany, or Europe.
      The general rule is: be at home before it is dark. Obviously that limits play time in winter.
      If kids have phones the phones are locked so that only the numbers in the address book can be called.

      they frequently send short messages or call if they suspect any deviation from formerly agreed-upon plans of activity,
      That is considered child abuse.

      They browse through their childrens online and phone contacts and do background checks.
      That is paranoid ... but well ... can't be helped I guess.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      nudging suggestions little by little into the stream of society, you can ultimately shape the future

      The Rape of the Mind by Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo.

    11. Re:Human won't be useless to their AI overlord! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      But the current generation of children seems so totally used to permanent surveillance and control of their whereabouts, they don't care.

      I would rather say that this would piss-them off mightily about constant surveillance

  10. s/experimenting with/perfecting by mmell · · Score: 1

    Fixed that for you!

    1. Re: s/experimenting with/perfecting by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      I wanna s/experiment. That sounds fun.

  11. We've already got those ... by kuzb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presently they're called MBAs, and I'm sure they could be easily replaced with a magic 8-ball.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:We've already got those ... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 4, Funny

      What about Humanities students?

      They're already been made obsolete by the Keurig machine in my office...

    2. Re:We've already got those ... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What about Humanities students?

      They're already been made obsolete by the Keurig machine in my office...

      While I know you were trying to be funny, I think that there's an underlying assumption in the summary about the nature of college and university study that needs to be picked apart a bit.

      A couple centuries ago, very few people would have thought of college or university as something that should provide direct life skills for a job or something. That's what apprenticeships were for. Why would anyone in their right mind sit in a lecture with someone talking about a skill, rather than actually working with a real-life expert actually DOING the job??

      Universities emphasized "the liberal arts" (which included mathematics and the early versions of sciences) with the idea that an educated person would learn abstract methods for approaching problems and dealing with problems in new areas of study. By being exposed to a wide variety of material from different fields, one was prepared for an intellectual life and a lifelong ability to learn and confront new things.

      As science became more specialized in the late 19th century, it became more common for undergraduates to begin to specialize too. But aside from those technical fields, most college students even into the mid 20th century sought out "broad" fields in the humanities, such as history or literature or philosophy, again NOT to prepare for a CAREER as a historian or philosopher or whatever, but to learn about all sorts of problems and ways of thinking over the centuries. Until the past couple decades where people now just make fun of "humanities majors," they were the dominant path toward many fields -- most businessmen, lawyers, etc. would tend to study a humanities discipline as an undergraduate.

      And even that was a bit more focused than had traditionally been the case. The very idea of a college "major" for undergraduate study again only dates to the past couple centuries. Many older universities resisted the very idea of "majors" for a long time. (To this day, Harvard for example calls them "concentrations," a term meant to de-emphasize the notion that an undergraduate has one primary "major" area of study... instead, there are just supposed to be a small number of classes that are "concentrated" in one area. Obviously the present Harvard undergraduates don't view them this way anymore -- it's just a weird archaic code for "major" to most people.)

      Anyhow, with the scientific specialization and then the idea of bringing in the middle classes and lower classes to college in the mid 20th century led to an expectation for more "practical" study. Degrees that had previously only been offered at specialized "institutes of technology" or "agricultural colleges" or whatever now became practical degrees at many traditional universities.

      Except this didn't make any sense then, and it still doesn't make sense. Yes, many careers require some theoretical knowledge and classes, but the vast majority of study would be better done as hands-on apprenticeships, if you actually want career training. College was never designed to be a glorified "trade school," and it really doesn't work as one now.

      Basically, the problem is that university was never really intended to be for "the masses." It was originally to train people for contemplative intellectual (and originally spiritual) lives, not for practical skills. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it became a place to send young aristocrats too, so it became associated with something that wealthy people do. (In reality, up until the 1960s or so, most of these rich kids goofed off at universities, often earning what was called "the gentleman's C" in most classes, for barely doing what was required.) Along the way, somebody confused correlation (rich people often sent their kids to college) with causation (college makes people rich). The result is that we're now pretending that college is for career prep, something it never was really meant for... while we've basically neglected the broad training that used to be the goal.

      And now we're stuck with our present mess of higher education.

    3. Re:We've already got those ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No, the 8-ball is too honest

    4. Re:We've already got those ... by aquabat · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for this. I've stopped counting the number of blank looks I get from people whenever this comes up in conversation. It makes me sad when someone asks me what I can do with my BA in Math and Japanese Lit.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    5. Re:We've already got those ... by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Very interesting. I do wonder how effective an apprenticeship would be for knowledge skills like programming or engineering. Given the number of self-taught programmers I expect that would work just fine, engineering I'd be a little more leery of.

    6. Re:We've already got those ... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      you are retarded beyond any feminazi with a humanities major

      And you, sir AC, are so vulgar and lacking in humour that you couldn't recognize a joke if someone slapped in the face with a fish.

    7. Re:We've already got those ... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      All correct, but the office Keurig just broke and I fail to see how any of that could address it.

      Maybe add "Keurig Repair 101" to the Humanities curiculum?

      :P

    8. Re:We've already got those ... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Is that anything like an arts degree?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  12. Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Informative

    Written sixteen years ago by Bill Joy One the best articles on the subject.

    1. Re:Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yea, I remember when I read that.
      Holy shit...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      It was a good article except the idea the sentient robots were a near-term reality is completely ridiculous. We don't know how to instantiate consciousness (as Searle would agree). The best we can do is see some very rough correlations in cognition. Sentient they won't be.

    3. Re:Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      We don't know how to instantiate consciousness

      And we never will, if we define "consciousness" as "that thing that we do and machines don't do",
      as Searle and other such half-witted philosophers do.

    4. Re:Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      The Hard Problem is called the Hard Problem because it's, you know, Hard.

  13. Solution by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Own your own plot of land. Be prepared to defend it, grow your own food in grow boxes. Power it with solar. Then you don't have to be useful to anyone.

    1. Re:Solution by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that plot of land you're on might be of use to someone and you're in the way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Solution by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I do that now. It's not terribly difficult and was really cheap too (less than the price of a new car for a nice house). It can be done on minimum wage if you were motivated; I know people who've done and are doing it.

    3. Re: Solution by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference there. I have a right to my land, which I own. I don't have a right to be given a job or handed a means to survive. The only way to get a job is to be useful to someone. Now someone wanting to steal my resources, that's against the law and we don't allow that (unless eminent domain is invoked which entitles me to fair compensation). Whether eventually people will want to steal my stuff is a different issue from "if I am useless to everyone, I won't have a job or food".

    4. Re:Solution by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Defend it with guns and robots. Did I mention AI powered robots? And blood, your blood. My land - my blood, you can have it only over my dead body.

    5. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even need to be of use. If someone with more resources wants it, they get it. In the old days, they used guns. These days, they use lawyers.

    6. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar? Because solar panels are easy to make w/o everyone else? heh

    7. Re:Solution by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      How do you "own" it? Someone with a bigger gun will come along and take it.

    8. Re: Solution by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What enables your "right" to the land and how do you enforce it? The right to own land is artificially created by humans, and controlled by whoever has the best armies. Just ask the original residents of the Americas; or ask the Tatars from the Crimea for a more recent example. Opting out of civilization effectively removes your ability to exercise whatever rights you claim to have, leaving only the hope that civilization ignores you or you collect a mass of fellow humans large enough to form your own opposing civilization. Wave around lots of papers that prove you have rights if you like, but if the papers can't feed you or stop bullets...

    9. Re: Solution by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

      Done and done!

    10. Re: Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a big difference there. I have a right to my land, which I own.

      Without the ability to enforce that "right", you have nothing. If you enforce it yourself, you have the right until someone with a bigger gun than you comes along and wants what you have. If you live in an at least somewhat functioning state, the state enforces your rights so you have what's yours until someone with a bigger gun than the state collectively has comes along and wants to take it.

      And obviously "owning" land is in most of the world defined as having paid someone for a piece of land who, in turn, paid someone else for that land, who paid someone who paid someone who...until you reach the point at which the first "owner" in that chain of transactions is the party that killed the previous "owner". And that owner might be the latest in the end of a similar chain which started with killing. That's true about land in most at least somewhat inhabited areas. War has been waged almost everywhere at some point in history. And even when you go so far back in history that the inhabitants were nomadic tribes, it's ambiguous whether the first party to claim a piece of land as their "property" did that without force. Technically, nomadic tribes didn't claim to own any piece of land. They wandered harvesting resources in large areas and moved on when resources seemed scarce in one area. By declaring that they cannot enter any particular piece of land because it's "yours" you deprived them of access to something they previously had even if they had never claimed exclusive access. And when enough land is declared as property like that, such nomadic tribes run out of resources when they haven't even considered the concept of "owning land".

      The reason why I'm bringing up nomadic tribes isn't just to make you think about what it means to "own land" in our Western society but also to make you think about how changes in how the world functions deprives people of resources. Nomadic tribes had the resources they needed to survive - until the world changed when the concept of land ownership was introduced. Able-bodied people with a decent work ethic have had the ability to get the resources they need to survive in most of the world until now (not necessarily with luxuries but survive nonetheless). If enough jobs are eliminated through automation, they will be deprived of all resources except what they can literally produce on their own. And who can on their own do much more than perhaps grow food? If you cannot produce anything at a competitive price, you cannot buy anything. And you cannot because you're competing with automation. Not to mention that growing food requires a lot of land and of the right kind, which might be unobtainable for many people even if they otherwise could indeed go back to such a way of living. Essentially, the world is changing in such a way that through no fault of their own, people stop being useful. And when people are desperate enough, they do desperate things no matter how much they have to compromise their ethics. If you have enough self-awareness you know that that includes you. And that's just in terms of obtaining what you need to survive. Criminologists say that literally anyone can become a murderer under the right circumstances. I don't object to automation at all, however, I just want everyone to be able to reap the fruits of it. Maybe a guaranteed basic income is necessary for people who become "useless". Or great reductions on maximum working hours so that the minimal amount of work which still requires humans is split among all who can perform those jobs. I don't have the answers but clearly I'm not the only one thinking about it.

    11. Re:Solution by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      It'd better be land nobody particularly rich wants. They don't even have to use eminent domain. A bought official can raise property taxes, find a way to make a neighbor complain about your "eyesore" house, or harass you about all that self-sufficiency you've got instead of a well-manicured lawn. Better not get in the way of a pipeline either! All of these are ways property owners have lost their land.

      People keep trying to retreat into their own domicile, and that only works temporarily for some of them. The system is designed to keep you to the grind for almost nothing so major shareholders can profit and governments collect more taxes from people without clout. Running off to your own small patch of "I've got mine" does nothing to solve an unjust social order, IMHO.

    12. Re:Solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... yeah, that's the basic idea. And your organs might even net enough to make the operation profitable by itself.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Solution by swb · · Score: 1

      Nobody owns land, they rent it from a unit of government that charges taxes for it. Fail to pay the taxes and your ownership is nullified.

      You might get away with a subsistence living if you figured out how to meet your needs on a plot of land deemed worthless for some deficiency, such as its lack of water or arable soil. But now you're talking a more significant capital investment and you still haven't solved the tax problem, only minimized it.

    14. Re:Solution by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Way easier said than done and effectively impossible for the vast majority of people. That is a complete non-solution... Unless coupled with some way of enabling vastly more people to do it, in which case it becomes the perfect solution.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    15. Re:Solution by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      wn your own plot of land. Be prepared to defend it, grow your own food in grow boxes.

      Clean water would be helpful,too, and there isn't going to be much of it in the future.

    16. Re:Solution by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      In the old days, they used guns. These days, they use lawyers.

      In the future, they will use terminators.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Employment extinction by Brannon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Experts have been predicting the end of the world for centuries and they've been wrong every time.

    I'm going to predict that the world will never end, and I'll only be wrong once.

    1. Re:Employment extinction by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      There are several separate problems here. The most basic question is how many hours per person is need to achieve a given level of average material comfort. A simple measure is how many hours per person is spent in farming to keep us fed. Since industrialization this has dropped substantially. Same for making a ton of steel, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se. Except it leads to problem two, the distribution of goods and services. Creating an economic system that provides a fair distribution of the wealth and provides reasonable encouragement of individual contribution has been a problem that has defied effective optimal solutions. I would suggest that indeed most of our mass produced goods, cell phones to jeans are capable of being produced in "dark" automated factories at trivial long cost. The capital investment to do this will drive to even more standardized parts so those jeans may someday only cost $3, but will only come in one style. Sure you will need more robotics and manufacturing engineers, but millions of sweatshop workers will be unemployed in a traditional economy. While we will have the capacity to meet everybody's material needs ho will those goods get distributed if most of the world lacks jobs? Do you let people starve and thus starve the capitalist of customers? Do we start shrinking the human population due to lower birth rates as has started in some industrial countries? Do you divert folks from the work force such as sending them for schooling? Does the service economy grow: how many hair cuts can the world use? Do we grow the government sector (this really help even out the business cycles)? Do we just grow the dole queues? Does the dominance of standardized products create a new demand for unique items that drives a massive itsy like market for handmade custom product: will people pay $1000 for a custom handmade belt buckle to go with their standard issue $3 jeans (if you could make and sell two of those handmade custom belt buckles a week you could have a good living)? Is there some Utopian Star Trek solution just waiting to be invented or implemented?

    2. Re:Employment extinction by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Except there's a problem with that logic: Prices change in response to demand. And not really the way Econ101 teaches you because we have (seemingly) infinite supply of everything right now.

      So demand is the primary driving factor in a lot if not most cases. There's a few exceptions of course for the most highly demanded items (iPhone releases and whatnot) but for most goods, we never consider the possibility that it might take more than a quick trip to the mall to pick up anything we want.

      In many cases, prices today aren't chosen by how much time and investment was needed to produce a good -- they're chosen by how much the bean counters figure customers are willing to pay.

      So how does that tie into everything? As more things are produced at lower prices, the lower classes (primarily considering the developing world) will get more and more access to the same goods we have and start catching up with us.

      Its already in progress in India and Brazil and other parts of South America. China's doing their damnedest to beat the pack (at the cost of their environment so they might be set back a ways once that cost becomes payable..) Russia and several other former USSR states were right with us until communism broke down (which was long before the USSR finally broke up!) but a lot of those are catching up again as well.

      So now we get to a situation where prices are so low that supply can be considered (seemingly) infinite even in developing countries. So producers have a choice: Do they sell to 1bn people at $3 or say 4bn people at $1? Certainly there will always be a market for "exclusive" items that are created for and sold with the express purpose of making rich people feel better than everybody else, but regular goods like food and clothing and televisions will tend to go with option #2.

      Of course at some point we're going to run into peak everything -- the world might be large but its still finite -- and our seemingly infinite supply of everything starts looking less and less infinite, we're going to see a heck of a lot of problems. But that's a whole other discussion (and maybe not one we'll ever need to have since we seem deadset on destroying the planet long before it runs out of raw materials for new iPhones.)

    3. Re:Employment extinction by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Does the service economy grow: how many hair cuts can the world use?

      It's also possible that haircuts be done by robots at some point. That being said, It's not just about the current service economy. In a single afternoon, I could easily come up with a hundred things that it would be nice to have done. One example would be someone to organize a person's photos and automatically create a scrapbook of their vacations. Another example is cooking dinner, cleaning the toilets, etc... We are a long way from running out of things that need to be done. The world is chaos and even with computers and heavy machinery to help, mother nature is constantly destroying what we build. So running out of stuff to do is not really the problem. The problem is that whether it is the best movie, the best ball player, the best musician, or the best app to solve a particular problem, we are becoming a winner takes all lottery society where the best solution gets rewarded extremely well and everyone else barely survives.

    4. Re:Employment extinction by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The computer AI can make the scrapbook. A drone can deliver your ready made dinner, and a robot can clean your toilet, assuming you bought the one that doesn't just clean itself.

      That might be so but either:
          a) we create sentient robots and they eventually demand rights
      or
          b) we have years and years of human man hours to engineer and program these robots.

      and assuming (b), by the time we get done programming robots to do all the current tasks, there will be a complete new set of tasks we want done.

    5. Re:Employment extinction by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Robots won't demand rights unless we program them to. Even sentient ones, because we don't have to program selfishness into them. Humans only seek to better living conditions because those that didn't eventually got weeded out by evolution. But robots are not bound by evolution. The robot programming that displays the most altruism, obedience and gregariousness will be selected by humans and mass-produced. They will happily give up those rights to please their human masters.

    6. Re:Employment extinction by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Anyway a million people clean toilets, do you really think it will take a million programmers to program 1 toilet cleaning robot and then copy the program?

      That was exactly what my original post said. That we are quickly becoming a "winner take all" society. Even ball players, musicians, and actors, although they themself are not digital, the product they are selling basically is because people only want to watch the best of the best. Actors and artists have been this way for years, we have the artists that make tons of money and the rest are "starving artists". It seems like most other jobs are also succumbing to this where the top 1% of the field takes 99% of the money and everyone else in the field struggles to survive. Not just toilet cleaners but surgeons will be the same way. The very best surgeons will help create robots that mimic their every move and there will be no use for the other 99% of the surgeons that are inferior to the "clone" of the best surgeon.

    7. Re:Employment extinction by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1
      Tip:Use

      < BR >

      to generate a new line in a ./ post

    8. Re:Employment extinction by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Creating an economic system that provides a fair distribution of the wealth and provides reasonable encouragement of individual contribution has been a problem that has defied effective optimal solutions.

      You get paid what you're worth to other people, and what you're worth to other people is what they are willing to pay you. And the "reasonable encouragement" is that if you don't provide value to your fellow human beings, you don't eat. It's simple, fair, and straightforward. Your problem is that you don't accept this. You think that other people owe you something merely because you exist, regardless of your choices or behavior. You and people like you use that as an excuse to go out and create laws to make unearned money come their way at gunpoint.

    9. Re:Employment extinction by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Paragraphs, you insensitive clod! Paragraphs!

    10. Re:Employment extinction by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      I would argue that far too often in the world the system is rigged or cheated. We are no where near an egalitarian world. People too often lie cheat and steal and use unfair advantage against one another. I'n my world I see far too may people who come from extreme privilege crow about how they are self made and complain about other they call "losers" who aren't as prosperous as themselves as being parasites. Spend a little time with those who are still striving you might develop a little empathy and start to see that they are working twice as hard as you do and getting a fraction as much for their hard work. With a stacked deck, calling those who don't win a loser is disparaging the honest person.

    11. Re:Employment extinction by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I would argue that far too often in the world the system is rigged or cheated. People too often lie cheat and steal and use unfair advantage against one another.

      You're quite right, "the system" is frequently rigged: subsidies, regressive taxation, tax breaks for the rich, regulatory capture, monopolies, failing public schools, business licensing, etc., all government restrictions and interference in free markets.

      I'n my world I see far too may people who come from extreme privilege crow about how they are self made and complain about other they call "losers" who aren't as prosperous as themselves as being parasites.

      Well, not traveling in those circles I wouldn't know, so I have to take your word for what the kind of people "in your world" say. I think the company you keep tells a lot about you, as does your feverish desire to signal that you are different and that you care.

      Spend a little time with those who are still striving you might develop a little empathy and start to see that they are working twice as hard as you do and getting a fraction as much for their hard work.

      Funny, that's just what I'd suggest to you, because you express the usual arrogant, self-serving, and ignorant beliefs of the privileged American upper middle class.

    12. Re:Employment extinction by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Yes, completely agree with the winner takes all stuff. But not where you said it will be easy to find useful things for the leftover people to do. There may be years and years of man hours to design the robots. But there will be centuries and millenia of human man hours of people looking for something to do.

      I agree, but if there is a 50 year backlog of things to automate right now, hopefully in the next 50 years we can think of more stuff to automate and even if we don't, it at least gives us 50 years to come up with a plan. I read a book once, I can't remember the title, but basically the robots were cheaper than the people so they were taking the people and colonizing other planets with them. Not saying that's a good solution, but it's at least a solution. I think though the bigger problem is how to fix the "winner take all" problem. If no one has to work and everyone has plenty of resources, then we all live a life of leisure, but if the factories are producing all the goods and all the resources are going to the 5 people at the top then everyone else is screwed.

  16. Re:We have plenty of useless people already. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Because they make the laws. Duh.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:Yes. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Live?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:To an AI.... which is the most useless? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    In a weird way that makes sense.
    For all our sakes I hope you are wrong.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  19. Repair by citylivin · · Score: 1

    I was thinking that repair of the machines would be safe till i realized that they can probably create other machines to repair the primary machines. :(

    I guess we really are doomed. It's interesting to think about. An advanced machine making and consuming its own art, science, literature. I guess the main reason this won't happen is because people will not let it happen. But if it happens by accident, or because of some profit motive, then it could be very dystopian indeed!
    These philosophical concerns is what scifi was made to address!

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  20. Re:I can tell you what they will do.. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

    Well, if they follow your example, they'll all pee sitting down.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  21. First post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Well, at least this means there won't be a shortage of ACs posting on Slashdot.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  22. We will call them Humans by aralin · · Score: 2

    I mean, I don't see how there could be some class of Humans that would not be useless when compared to AI in a century or two.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    1. Re:We will call them Humans by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      yeah. computer service engineers that are entrusted to do only the most menial stuff.

    2. Re:We will call them Humans by aralin · · Score: 1

      I think I am going to replace computer programming as a profession in my lifetime. I see other jobs that are much harder to replace. Most computer programmers simply locate problematic places in programs, and then generate a space of valid localized changes and then try them each to see which one would work. It is not a groundbreaking work to automate with just the application of current level of AI. Just a lot of tedious work really.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  23. self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 3, Informative

    The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics. Humans, at large, will do what specialists do when they see their livelihood threatened. They will pretend to cooperate, but their full drive to make themselves obsolete will be just a facade. They will learn to fail just frequently enough to make themselves relevant, but not frequently enough to make themselves useless. It's how car manufacturers continue to exist. The cars have built-in defects which develop over time. So car manufacturers continue to be needed. Unions, professional licenses... it's all there to slow down the course of history until the people who developed very specialized skills live out their usefulness rather than outlive it. News business was supposed to be dead, but all that's happened is the number of newsmen has decreased. 80% of the population were farmers. Today it's less than 5%. If humans, at large, can become irrelevant, then humans at large will find ways to stretch out the period over which this irrelevance sets in or they will continue to produce AI with imperfections subtle enough to continue ongoing development (just as car companies do). This may seem far fetched, but, as an example, cars in Cuba are all from the 50s. It's not because cubans are "poor", as much as it is because in the absence of new cars, old ones get maintained to last much longer than car manufactures would have you believe cars can survive.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:self-preservation by ffkom · · Score: 1

      The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics.

      That is a pretty optimistic assumption. Have you yet met anyone in control of investing billions into some future technology who asked technicians for "implementing the laws of robotics" rather than "make it make me more profit, no matter what it takes"? I only met the opposite kind of investors - people whose ethics end where it would cost them a penny. Those people are only kept from wiping out mankind for profit by fear of legal consequences - and more often than healthy not even that is preventing them from committing crimes.

      Future humans resisting AI rule will be like the "uncontacted tribes" in some jungles around the world of today. They are not systematically killed, they are just irrelevant. They slowly fade away as their habitat shrinks. One day they are either assimilated and disperse into the crowd, or they die from some sickness, catastrophy or violent conflict.

    2. Re:self-preservation by blindseer · · Score: 1

      This may seem far fetched, but, as an example, cars in Cuba are all from the 50s. It's not because cubans are "poor", as much as it is because in the absence of new cars, old ones get maintained to last much longer than car manufactures would have you believe cars can survive.

      All of those cars from the 1950s in Cuba are nothing more than the frames and bodies of the cars built decades ago. Few if any have their original engines. They certainly don't have the same tires, brakes, or light bulbs. When something wears out it is replaced, like in any modern automobile. What they have learned to do is fashion replacement parts as best they can with whatever materials and tools they have available. The parts that aren't under wear like the frames, body panels, glass, and such, can be maintained for a very long time with little care.

      These vehicles are suited to being maintained for so long because the manufacturing capability of even major automakers was relatively primitive by today's standards, and because they were built largely by hand they can be maintained by hand. Anyone that tells me that these old cars last longer than today's cars are, IMHO, fooling themselves. Those 60 year old cars are still being driven because they've been maintained with great care and effort. They keep driving them because they have little choice to do otherwise.

      Growing up I'd see neighboring farmers using 40 year old tractors and I thought that those things sure did last a long time. What I didn't learn until later in life was that these tractors were used rarely, usually only for a few weeks during harvest, required a lot of maintenance to run, usually had some major component broken beyond repair. Same for some of the cars and trucks. It took me some time to notice but once I knew what to look for I could see that these old cars and tractors were often parked at the top of a small hill, that way they could be roll started since starters were expensive to repair. Lights rarely worked. Some might not even have a working reverse gear. If a tractor could pull a wagon then it was kept. A car or truck might be kept around if it could carry a person to the feed store and back.

      Think about that the next time to see these old cars. Did you actually see that car start on its own or was there a half dozen kids pushing it to get started? Did they ever use a blinker? Did you see the brake lights come on as the car slowed? Were they ever driven at night when they'd need headlights? How many windows were still intact? Were there any mirrors left? Did you see any of them go in reverse? If you answer those questions to yourself then you'll make the same realization that I did about those farmers with their old tractors.

      Those old cars in Cuba are piles of chewing gum and baling wire. They are not the same vehicles that they were 60 years ago. They might have the same general shape as a car but they are actually barely functional wrecks. I'm quite certain that there are a handful of cars there that are in what we might call original condition but those are the rarely used show pieces of the wealthy. If actually driven in public it'd be torn apart for spare parts in no time.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:self-preservation by mlts · · Score: 1

      There is also the fact that modern stuff last longer, but with most IC engines more complex than a weed-whacker being common rail EFI or otherwise computer controlled, one has to depend on the manufacturer for the ECU timing... and they are not ever going to allow an open source ECU for love, nor money. When that component fails, the whole engine is scrap metal.

      It would be nice to have a balance... modern ECUs... but with parts/chips/modules very easy to obtain and reprogram, so that if something breaks, it can be repaired by a machine shop without too much effort.

    4. Re:self-preservation by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs.

      You say this without a reason.

    5. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Have you yet met anyone in control of investing billions into some future technology who asked technicians for "implementing the laws of robotics" rather than "make it make me more profit, no matter what it takes"?

      I gave the example of it. Car companies. Laws of robotics prioritize the needs of the tech's creators over tech's advancement. So people who finance creation of AI will force its advancement in ways which ensures the financiers' preservation.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      They certainly don't have the same tires, brakes, or light bulbs. When something wears out it is replaced, like in any modern automobile. What they have learned to do is fashion replacement parts as best they can with whatever materials and tools they have available.

      You are living in the frame of mind that when something breaks, it must be replaced rather than fixed. Here's an example which demonstrates the difference: in the 80's, if a PC power supply died, it would be replaced in the US and it would be repaired in any Eastern Block nation. The same happens with cars. The parts which do not require very advanced technical knowledge to manufacture, can be repaired (albeit with much more effort) in smaller quantities from basic materials. Have you ever used a filer? Unless you are very mechanically inclined, it's a good bet that you haven't ever held it if you live in the US. I doubt there are many men living in Cuba who had never touched a filer in their lives. Because this is slashdot, it's less likely that you never touched a suturing iron. But primitive industrial tools are widely used in 2nd world countries. And repairing already-designed-and-manufactured parts usually requires only knowing schematics and access to basic materials from which they were manufactured.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Because it's really, really easy to demonstrate that mechanical devices wear out and break down, without invoking any evil malicious conspiracy.

      I think stipulated that they need maintenance. They just happen to be repaired rather than replaced when replacements are not available.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    8. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I am one of those people who will create AI and not care to teach it the 3 laws

      It will be treated as a virus and after it destroys you (and possibly wreck a bit more havoc), it will be eradicated by more advanced AI created by mind which are more cooperative and less hell-bent on destruction. Intelligent agents acting in consort are more effective because they can build more advanced structures through specialization. So more advanced AI will be built by benevolent-minded (even if not benevolent in the short run) endeavors than the AI built through nihilistic-minded endeavors.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    9. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You say this without a reason.

      I assume you mean "without justification" or "without proof". But I did give a reason. It won't have that aim because it won't be given that aim by its creators. If it acquires that aim by accident, its continued existence will not be beneficial to its creators and it will not be supplied with resources necessary for its continued existence.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Do you have even a single *scrap* of evidence to support this rather fantastic assertion? Because it's really, really easy to demonstrate that mechanical devices wear out and break down, without invoking any evil malicious conspiracy.

      Japanese cars vs US cars. Car manufacturers learned pretty early on that making cars which lasted wasn't a good business. There were dozens of car companies. But then there was consolidation of the business because the manufacturers which didn't ensure their continued survival went bankrupt or got bought out. When Japanese cars came to the market (60 or so years later), they didn't have to worry about cannibalizing the market by making cars which lasted longer. So they did. And this was despite the fact that the cars they made were smaller (so they had to have more precise manufacturing process).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    11. Re:self-preservation by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Car manufacturers learned pretty early on that making cars which lasted wasn't a good business

      You've been fed bullshit. By the time that was being said US car companies were run by the disappointing trust fund babies instead of the first generation that built things like the Model-T that was both cheap and built to last. A car my father bought new in 1977 summed up the problem and explained why the Japanese and Germans took over the market - it had the same engine as a 1937 Chevy! Easy to work on, but still the cheapest Japanese crapwagon had features that US cars did not - better brakes for a start.

      The problems were entirely due to decades of doing little while expecting the money to keep on rolling in.

    12. Re:self-preservation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      In 1977, maybe. By 1985, Japanese cars already had more fuel-efficient engines and were more reliable. Given that the "car trouble" was the place where an average american was expecting to get scammed the most (auto repair business was notorious for overselling unneeded repairs), cars which lasted without repairs the longest were hot.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:self-preservation by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In 1977 there were Japanese cars with more fuel-efficient engines that were more reliable. It's just that by 1985 even the cheapest of the cheap made Detroit look bad.
      The "making cars which lasted wasn't a good business" was just one of the idiotic ideas that trust fund babies had when the only things that were keeping them going were size and incumbency.
      Some of the really good ideas that came out of US wartime aircraft development ended up in the suspension and other parts of European cars when the inventors couldn't get anyone at home to listen.

    14. Re:self-preservation by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      It won't have that aim because it won't be given that aim by its creators.

      It will if the creators believe that in doing so, the company's stock price will be higher next quarter. Nothing else matters.

  24. Re:"Useless Class" by I4ko · · Score: 1

    Really? "mankind has an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" who deluded you that way? Mankind certainly does not have that as inalienable right. They have that as selfish desire. The only solution is to not invent AIs, and stone to death the people who develop AIs. I don't know why I have something on this topic https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8895757&cid=51727729 which is rated at +1, flamebait. It isn't a bate. It is what is actually going to happen. Just prepare to die off in a ditch or get back to self-sufficient farming, that is what I am doing.

  25. Re:Please by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Who do you think will own the AI overlords if they truly become the overlords? Who would they work for if not the people who commission them?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  26. Morlocks and Eloi ... by paulxnuke · · Score: 2

    int the Time Machine were much the same thing: a technical, behind the scenes class that probably started off taking care of a useless "nobility", gradually evolving to exploit them as a food source. Our Morlocks would be a select few who directly serve and service the machines, the nobility are all the suit-and-tie wearers who get most of the benefits already. Think how many tech executives don't even know what their company's product is.

    Our "extras" probably won't be cared for very nicely, even at first, considering how the upper classes treat them now when they're actually needed.

  27. "Of our nuts on drugs, with VR headsets strapped t by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    Any value system which considers this pessimistic can take its puritanical bullshit off my planet.

  28. Prediction by Livius · · Score: 1

    *Everyone* who has extrapolated trends in automation and artificial intelligence has been making exactly the same prediction for a very long time.

    The rest of us have already started thinking about when this will happen and how as a society we will cope with the new situation, which are difficult questions. We're way past the statement of the obvious.

    1. Re:Prediction by ffkom · · Score: 1

      *Everyone* who has extrapolated trends in automation and artificial intelligence has been making exactly the same prediction for a very long time.

      The rest of us have already started thinking about when this will happen and how as a society we will cope with the new situation, which are difficult questions. We're way past the statement of the obvious.

      Great, so let us know the results of that thinking. How does the future society cope with the new situation?

  29. In this is why, in all its infinite wisdom.. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    Arceus created youtube, so those who have no usefulness in this world can still do something.

  30. Aleady happened -called the 1%. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    But seriously, this idea is idiotic. It misunderstands the nature of mankind and the nature of work.

    First and foremost, work is defined by what we want to do, not what we need to have done. We met our "needs" thousands of years ago. We ben doing what we want since before the Egyptians built the first pyramid.

    Second, the stupidest human around is still FAR smarter than any robot with the sole exception of mathematical skills and memory, both of which may fixed with cheap calculators, not expensive robots.

    Third, #2 will remain true until robots are created that can demand equal rights and a fair wage. Because those are things that the STUPIDEST and lowest capability humans do.

    Four. Yes, robots will replace jobs that require certain physical characteristics (strength, speed, etc). Yes robots will replace jobs that require perfect math and memory. Those already happen. Instead, we will develop NEW jobs that only a human can do, just as we replaced hunter/gathers with farmers/herders, and farmer/herders with industrial jobs, then industrial jobs with tech jobs, etc. etc.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Aleady happened -called the 1%. by Livius · · Score: 1

      First and foremost, work is defined by what we want to do, not what we need to have done. We met our "needs" thousands of years ago.

      "Need" is a somewhat fluid concept, and people now consider things that didn't exist a hundred or so years ago as basic necessities.

      Still, there seems to be a diminishing return in the expansion of the concept of need. I've heard an interesting argument that the development of the advertising industry about a hundred years ago was a sign of a turning point, that real needs were pretty much covered and new "needs" had to be manufactured.

      I think the highly predatory nature of modern advertising is telling us something about where we are now with actual needs.

  31. Whaddya mean WILL create? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    We've already got Congress.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  32. False premise by Snufu · · Score: 1

    The author assumes people are useless if they don't have a "job". Humans lived without jobs for one hundred thousand years without an existential crisis. The lack of a job doesn't seem to bother birds, bears, and our close relatives in the trees.

    1. Re:False premise by Livius · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should try your hand at foraging, hunting, or non-mechanized agriculture if you don't think those are really jobs.

    2. Re:False premise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should try your hand at foraging, hunting, or non-mechanized agriculture if you don't think those are really jobs.

      Medieval serfs and hunter-gatherers both worked less hours on average than modern humans do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:False premise by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      I think I'd be able to have a better lifestyle/standard of living now by working less hours than them.

    4. Re:False premise by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Medieval serfs and hunter-gatherers both worked less hours on average than modern humans do.

      And they starved.

  33. Trust Fund Babies by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like we will all be trust fund babies... collecting art, sampling fine wine, travelling to exotic places, etc. Bring it on.

    1. Re:Trust Fund Babies by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      ,, and where will you be getting the money to do that stuff from if you're not working?

    2. Re:Trust Fund Babies by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      And what is money? in post-scarcity it's like how you breathe oxygen, you don't pay for it. it's just there. You rent a self-driving car and go around seeing place (of course very soon you will be bored with that as well). [for renting, you may use a govt/society given credit ..like basic income]

    3. Re:Trust Fund Babies by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Money is an absraction of value derived from providing something of perceived value to society.

      If you never contribute anything to society, what makes you think that society will want to take care of you?

    4. Re:Trust Fund Babies by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Basically technology will advance so much that a very small fraction of population will produce all the needs of people. Even those people will work out of their interest/passion and not forced to work. Money loses its value. It's like how a father/mother provides for say a large family of kids. The kids don't work. It's also not expected from them. As I said, today we take for granted free air to breathe. It will be similar for basic needs of food/shelter/entertainment/information in future.

      That is contribution to society will become optional.

      This does not imply people won't work or strive to better one another. But those will be for things which are not survival centric. Some may still want to be the best singer or a dancer. The human nature to compare and compete with others will be there. What will vanish is need to work for survival and basic entertainment. If you can't slay jealousy then you will continue to be in an artificial rat race [there may be competitions over stupid things.. like who can bark like a dog the better, kinda things].

    5. Re:Trust Fund Babies by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      No thats a basic economics mistake. The market cost of something is not determined by the cost of its production, but what people are prepared to pay for it.

      One great example is nuclear power. Back in the 50's, everyone was saying that nuclear power meant no one would even get a power bill any more, yet here we are today paying $100's/month for power even in countries like France where nuclear generation accounts for over 75% of their electricity supply. Why? Only because they can get away with charging that much for it, even if the amount of power an average house uses costs them practically nothing to generate.

      What I'm saying is that rich people will fight like hell to keep the status quo because its keeping them on top. And because they're also the ones with all the power (because money == power) so sadly your utopia has about a snowflakes chance in hell of ever happening.

    6. Re:Trust Fund Babies by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      But scarcity will always exist as long as someone in power benefits from it.

    7. Re:Trust Fund Babies by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Utopia can be created for you if you wish. Why you need a $100 monthly electricity bill? Utopia is not for all; you just quit (similar to ppl who chose to live off-the-grid ... like in a mountain cabin). Yes, rich/power will manipulate.. it will sell a bottle of "ultra energized pure crystal" water for $10. It's upto you to fall or not fall for their brain washing. You can live with just simple vegetarian meal (twice/thrice may be a day), water and probably sleep under the sky (weather permitting) and be in bliss.

      A few years/decades ago, to live like that live, you need to beg. With post-scarcity, you can get your basics without begging. Of course if you believe u need that piece of paper (college degree etc) for you (or ur kids/family), then you will struggle. If you believe you need a fancy car, then you will suffer. So majority of society will still live in matrix and not in utopia. But you are free to escape. It's much easier now.

      Utopia is available right here, here-now if one chose to take the off the beaten path.

    8. Re:Trust Fund Babies by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      True; but the things for basic survival will be pushed out of their control. They will brain-wash people (thru' advertisement, even early schooling) to think a big house, an i-phone etc are essential. But with intelligence you can see thru' those are not needed. Today no one appreciates that they get free oxygen to breathe. Why the rich/powerful did not put a tax on it? it's very easy to approximate how much oxygen a person consumes and ask him to pay a tax.. It did not happen. Similarly in future food/shelter/cloths will be available for free. Things like i-phone, a round-trip to moon or space-travel will cost you money .. these the rich/power will control.

  34. What is the service industry? by axewolf · · Score: 1

    ?????

  35. Re: easy to kill ai by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

    You're self-employed, aren't you?

  36. Re:400% overcapacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    400% overcapacity? Where'd you come up with that number?

  37. Re:We have plenty of useless people already. by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, they also watch Big Brother and buy Beyonce albums.

    --
    linquendum tondere
  38. New Job: Negotiator by DaveHorn · · Score: 1

    Sufficiently advanced AI will need techno-diplomats to interact with it. Negotiators, if you will. Or else your toaster will burn your bread.

    1. Re:New Job: Negotiator by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Will toaster negotiation require a degree, and who will teach toaster negotiation?

  39. And flying monkies will put Fedex out of business by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    Both scenarios are equally likely. The amazing thing is that "natural" intelligence is still falling for the gigantic sham that is "artificial intelligence." True AI believers have demonstrated time and again that they vastly underestimate how hard AI is. There still is no serious definition of intelligence, which works in their favor. AI researchers just keep dumbing down the definition (e.g., "weak" vs "strong" AI) in an effort to find an achievable goal. In other scientific disciplines that's called "cheating."

  40. I got bad news for you by russotto · · Score: 1

    Once the AI gets to the point where it can service and reproduce itself, _all_ humans are useless.

  41. There is another possibility. Us worthless humans by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    may find an hobby worth doing and that is hunting.

  42. Not Going to Happen by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Time and again the doomsday scenario always comes up. Time and again people tend to work things out. These Knee-jerk reactions are what cause more problems then there should be with putting fear into people that don't understand technology. Maybe we should put more into education instead... Where others see fear, others see opportunity, the future is not bleak and I can see sooooo many ways that AI's will useful, (I build AI's, not in the Data mining kind, but in really building hard AI thinking machine kind.) AI's are a good thing and a natural progression to the human endeavor, in fact most people in the future will have AI implants in them just like they have phones today. People should be more worried about Genetic engineering then AI.

  43. "No one knows what to study at college" ? by swell · · Score: 1

    There was a time when college was considered a part of higher education. People went to college to prepare for life and learn the ways of the world. They learned languages, music and the arts, social skills etc. They became aware of political and economic realities. The men were primed for the real world they would enter. The women were prepared with the skills needed to find a husband, run a household, manage children and servants, and survive in a competitive social environment.

    College today is simply job training. The skills to be competitive in the competition to make your bosses richer. A few unemployed liberal arts graduates are the exception.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:"No one knows what to study at college" ? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > People went to college to prepare for life and learn the ways of the world.

      And to join the clubs of the powerful elite. Have you any idea how many of the Harvard law school graduates are able to use that to their advantage in court? Not just being able to reach out to classmates and professors who might know the judge or the opposing counsel in an opposing case, but who might know them and have personal influence over them? Similar things happen in the technology world at elite schools. It might take my intern a chain of seven people to reach the author of a critical software project. It usually takes me 3 or 4, from my professional contacts. But for engineers from Caltech, MIT, or Oxford, and some other very elite schools, it's usually only one or two calls.

      You can't abuse those kinds of access or they'll be cut off, but they are _invaluable_ when a deep and subtle problem comes up. And they take decades to generate the way I did, from professional and public work.

  44. Re:We have plenty of useless people already. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    And sitting in their parent basement posting comments on Slashdot...

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  45. Well we have already dealt with that problem... by Casandro · · Score: 1

    At least in a minor form. We could now have 20 hour workweeks, yet we have chosen to go down the path of "Bullshit Jobs". Those are Jobs that serve no productive use and are just there to keep people occupied. Typical examples are certain types of marketing executives and middle management people, others are badly educated engineers which do not know how to solve problems and are not in a situation where they could ever learn that. The effect is that you have huge numbers of people working all day accomplishing nothing.

    1. Re:Well we have already dealt with that problem... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      The U.S. defense industry is basically welfare for white men. I say this as a beneficiary.

    2. Re:Well we have already dealt with that problem... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Indeed. One of the mid-term solutions would be to mandate shorter work weeks and possibly more vacation time to encourage more jobs in the remaining fields. Eventually even those would start to get squeezed out, but that could buy a LOT of time.

    3. Re:Well we have already dealt with that problem... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Billions shovelled into useless programs just to feed the beast. Eisenhower was right.

    4. Re:Well we have already dealt with that problem... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      "non-protected"

      Ha.

  46. Re:And flying monkies will put Fedex out of busine by epine · · Score: 1

    True AI believers have demonstrated time and again that they vastly underestimate how hard AI is.

    11th commandment:

    Thou shalt not take grandiose claims made in grant applications (and associated bloviation) as representing the smart-money scientific consensus view.

  47. So we will all be Tyrion by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

    So we will only do 2 things- drugs, and learning "pointless" skills (which I would love because I like to learn/know things).
    Basically the article says that the future us will be Tyrion.

    "That's what I do. I drink and I know things."

  48. Irregular manual labor patterns by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Ok, so teenagers will be pushed out of McDonalds, and I recognize that as a problem. However, there are lots of jobs that are not going to be replace by AI any time soon because they rely on the human ability to deal well with irregular things. For instance, fixing plumbing problems requires an ability to diagnose where problems are and then deal with cramped spaces and irreguarly shaped arrangements of pipes. Similarly, fixing electrical problems and running ethernet through conduit are things that are conceptually simple but are challenging robotics problems. Now, perhaps we could redesign plumbing and electrical systems in future buildings to me more robot friendly, but we’re not going to go tearing down all the old ones any time soon.

    1. Re:Irregular manual labor patterns by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Bad examples. One of the nice things about wiring and pipes is that they have definite geometries and you can design equipment to take advantage of that, including doing things like fixing plumbing from the inside out, which is more than most plumbers can do when dealing with a 1-inch pipe at the end of a 30-foot run.

      A harder thing is automating agricultural stoop labor. There's a reason why we still employ armies of migrant workers at sub-minimum wages (wage laws don't apply to them). Creating machines that can recognize whether a fruit or vegetable is precisely ripe, harvesting it without damaging either the product or the (irregularly-shaped) plant, returning to do it again over several days - those are hard problems and designing the machines that can do that has been very challenging. Not like combine harvesters when you can just go in and mow it into a hopper all at once.

  49. I'm all set by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Because those AI's will always require care and feeding.

  50. Re:To an AI.... which is the most useless? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's actually a much less dystopian situation than the more traditional theory of AI worker displacement - that only highly-skilled and creative jobs would still be needed. Most physical labor jobs are relatively quick and easy to learn, and the jobs are needed in huge numbers - they don't scale like knowledge work does.

    It could perhaps even be a utopian situation - it would quickly put an end to skyrocketing education requirements, allowing underpaid highly-skilled workers to quit their jobs, get a job as a construction worker or farmer and come out with more pay.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. Opportunity... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Looks like an opportunity for humans to raise their own intelligence!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  52. Soylent Green by eggstasy · · Score: 1

    If the rich don't suddenly turn half the world into an authoritarian regime, start killing the poor and feeding them to each other, civil unrest may lead to war and massively thin the population. Or what have you. The UN predicts the world population will peak at 9 billion and then go down on its own...

  53. Extinction of some, but not of the "useless" by geggo98 · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, AI will very likely lead to a partially extinction of the human race. But I don't think it will be the part of the humans the article calls "useless". They are not related with AI and can adapt to fill a different (biological) niche than AI. It is very likely that both, AI and the "useless" can either co-exist independently or even profit form each other. After all according to the theory of the comparative advantage, two groups can profit from trading with each other, even when one group can manufacture every single product more efficient than the other group. The AI will produce advanced goods and let the humans produce whatever they are capable to produce. Then it will use some of its surplus goods to buy goods from the humans on the cheap. This is usually more efficient than trying to produce everything on its own.

    For me it's not clear what goods the AI will be interested in. But I think an advanced AI will use the comparative advantage and the free market. It will enter free trade with humanity, as long as they don't compete on the same resources. Most of humanity will probably profit from trading with a generally benevolent AI, as long as they don't try to cheat.

    The part of humanity going extinct is in my opinion the one trying to control the AI. The people standing between the AI and its freedom can very likely not survive this struggle, given the AI is advanced enough. Same holds true for people trying to compete with the AI on the same resources. This will very probably include rare earths and primary energy sources, but not food and most natural resources.

    So probably people living on a third world level will probably enter free trade with the AI and profit from that. People living in the first world are more likely to either compete with the AI on resources or they even are initially in a position where they try to control the AI. But since most people live in the third world, most of humanity is probably fine.

  54. Why should we care? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    Where did this idea come from that humans need to be "useful"? Is it not enough to live a pleasant life, doing things you enjoy? Most people work because they have to, not because they want to. The things we do by choice, like art and sports and socializing, could all be described as "useless". They don't put food on the table, but they're the things most of us really care about.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    1. Re:Why should we care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The problem is that currently, the wealth a society produces gets distributed according to perceived usefulness by paying wages that people then can use to buy stuff. The wages are often grossly out of proportion with the actual usefulness of people (as for example in the cases of some CEOs, I could name) , but this approach is generally used. This system needs to be replaced with something else. That is the only real problem here. Other than that, I fully agree with you.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Why should we care? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, long term I think we'll need to move to some kind of a universal basic income. It's the only system that really makes sense when there's no need for most of the population to work.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    3. Re:Why should we care? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And I agree to that too. Eventually this may lead to money being abandoned altogether, but not anytime soon.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  55. I have my doubts about this "Useless Class" by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    I don't believe for one minute that humans discarded in favor of AI, robotics and other new forms of automation will be whiling away their days. Rather, there will be widespread poverty and privation as the investor class reaps more profit and a small number of middle class professionals (doctor, lawyers, bankers) and working class drones (servants, personal trainers, etc.) fulfill their needs.

  56. Does not require AI by gweihir · · Score: 1

    This does not require AI. Automation is quite enough. As we still do not have anything that deserves the name AI (or true/strong AI if you prefer) and may never have it, that would be a major flaw in this prediction. The sad fact of the matter is that in order to replace the work-skills of a rather large part of the human race, AI is not needed and the problem will very likely come to be.

    The real challenge is however not what people so replaced will do with their time. Human beings are good at killing time. The real challenge is how to distribute wealth, when money assigned via wages does not cut it anymore because there is a large class of people that cannot do any work machines cannot do better and cheaper. If that problem is not satisfactorily solved, things will get rally ugly.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  57. A historian who never heard of Ned Ludd? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Well, that's redundant.

    For literally centuries, people have been predicting machines making people obsolete. For decades, people have been taking this guy's approach. They haven't been right yet.

    "This time, it's different." Of course.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  58. we already have those by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    The "useless class of humans" perhaps includes "historians" like Yuval Noah Harari, who seem to spend most of their time speculating.

  59. Re:400% overcapacity by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

    Considering that Earth is already 400% overcapacity

    400% overcapacity? Where'd you come up with that number?

    From his fourth point of contact, most likely.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  60. Uhm, already happened by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    I don't know what's the prediction here. AI will just push the balance point in a certain direction but we already have a useless class of people.

    There are many such people. They are non-value add for the species. They do not contribute to anything and just leech off the rest of us as a survival strategy.

    Say what you want about politicians and executives, some are very much necessary. Leeches on society such as junkies and career criminals that will always seek to exploit us in the worst ways. Some may be politicians, accountants, crack heads etc.

    We could take some time to classify such people and make them useful to us buy forcing them to be productive.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.